|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 08:52:31 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | Again, would you want YOUR kid to be in this type of environment or would you rather sacrifice a bit more to send them to a good day care? Thats what would happen if there was a public option. |
I don't get your argument here. How would having a public option lessen the options of people in the struggling middle class? All it would do is increase the options. People who otherwise had to quit the workforce could work part time, increasing their own productivity and money they can spend on other things to enrich their children's education (like summer camps, private lessons, educational toys, and fun, family outings and vacations.) People who depend too heavily on the charity of relatives and friends could improve family relations by depending on them less. Not to mention all the jobs it would create. Instead of a bunch of family and friends not being paid anything, tax dollars would go into wages for professional day care workers, which could then be put back into the economy.
| Because she has been working with the poor for so long that it is flaberghasting to her to see things running smoothly. |
Yeah, those innocent, poor kids really have a raw deal in life. Is it any surprise that the majority of them grow up to be "losers" like their parents? I would think seeing the horrible circumstances in which those kids are raised would inspire a deep sense of compassion and concern for greater social justice? Also, why are their parents losers? If the kids are in day care, the parents are working. If they qualify for free day care they are under the poverty line. Can you even begin to imagine the stressors of parents who literally can't afford their own health care, groceries, rent, much less taking a vacation, going out to dinner, movie, or theme park? I think many of us take for granted all the things we spend money on to relax. And the majority of families that qualify for free day care are single mothers. When would such a person EVER get a break? Is it any wonder then that they snap at their kids, are disorganized, rude, or exhibit other bad behaviors in public?
| What makes you think that working families are LESS stressed than poor families? |
LOL! I am very stressed out much of the time. I take care of children more than full time while also trying to maintain a studio practice, and raising visibility for my artwork with exhibitions, blogging, online marketing. Plus marriage is a job. I make all our family meals, pack my husband lunch, and do most of the housework, because he works his ass off at a highly demanding job in middle management at a prestigious research lab. Oh, and he's starting graduate classes. So I'd say my husaband and I lead a pretty high stress life overall, with many constraints on our time and responsibilities. So how do we deal with all that stress? For one, we take four weeks of vacation a year - and that costs money in travel expenses and modest luxuries. We do recreational things about 3 weekends a month, including date nights to see plays or go out to a nice dinner where I don't have to cook or clean up afterward. We go to the zoo or book store as a family, and that costs money. We go up to Atlantic City for the day, which is a cheap day trip, but still costs money in tolls, gas, parking, and food. On a day to day level we have cable TV and Netflix, which costs money. I have a dishwasher, AC, washer and dryer, and car, which all lessen the daily burden of chores. And I have enough cash reserve to fix any of those things when they break. Yeah, like most middle class families, we spend a relatively modest, yet significant portion of our income on things that make life more relaxing and enjoyable. Poor people don't have that luxury. That's why it is called a luxury. To anyone who claims that middle class people with high stress jobs have as much or more stress in their lives than poor people, I'd ask: So you sayin' you never spend money on things to blow off steam or enjoy your earnings? No video games? No paint ball? No going out for drinks with friends? No hang-gliding or weekends at the beach?
| Not following ya here. Are you suggesting that day care would get BETTER if it was run by the government? |
I am suggesting that the situation wouldn't be made worse by a public option. A public option would in no way reduce the quality of the best of private day care, because currently working class people can't afford those day cares anyway. If a public option did end up luring clients away from private day cares, it would only do so if the public facilities were in fact superior. We see this in education. In affluent neighborhoods, parents overwhelmingly choose public schools because they are superior in quality. But in economically mixed neighborhoods, the poor kids go to public schools while the upper class go to private. And those in the gap either send their kids to public schools and then put money aside to supplement their kids education with summer camps, tutors, and other activities or they find a way to home school. Public day care options for all would work the same way so long as we continue to segregate by economic status. The greatest benefit would be for working class communities. More jobs for people to run the day cares, higher productivity and less stress for parents who can't afford private day care. Also, when the public has to pay for something, they have a greater stake in making sure it is run well. Plenty of parents involve themselves in the public schools by attending PTA mtgs, volunteering, and generally making their presence and concerns known to administrators and teachers. You seem to think that if we had government run day care centers that parents would just slack off on parenting. Do working class, caring, and involved parents who can't afford private school (but would choose that option if they could afford it) just send their kids to public schools and not worry about what goes on there? Fuck no. Many public schools rival the best prep schools. The public school in my parents neighborhood has a state of the art gym, pools, computer lab, and theater. You talk as if publicly run things suck, and privately run things are good or at least suck less. The reality is that the problem is economic segregation. If you live in an affluent community, you get better stuff, whether they are government run or not. And if you live in a poor community, you get shittier stuff. The Walmart in the poor community is dirty and poorly stocked, and the employees are rude and often incompetent. The Walmart in the affluent community is clean and well run. Same is true of the post office in the poor verses the affluent communities. There is nothing inherently problematic about government-run institutions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/06/2011 : 09:16:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Valiant Dancer wrote: | Daycare is not in the interest of parents because it shifts the burden of raising one's child onto the government. We already have myriad problems of child protective services whereby the state is raising some children (poorly, I might add). Involved parents can do a far better job of raising their children that the government ever could. |
Wow, could you be more ignorant and insulting to working parents? |
I am a working parent.
| I do day care out of my home and last year I interviewed a client who was a single mom and who spontaneously started weeping because she couldn't quit her job to take care of her son. Family could help her out with bills and food, but she needed the health insurance. But quality day care was going to eat up 80% of her salary. I know a woman in her 70's who has to care for her 2 grandkids 40+ hours a week because her daughter and son and law both work full time but with mortgage, student loans, health insurance and co-pays, etc. can't afford private day care. This woman's husband is recovering from triple bypass surgery, so she's dealing with that and two very young children when she should be enjoying her hard earned retirement. I can tell she's trying not to be resentful, but I there is definitely a bitter undertone when she talks about their situation. Seriously, how the fuck can you look at the numbers, realize that the bottom 90 percent of American households are earning only 3x the average cost of full time private day care, and not acknowledge that they need and deserve some help in that area? |
Because I choose to focus on the root cause rather than a symptom. The root cause is the lack of a living wage being paid to workers. Subsidized daycare only treats the symptom while the patient gets sicker.
| Are 90% of Americans supposed to decide not to have any kids? |
Oooooo. Strawman.
I said planned pregnancies. And your supposition that all of the people who are single parents make less than the 90%ile of $31,000 will not have other services available to them in their price range. Communities near cities have some daycare services available for less than the average cost. Curches also have resources as well as family close by who can help. It still delegates the raising of these children to the state.
| Daycare is a service. Sharing the cost for your child across people who did not have children or raised their own children is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is not fair for someone else to pay for your service. It would be analogous to someone filling up their car by demanding money from passing bicyclists. |
If quality of day care increases overall productivity of parents and future achievement/productivity of children, it benefits the whole society. That's why we have public schools. And libraries. And public funding for museums, and many many other public services that not everyone uses. |
This is, again, asking the government to raise our children. Government does a lousy job of it. Federalizing it lends itself to incarceration type of service or a standard set of teachings subject to the ideological whims of the party in power. I would much rather see daycare in private hands where at least the parents can shop for schools that meet their ideological needs.
The services you mention do not have horrendeously high insurance liabilities. If a child gets hurt in the public access areas of schools, libraries, and the like, the parents are partially responsibile for the conduct of the child. At daycare, the caregiver bears the brunt of the liability.
| This also has the added issue of discouraging people from planning pregnancies. |
What the fuck are you talking about? Throughout my entire blog post I was speaking about the needs of the lower middle classes. That demographic has been having LESS children than past generations and waiting longer to have children!
| My pocket has been picked enough. A severe economic downturn is no time to be asking for a new entitlement which does not serve the children well. |
The rich in the United States are not taxed nearly enough. Disparity in income has been rapidly and steadily growing, while the percentage that the highest earners are taxes has dramatically fallen over the past few decades. American voters disagree harshly on many things, but they are overwhelmingly in favor of higher taxes for the rich, and this taking into account the fact that the majority of Americans don't seem to understand how extreme the disparity of income is. And yet Warren Buffet has to complain about his housekeeper being taxed at a higher rate in some areas than he is. This is insane.
Also, your pocket has not been picked. You benefit from the services provided by government. Are soldiers in the military being paid with stolen money? Police? Firefighters? Unless you consider those employees to be a party to theft, then your choice of phrasing is totally insulting and inappropriate. We can discuss who should be taxed, how much they should be taxed, and what taxes should be spent on without referring to taxes in general as theft.
|
When those taxes are gathered for a service that I will never use because I would not qualify for it, then yes, it is theft. I felt the theft first hand when I was laid off in 1999. The amount I had paid into unemployment had no bearing on the benefit I recieved. I nearly lost my home because the amount I got for unemployment was less than 1/3 of what I was making. That is theft.
The analogy posited was that of a motorist demanding that bicyclists pay for his fuel. That is not the case with military, police, or firefighters because they have services from which I benefit from. No problem with services that benefit everyone. You are listing a service that does not benefit all people and only benefits the people who need it most, poorly.
What I find insulting and inappropriate is the idea that my hard earned dollars with which I am struggling to make ends meet will be decreased for a service I will not, even though I am a working parent, be able to benefit from. Your assumption that the children will benefit is nieve. Look at the government run programs. Specifically the VA. The VA is poorly run, underfunded, and some Senators make attempts to disband it to save money. Benefits are withheld from veterans by delaying tactics hoping that the veteran will either give up or the problem becomes terminal. This is fairly typical of how government programs work.
What makes you think that federalizing daycare will be any better? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 09:29:07 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | I agree with the first sentence. |
So 90% of Americans shouldn't have kids. If they do, they should be regarded as irresponsible. Gotcha.
| There are alternatives to the last sentence such as using multiple forms of birth control. |
If you can afford it. But you and I have been down this road before.
| Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be held responsible for controlling their emotions and their genitals? |
They are held responsible. People who choose to have children have to raise them. That's a huge responsibility. People who have sex deal with emotional and physical repercussions. For example, even if tax dollars go to pay for abortion, the woman still has to go through the procedure and live with the memory of it. Even if the government pays for day care fo my kid, I still have to get her up in the morning, dress her, get her ready, pick her up afterward, make her dinner, spend quality time with her in the evenings and weekends, take her to the doctors, and so on and so on. You talk as if I'm advocating removing all consequences and responsibilities from individuals, when in reality I'm advocating enough public assistance to elevate conditions for our entire society.
| Should we just be able to run around doing whatever we feel while sticking the rest of society with the bill? Bullshit. |
Society has an interest in helping working class people with kids out. Or do you disagree with my claims that a public option for people in the gap between poor and upper middle class has the potential to increase productivity of parents and potential future achievement for their children? Do you and everyone else in the society not benefit from that?
| There are a lot of things hard-wired into me which I MUST control otherwise I would just be a man-whore all my life and get into lots of trouble. |
*rolls eyes* I'm not talking about excusing every hedonistic desire, regardless of how destructive or uncommon it might be. We're talking about what should be basic entitlements. For instance, would you agree that all people should be entitled to life-saving, emergency care, regardless of whether they can afford it or if their own poor choices led to their injury or illness? That's an extreme example. I find it totally unreasonable to judge working class people for choosing to have children.
| You can't have your cake and eat it too. |
Correction, 90% of Americans can't have their cake and eat it too. People born into affluent families and communities have more choices, and not necessarily because they produce more, work harder, or are any more valuable to society. Fortune by chance. Luck of birth.
| Yep. I have not noticed that the human species is in any kind of danger of extinction because of a lack of reproduction. |
I wonder if you'd have that attitude if suddenly you were stricken poor by a series of misfortunes out of your control.
Judging people critically for having kids or having unsufficiently protected sex is foolish. It is foolish because it solves nothing, and probably makes the problems worse. Are people who can't totally afford kids going to have kids? Yes. Are people going to have insufficiently protected sex and unplanned pregnancies? Yes. Will these realities impact society as a whole? Yes. So society as a whole has an interest in dealing with it. And sitting around wagging your finger at them isn't doing jack shit.
| And marf, I do want you to know that it actually kinda makes me sick to my stomach expressing these views to you seeing as you are a mother and all. I feel like a huge dickhead but I have to say it. |
Why do you feel like a dickhead? Are you judging me? Well, I guess you are since I definitely would take advantage of a public option for day care if it were available. And my household earns significantly more than $31K a year! Meh, whatever. I don't personal offense. I'm not insecure about my own situation, so I don't get upset if someone makes a judgment against me that I find silly. I get much more defensive of others, such as my single mom cousin who only earns $32K and has to depend on the charity of relatives for day care, which heavily burdens her since she is constantly in debt to all of them, and constantly having to chauffeur the kid around to homes that are over a 20 minute drive from her home. Or that woman in her 70's a mentioned who has to care for her grandkid fulltime. Or my many friends who want kids, but say they can't afford it, and who I suspect will feel a deep sense of loss in the future over their decision. The list goes on and on...
But god forbid we go back to the tax rates on the rich from 2 generations ago. God forbid we tax people who earn millions or tens of millions a year at a much higher rate than those who earn $200,000 a year.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 09:29:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Not to mention all the jobs it would create. Instead of a bunch of family and friends not being paid anything, tax dollars would go into wages for professional day care workers, which could then be put back into the economy.
|
Would it really? I can't see people spending all that time and money on education just to make $8-$10 an hour working in a daycare. What do you suggest to make the daycare career more enticing to potential workers?
| Yeah, those innocent, poor kids really have a raw deal in life. Is it any surprise that the majority of them grow up to be "losers" like their parents? I would think seeing the horrible circumstances in which those kids are raised would inspire a deep sense of compassion and concern for greater social justice? |
Oh I do have compassion for the kids, not the parents. You don't even want to know what I think could be done to give these kids a better chance.
| Also, why are their parents losers? If the kids are in day care, the parents are working. |
You have posed a good question. Next time my wife is doing her paperwork (if she doesn't shoo me away) I would like to go through with her and see how many of the state-paid kids have parents that actually work. I know SEVERAL of the kids are there by court order just to make sure they get a minimal amount of food and care because the parents are such fucking losers that they don't take the time to feed and clean their kids.
Can you even begin to imagine the stressors of parents who literally can't afford their own health care, groceries, rent, much less taking a vacation, going out to dinner, movie, or theme park? I think many of us take for granted all the things we spend money on to relax. And the majority of families that qualify for free day care are single mothers. When would such a person EVER get a break? Is it any wonder then that they snap at their kids, are disorganized, rude, or exhibit other bad behaviors in public?
|
Such are the consequences of having children that can not be afforded.
More later. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 09:51:58 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | Would it really? I can't see people spending all that time and money on education just to make $8-$10 an hour working in a daycare. What do you suggest to make the daycare career more enticing to potential workers? |
Then don't pay them $8-$10/hr. Public school teachers earn on average more than private school teachers. No reason why day care workers shouldn't unionize and work to gain benefits and salaries they obviously deserve. And the more they earn, the more they can spend, which again goes back into the economy. And as a parent, I'd rather my kid's babysitter earn $20/hr or more than $8.
| Oh I do have compassion for the kids, not the parents. |
So you care about how environment influences people until they are, what, 18 years old? Fuck' em after that. Do I have that right? I mean, I just find it really weird that you acknowledge that being raised a certain way makes someone way more likely to end up an asshole, but once the become an asshole your sympathies totally run out. I mean, I cringe when I see a young mother on the bus yanking around and cursing at their kids. But at the same time that I despise their behavior, I also feel sympathy for what harm was probably done to them over a period of many years to make them such a bad parent, and more importantly, I wonder what could be done to heal those wounds and get them to be a better person.
| You don't even want to know what I think could be done to give these kids a better chance. |
Yes, I very much do.
| You have posed a good question. Next time my wife is doing her paperwork (if she doesn't shoo me away) I would like to go through with her and see how many of the state-paid kids have parents that actually work. I know SEVERAL of the kids are there by court order just to make sure they get a minimal amount of food and care because the parents are such fucking losers that they don't take the time to feed and clean their kids. |
So there parents are obviously deeply harmed people who need help, too. There is obviously a cycle of generational abuse and poverty going on there. It is a sucky situation for everyone involved. You make it sound like these people are inherently, or genetically, and hopelessly assholes. So why not just say the same of their kids and be done with giving a shit? Fact is, almost everyone has the potential for personal betterment and salvation from a bad state. It is a matter of figuring out what measures work, and what don't, and then implementing those that work. But getting all angry about it and directing all the anger toward the parents, that just seems to exacerbate the problem. Or at very least it helps nobody.
| Such are the consequences of having children that can not be afforded. |
I would say that you are talking about the consequences of generational cycles of poverty and abuse.
Again, you bring up poor people, when I was talking about working class people. One reason to help working class people who are in the gap between true poverty and stable middle class is that they are the most in danger of slipping into poverty. And once in poverty, it becomes much more difficult to get back out again. Again, people aren't going to stop having kids. And without sufficient resources, many working class people who are smart, have huge potential for achievement that could benefit society, who love and want the best for their kids, will slip under, and join the ranks of the "losers" you so hate. I would think that would be motivation enough for you to want to provide greater assistance for working class parents.
More later. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 10:58:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
So 90% of Americans shouldn't have kids. If they do, they should be regarded as irresponsible. Gotcha.
|
I don't know how accurate your 90% figure is...I have a hard time believing that many people are struggling so hard....but if the shoe fits....
| If you can afford it. But you and I have been down this road before. |
Yes we have been down this road, $.50 for a condom is considerable cheaper than 10-12 years of day care! I'm all for the government providing birth control!
I'm advocating enough public assistance to elevate conditions for our entire society.
|
And I am advocating elevating conditions for our entire country by using personal responsibiliy as a tool.
| *rolls eyes* I'm not talking about excusing every hedonistic desire, regardless of how destructive or uncommon it might be. |
Here is where I see a double-standard. It seems you see wanting to fuck everything that moves as a hedonistic desire in some people...but hard-wired nature for others.
Or do you disagree with my claims that a public option for people in the gap between poor and upper middle class has the potential to increase productivity of parents and potential future achievement for their children? Do you and everyone else in the society not benefit from that?
|
What I am saying is that I don't want to have to pay for it. Along with bettering society in the long run I also want to make more use of my paycheck, for myself, NOW. It is not my responsibility to make sure that everyone in the country's wants and desires are met. And yes, I DO think that having children is a want, not a need.
| Correction, 90% of Americans can't have their cake and eat it too. |
Not sure where this 90% figure is coming from. Did I miss something?
I wonder if you'd have that attitude if suddenly you were stricken poor by a series of misfortunes out of your control.
|
Between the insurance I carry and the skills I possess other than bean counting I think I would do OK.
" And I can play the guitar like a motha-fuckin' riot....uh"
| Why do you feel like a dickhead? Are you judging me? |
Not judging, intentionally anyway. I am just conditioned to take women's feelings into consideration whenever I open my mouth.
Sorry for bringing that up. It's my hangup, not yours.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 11:55:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Then don't pay them $8-$10/hr. Public school teachers earn on average more than private school teachers. No reason why day care workers shouldn't unionize and work to gain benefits and salaries they obviously deserve. And the more they earn, the more they can spend, which again goes back into the economy. And as a parent, I'd rather my kid's babysitter earn $20/hr or more than $8.
|
Have you any idea how much this plan would increase the cost of daycare? Easily double!
| So you care about how environment influences people until they are, what, 18 years old? Fuck' em after that. Do I have that right? |
Pretty much.
I mean, I just find it really weird that you acknowledge that being raised a certain way makes someone way more likely to end up an asshole, but once the become an asshole your sympathies totally run out. I mean, I cringe when I see a young mother on the bus yanking around and cursing at their kids. But at the same time that I despise their behavior, I also feel sympathy for what harm was probably done to them over a period of many years to make them such a bad parent, and more importantly, I wonder what could be done to heal those wounds and get them to be a better person.
|
At some time people need to be held accountable for their actions. Adulthood seems reasonable to me. You can't mentor somebody forever.
OK then, take the kids away from the offending, repeating breeders, sterilize the breeders, and allow the kids to be raised by one of the many couples waiting on long lists to adaopt a child to love!
(I am talking about the losers here)
Told you it was bad.
I am fully aware that it violates civil rights...but that is what is in my heart. My brain tells me never to speak it out loud.
| So there parents are obviously deeply harmed people who need help, too. There is obviously a cycle of generational abuse and poverty going on there. It is a sucky situation for everyone involved. |
Fuck those fuckers. Take the kids away. End the cycle. Easy.
| So why not just say the same of their kids and be done with giving a shit? Fact is, almost everyone has the potential for personal betterment and salvation from a bad state. |
Because there is still a chance with the children. I do not want to condemn them because their parents are pieces of shit.
| Again, you bring up poor people, when I was talking about working class people. |
Agreed. I know I go off on a tangent when it comes to discussing welfare.
It is tough to separate the two in my mind. The way I see it is that people with integrity will find a way to make things work.
Right now my wife and I are having a bit of trouble accepting some life facts. There is a family that my wife and some of her co-workers have been helping the last couple of years. The family has nine kids total. The mother is in prison (deservedly) and the father works 10-12 hours a day to make ends meet. We have on several occasions taken the two of the girls, ages 9 and 7, for weekends or other times when the father needed help. These girs are bright, curious, and sweet. A couple of months ago the Auntie of the kids got out of prison (bitch should still be there) and moved in with the family. (The mother and the Auntie were both in prison for stealing.) Well, about a month ago my wife discovered $30 missing from her purse. Come to find out it was the nine year old who stole it. We have found out since then that the Auntie has been having the children steal things out of stores...which is the exact reason that the mother is in prison. There is NOTHING we can do about it. We saw so much potential in these kids but now they are going to be screwed. If I had my way we would take those kids and raise them as our own....but we can't just go and do that.
One positive thing this experience brought about is that now my wife and I are seriously considering becoming foster parents....but sooooo many horror stories about that too. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:13:00 [Permalink]
|
I largely agree with Kil and Marf.
I pay for subsidised day care for children in my country through taxes. And even though I don't have any children of my own, I don't bitch about it, because I see the benefit in having it that way.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:32:04 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: Then I'm confused as to why you think I'm advocating the government raising our children for us. If I send my kid to public school am I neglecting my responsibilities as a parent? How about if I take her to a reading at the public library? How about if I sign her up for a free class at the public recreation center? What about a public day care is parents giving up raising their kids and letting government take over that job? Government run institutions aren't run by faceless robots. They are run by people. If my kid goes to a day care center, private or public, they are people helping to raise my children. What is with this bias against government?
| Because I choose to focus on the root cause rather than a symptom. The root cause is the lack of a living wage being paid to workers. Subsidized daycare only treats the symptom while the patient gets sicker. |
The root is resource distribution. In the modern world, resources are distributed both through wages in a private economy and through taxes and government spending.
Given my current (and admittedly limited) understanding of how things work, I don't see how we could possibly solve our current resources distribution problem with less government intervention. What country in the world has managed to maintain a living wage for almost everyone while not at the same time taking in more taxes and providing more social services than the United States? How do you see American society better addressing the problem of lack of a living wage for workers? I'm definitely open to other solutions I haven't considered before. I don't have a bias for or against government. My only goal is a distribution of resources that is more fair (note I wrote fair, not equal. Many conservatives/Libertarians seem to think that socialists like me advocate zero disparity of income and wealth, which isn't true.) I really am curious as to your ideas for a solution. That's part of why I hang out here on SFN.
I concede it was a bit of an exaggeration. My apologies. Thank you for calling me on it.
| Communities near cities have some daycare services available for less than the average cost. Curches also have resources as well as family close by who can help. It still delegates the raising of these children to the state. |
I mentioned family and friends. I mentioned them because they are heavily burdened by the high cost of day care. Many grandparents, for instance, are put in a bad position by their kids who can't afford day care, but also don't qualify for social services. Of course there are less and less relatives available, as people are retiring at older and older ages. Even if I lived near my parents or my husband's parents, they all work full time. In fact, even though I have a large family, there is only one person in my extended family who is health, qualified, and not working. She's a housewife, and she has recently been burdened with having to take care of her own grandchild, whose parents cannot afford private day care but qualify for zero public assistance. I might have exaggerated a bit, but this a serious issue. Granted, you say the solution is higher wages so parents can afford these needed services. (Maybe then the charity of friends, community groups/churches, and neighbors would be enough to get the families that still fall through the cracks.) But again, how are these widespread higher wages going to be achieved?
| This is, again, asking the government to raise our children. Government does a lousy job of it. |
First, the children of working parents will be cared for by someone while their parents work, whether it is a family member, friend, private day care worker, or day care worker paid with tax dollars. What is the bias against government workers? Why do you insist on insulting and dehumanizing them with this rhetoric? Second, government doesn't do a lousy job. At least not inherently. Institutions, whether private or public, are across-the-board worse in low-income areas, and across-the-board better in high-income areas. Privatizing prisons hasn't improved conditions for inmates or lowered costs. Vouchers for private charter schools hasn't improved quality or lowered cost of education in America. It is a myth that private institutions are better than public.
| Federalizing it lends itself to incarceration type of service or a standard set of teachings subject to the ideological whims of the party in power. |
I don't see evidence for that. Public schools in small, rural, white, Christian areas reflect the values of that community, just as schools in poor, black, urban areas reflect the values of that community. Parents who care will be involved no matter where there kids go to school or day care. Again, the disparity in quality seems to be much more a matter of economic segregation of whole communities.
| I would much rather see daycare in private hands where at least the parents can shop for schools that meet their ideological needs. |
Parents can't shop if they can't afford to shop. Most families don't have much in the way of choice when it comes to day care, including choices for the grandparents and other relatives who so often get stuck through availability and family obligation into taking care of the kids while the parents work. It all serves as a great way to keep the middle class stretched to the limits, stressed out, and working (paid or unpaid) until they die, and die without much to leave to their survivors. And as I think a strong, healthy middle class with time for leisure, community work, and activism is of essential importance to any functioning Democracy, I am deeply concerned.
| The services you mention do not have horrendeously high insurance liabilities. If a child gets hurt in the public access areas of schools, libraries, and the like, the parents are partially responsibile for the conduct of the child. At daycare, the caregiver bears the brunt of the liability. |
Not sure of your point here.
| When those taxes are gathered for a service that I will never use because I would not qualify for it, then yes, it is theft. I felt the theft first hand when I was laid off in 1999. The amount I had paid into unemployment had no bearing on the benefit I recieved. I nearly lost my home because the amount I got for unemployment was less than 1/3 of what I was making. That is theft. |
I'm not following your reasoning at all. You paid into unemployment like everyone else who works in America. Then, when you were unfortunate enough to be laid off, you received unemployment benefits that may not have been equal to, but which certainly were calculated according with your previous salary. If there were no unemployment taxes or benefits in this country, would you have been putting aside those amounts in a private bank account? Or would you have been more likely to spent most or all of it, and then lost your house when you lost your job? If you don't like the system, work to change it. But how is it theft? I am required to have car insurance. If I never get into a car accident and therefore never recoup any of those losses, is that theft? How about tax dollars that go to medical research into diseases I'll never have. Is that theft? How about taxes to pay for the fire department that I never need. Is that theft? You seem to have a strange definition of theft.
| The analogy posited was that of a motorist demanding that bicyclists pay for his fuel. That is not the case with military, police, or firefighters because they have services from which I benefit from. |
No, you only MIGHT benefit from them. We could just as well not have any of those public services, and expect that people choose to pay into private security services, and expect that poor people depend on private charities when their homes burn down or they get robbed or assaulted. Many Libertarians advocate such a system. But would that work better? If so, I'd be all for it.
| No problem with services that benefit everyone. You are listing a service that does not benefit all people and only benefits the people who need it most, poorly. |
If people leave the work force, or stay out of the work force or work part time, and produce less because they cannot pay for day care, that does impact the larger community. For instance, if I could put my daughter in a free day care just 2 days a week, I'd still be working my old teaching gig making $20/hr in after school arts programs. I would then spend most of that money on investing in my house and on products and services that would enrich my child's education. In fact, most of my extra spending would go into the local economy - contractors and instructors, and local cultural and educational institutions.
| What I find insulting and inappropriate is the idea that my hard earned dollars with which I am struggling to make ends meet will be decreased for a service I will not, even though I am a working parent, be able to benefit from. |
Why would that be the case? I advocate more tax brackets and a progressively higher rate of taxation for the rich. For crap's sake, we have the same goddamn tax brackets today that we had in 1913. A person making $251,000 is in the came tax bracket as someone making $20,000,000, despite the fact that income disparity and wages have both grown significantly over the past century. What's more, in the 40's the top income bracket was taxed over 90%, while today they are taxed only 33%. A CEO typically earns over 200x what a plumber or garbage collector earns. The work of the CEO is worth that much more because of the market. Hell, the work of some dipshit teenager who gets her own reality show because she's famous for being born to a rich celebrity is worth many times more than the work of a full time day care worker, at least according to the market. And the work of volunteers, in terms of dollar amounts, is worth nothing. The market by itself is obviously dysfunctional at rewarding people fairly for their work. People should not measure their worth or what they are owed in terms of dollars. The distribution of goods and services cannot be solely guided by the market if we expect it to be even close to being fair and beneficial to society as a whole.
| Your assumption that the children will benefit is nieve. Look at the government run programs. Specifically the VA. The VA is poorly run, underfunded, and some Senators make attempts to disband it to save money. Benefits are withheld from veterans by delaying tactics hoping that the veteran will either give up or the problem becomes terminal. This is fairly typical of how government programs work. |
Oh please. And private military companies have been tied to scandals in Iraq and criticized for being less accountable than the Army. We could shoot back and forth with examples of government-run institutions that work great and those which don't, and private institutions that work great, and those which don't. It would get us neither here nor there. Currently day care is privatized in the United States, and the only real subsidies are for people under the poverty line. Most kids of working class people are being taken care of in private homes with no oversight and often by relatives who have health problems and/or lack of any desire or meaningful qualifications to be taking care of small children full time. Obviously the system is broken.
Every time I read some story in the news about some poor kid who died or was injured because of poor supervision (most often drowning, burns, falls, poisoning), it is almost always an aunt or a cousin or a grandparent who was watching the kid. Accidents happen in day cares, too, but less often ('cause day cares are set up to care for young kids!), and even private day care centers are thoroughly regulated and rarely have only a single adult alone with young children. The leading cause of children's deaths is car accidents. How much more time do children spend in the car driving to a relative's house than a day care? (I don't actually know the answer to that question, but I can walk to 8 daycares within 15 minutes of my house, and if there were even more due to the creation of a public option, the liklihood of living closer to a day care than a non-working relative further increases. My cousin drives her daughter 25 minutes to her mom's house, and 30 to her mother-in-law's house. She can't afford the day care center across the street. So that child spends nearly 5 hours a week in the car in order to get free day care from relatives, greatly increasing her risk of death or injury.
| What makes you think that federalizing daycare will be any better? |
I've stated many many reasons why I think it would be better. You just disagree with me. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/06/2011 12:34:10 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:37:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I largely agree with Kil and Marf.
I pay for subsidised day care for children in my country through taxes. And even though I don't have any children of my own, I don't bitch about it, because I see the benefit in having it that way.
|
I do bitch about it because it is a benefit only put out to SOME of the individuals with children not all. These entitlement programs always come with a means test for eligibility. When I lost my job in 1999, I was ineligible for Medicaid and food stamps because I had already made too much during the year to qualify. Even though I am struggling to pay bills, this program will exclude me even though I have a child.
Individuals in your country are expected to raise their own children, are they not? In this country, there is a history of underfunding, misusing, and corruption of services that have been federalized.
There may be a benefit of childcare for parents, but it does not address the lack of a living wage for those parents. Instead of tackling the major issue of poor pay practices, the solution profferred is to offer a way for companies to further exploit workers and have the government raise the children. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:50:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Daycare is a service. Sharing the cost for your child across people who did not have children or raised their own children is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is not fair for someone else to pay for your service. |
This can be said about almost any government service. Are you against public schooling, too?| It would be analogous to someone filling up their car by demanding money from passing bicyclists. |
No, it's analogous to someone filling up their car by demanding money from everyone (which is exactly what oil subsidies are doing). It's analogous to demanding that everyone pay for health care for the poor, even those people with their own insurance. It's analogous to demanding that everyone pay for some amount of protection from con-men, even those people who don't watch infomercials.| My pocket has been picked enough. |
Then you should be arguing against tax deductions for children and other dependents. Because those deductions exist, everyone with children or taking care of a senior is picking your pocket. Churches are, too. As are farmers, and CEOs who get paid via stock options.| A severe economic downturn is no time to be asking for a new entitlement which does not serve the children well. |
I thought it was more of a liberal philosophical discussion. But had marf written her blog post ten years ago, when most people had fat wallets, would your reaction really have been less strong?| Look at the government run programs. Specifically the VA. The VA is poorly run, underfunded, and some Senators make attempts to disband it to save money. Benefits are withheld from veterans by delaying tactics hoping that the veteran will either give up or the problem becomes terminal. This is fairly typical of how government programs work. |
I know, Val, that it sucks that conservatives and libertarians in Congress are trying to destroy what they've haven't already ruined about the VA, but that's hardly a failure of the liberal ideals underlying the program. If the VA were to be fully funded, do you think it would still be poorly run? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:51:38 [Permalink]
|
A very minor side-issue for this thread, I know, but I will never understand this sentiment (emphasis added):
| I would much rather see daycare in private hands where at least the parents can shop for schools that meet their ideological needs. |
The older I get, the less I understand it.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
| Edited by - Hal on 09/06/2011 12:54:31 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 12:59:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
There may be a benefit of childcare for parents... |
Given that a recently completed study found that the people who attended preschool did better in their jobs as adults than non-preschooled people (even when corrected for economic status and education attained), there may be benefits to society as a whole for that sort of group socialization away from parents at those young ages.
Would public preschool sit better with you that public day care? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 13:37:25 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote: | And I am advocating elevating conditions for our entire country by using personal responsibiliy as a tool. |
Oh what does what even mean? You think you can shame most working class people into not having kids? You want to shame working parents? (Because remember, I'm not talking about the poor "losers" you hate so much. I'm talking about people in the gap between poor and affluent middle class.) You want to shame a couple of working parents for having to depend on one of their poor, retired mothers for day care? You want to shame a talented teacher or artisan or engineer for leaving the work force to take care of their kid because they couldn't afford day care? You want to shame all the dad and some moms who spend hardly any time with their kids (and put a greater burden on their spouse) because they have to work 2 jobs just to make ends meet? Because THOSE are the people who would benefit the most from a public option for day care. Good luck with that.
| Here is where I see a double-standard. It seems you see wanting to fuck everything that moves as a hedonistic desire in some people...but hard-wired nature for others. |
I give up. You go ahead and continue insisting that procreation is not an imperative, a necessarily component to living a fulfilling life for a great number of humans. I'm not too worried; you'll never get most people to agree with you on the matter. It's scant few parents who tell their adult, working, and especially married children, "You really shouldn't have kids because you can't afford to do it well enough." Quite the opposite. Typically, when a working, full grown adult, especially a married one, announces they are having a kid, friends and relatives rejoice, regardless of whether the person having the kid has financial difficulties or not. So you will be a fighting a very uphill battle on this one, Ebone.
| What I am saying is that I don't want to have to pay for it. Along with bettering society in the long run I also want to make more use of my paycheck, for myself, NOW. It is not my responsibility to make sure that everyone in the country's wants and desires are met. And yes, I DO think that having children is a want, not a need. |
You are paying for it whether you want to or not. You are paying for it when more working class people fall under the poverty line and require more social services to be dolled out. You are paying for it when lowered productivity reduces the standard of living for everyone in the society. You are paying for it when the human potential for overall achievement is lessened. But if you are fine with increased mediocrity because it is what seems like a more "fair" system to you, have at. Personally I'd like to live in a better and more ambitious civilization.
| Not sure where this 90% figure is coming from. Did I miss something? |
The bottom 90% of American households bringing in just over $30K, which in most places is not enough to provide for a family and have a reasonable safety net in case of emergencies, saving for retirement, etc. From what you are saying, I gather that you think it is irresponsible for, say, a single woman earning around that much, who is 35 and running out of time to have a child, to decide to have a kid. I gather that you think it is irresponsible for a married couple who both work but who have lots of debt and earn only enough to break even to have a child. I do not find that irresponsible. I think when people make that choice in such circumstances, society should support them for the sake of the betterment of us all. But I imagine we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Between the insurance I carry and the skills I possess other than bean counting I think I would do OK.
" And I can play the guitar like a motha-fuckin' riot....uh" |
No, I'm saying if you lost your earning potential. Your skills were rendered worthless or you somehow lost them due to severe injury. And lost your insurance. For instance, I had a friend who was getting along just fine because he and his partner had a two income household and no kids. Then they had a car accident. His partner was killed and he suffered a serious brain injury that makes him unable to do anything other than low-level service jobs. He had no family to help him out - in fact he had always been the one in his family to be in a position to help others. He only maintained a decent standard of living and was able to receive sufficient treatment because of the aid of social services and laws that protect the disabled, and some private aid from his Quaker community. And still, after years the best he's been able to achieve is staying employed as a clerk in a store, earning enough to just pay for his apartment's rent, food, bills, and health insurance and co-pays. He'll likely just scoot through his old age depending heavily on social security and Medicare, and die broke. All because of a single car accident. Shit happens.
| Not judging, intentionally anyway. I am just conditioned to take women's feelings into consideration whenever I open my mouth. |
LOL! Oh, yeah, that didn't sound condescending. ;-) I would hope all peoples' feelings would be taken into some account during a civilized debate. I've encountered some pretty sensitive men who I've had to apologize to for being overly zealous in an argument with.
| Sorry for bringing that up. It's my hangup, not yours. |
It's all good! You haven't offended me in the slightest, and now I'm just amused.
Have you any idea how much this plan would increase the cost of daycare? Easily double! |
So what? Private companies inflate prices of goods for profit, and you want to complain about subsidies to pay child care professionals closer to what they actually deserve based on their training and the importance of their job?
Guess what else? I also think we should have huge subsidies for public transit. Enough to make public transit dirt cheap to riders. And enough to pay way more employees. Two workers on every city bus - a ticket taker and a driver, and both should earn a living wage. I also think we need huge subsidies for community colleges. I am a socialist, after all. :-)
| At some time people need to be held accountable for their actions. Adulthood seems reasonable to me. You can't mentor somebody forever. |
Who said adults shouldn't be accountable? I hear that crap a lot. But last I checked, I've never seen a single bleeding heart liberal say that child abusers should be excused. Just because we seek to explain the harm people do and just because we seek ways to stop that behavior, doesn't mean we excuse actions which have already taken place. Being "tough on crime" and pushing "personal responsibility" seems to be quite popular in America. Probably because those sentiments are very emotionally satisfying. But if what we really want is to reduce and eliminate future suffering, we need practical solutions that work.
| OK then, take the kids away from the offending, repeating breeders, sterilize the breeders, and allow the kids to be raised by one of the many couples waiting on long lists to adaopt a child to love! |
LOL. That's weird, because there are long lists of children already waiting to be adopted in America who were taken from their parents. Here, want to adopt one from my neck of the woods? And these ones are WAY cheaper than private adoption! A real bargain! Don't have to fly to China or nothin'. What, few takers? Oh, I guess all those "many couples" are waiting for healthy newborn babies, preferably not black. Oh well.
Heh. It is very emotionally satisfying to say sterilize and take the kids away from bad parents, until we consider how we would implement such a policy in real life. How do we identify the appropriate candidates for such extreme action? Well, hell, maybe we should just simplify the whole deal by just automatically sterilizing any adult who falls below the poverty line.
But honestly, do you have a serious suggestion? Or do you just like proposing crazy shit that makes you feel good? I mean, the whole problem is that these social ills are incredibly complicated and ugly and messy.
| I am fully aware that it violates civil rights...but that is what is in my heart. My brain tells me never to speak it out loud. |
Ebone, I get it. I have seen people I;d like to see dead - a mom who was abusing her 18 year old daughter and 4 year old grandson, a boyfriend who was raping and emotionally abusing his girlfriend. I have had daydreams about punishing all the people who I think are a huge leach on society (they aren't the same people you think of, *evil grin* but I digress.) The point is that they are just fantasies. Saying shit like this: | Fuck those fuckers. Take the kids away. End the cycle. Easy. |
is mere indulgence in fantasy. You know better. Your brain knows that just taking the kids away doesn't necessarily fix anything for the kids, because all those nice couples wanting to adopt don't want ghetto rejects, and the foster system is deeply flawed. The cycle of poverty is perpetuated by many social factors that results in asshole adults. Getting rid of the products of that system that exist at the moment will not stop that same system from producing the next generation of assholes. None of this is easy.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/06/2011 13:48:43 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2011 : 14:30:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The bottom 90% of American households bringing in just over $30K... |
Real median family income in 2008 and 2009 was around $50K. The median income of single mothers was around $32K.
According to this chart, a family income of over $150K was needed to be counted among the top 10% of earners in 2008. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
