| User | Comment |
|---|
LindaH   | | posted 29-Aug-2008 7:27pm |
No. Day care centers themselves? Why? What's wrong with just providing day care funding assistance to families that can't afford it?
Single parents only option is absurd. As if a single parent is always going to be needier than a two parent family. |
bill   | | posted 29-Aug-2008 7:53pm |
Yes, yes! the government should provide cars to everyone too, and free food, and free beer, and free houses! Yes, yes, yes! |
| romkey | | posted 29-Aug-2008 8:57pm |
The government seems barely capable of providing any service competently. |
southernyankee  | | posted 29-Aug-2008 10:49pm |
Yes, the government should subsidize daycare centers for working parents; but no, I don't think it should be 100% free. Um, I guess I am voting yes (???). |
LJD  | | posted 29-Aug-2008 10:58pm |
No....absolutely not! |
| Galomorro | | posted 30-Aug-2008 1:08am |
Yes, the gov. should provide daycare centers for working parents. Then maybe the parent could visit the kid during his/her lunch hour for some quality time if they wanted to. |
Melf  | | posted 30-Aug-2008 3:27am |
You should get your healthcare sorted first. |
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 30-Aug-2008 11:12am |
Yes the government should provide daycare centers |
| Cain | | posted 30-Aug-2008 12:25pm |
My local council provides a small amount of money each week for me to put my daughter into daycare. It only pays for about one-fifth of her total childcare costs, but it's still a huge help. |
| LindaH | | posted 31-Aug-2008 10:07pm |
 at the person who picked the single parents only option. Are you aware that it would be discrimination based on marital status, rather than based on financial need? |
| Enheduanna |
As my mother is fond of pointing out, we are the government. I think it would be great if we, as voters, told our elected representatives that we wanted some kind of nationally-mandated program, funded out of the taxes we pay, to help working parents with childcare. I'm not sure what shape I think that program should take, though. |
Matty  |
People need to pay their own way |
| Matty | | (reply to romkey) posted 2-Sep-2008 9:06am |
> The government seems barely capable of providing any service competently.
That seems unfair, unless you subsist in a survival cabin without human contact. |
| they |
No.
Why should the government take care of your children?
I'd prefer them to stay out of that aspect of my life.. thank you very much. |
| LindaH | | (reply to Matty) posted 2-Sep-2008 8:15pm |
What happens if daycare costs almost as much per hour as they get paid? |
| Matty | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-Sep-2008 7:47am |
What if? Get a better job. Find cheaper daycare. The idea is to be ingenious. What did we do before daycare...we had a housewife who would babysit without charging an arm or a leg. We had parents. It's high time people stop trying to suck the government bewb and do things for themselves. |
| LindaH | | (reply to Matty) posted 3-Sep-2008 10:47am |
Women who work don't have this 'housewife' to take care of the kids. Nowadays a lot of times, both parents have to work. And not everyone has parents that can watch the kids.
I agree that people should try other options before using the government, but I think there should still be programs there for people who need them as a last resort. |
| Matty | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-Sep-2008 11:01am |
The fundamental issue here would be what constitutes a last resort. Given the way most government entitlement programs evolve, nearly every scenario would become a last resort. |
| LindaH | | (reply to Matty) posted 3-Sep-2008 11:18am |
maybe they shouldn't evolve that way, then. I think sometimes people get in situations where temporary assistance keeps them from needing more assistance. If a parent can't afford day care, do we want to pay them to stay home and not work? As it is now, assistance programs only pay a portion of day care costs, and the parent pays the rest. I think that is fair. I'd prefer taxes go to help pay for these kids to be supervised, than for kids to be running around unsupervised all day while their parents are at work (or for their parents to stay home and collect money for everything else.) |
| Matty | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-Sep-2008 11:45am |
I could concede to a partial subsidy with a time limit. That would seem to offer the help government should give when able, without sending a message that it's up to the government to provide everything. I wouldn't agree to anything beyond that. |
| cloudhugger |
Um, I like the option of having the freedom to make a choice rather than doing what government says I should do. It would be nice if the government was involved with an absolute neccesity in life, but I do not trust government run jprograms, they often are crap and when it comes to childrens well being, they would have to prove every single day they are not wasting money or fudging up my kids head with bullcrap. |
| they | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-Sep-2008 4:04pm |
> of the kids. Nowadays a lot
> of times, both parents have
> to work.
I absolutely disagree with that. If they want two cars and designer clothes and a super nice house, two parents might have to work... I guess it just depends on priorities. Some people scrape by quite nicely on one low income because they feel one parent should be at home with the children. Admittedly, it's harder to do on one income... but people do it all the time.
|
| LindaH | | (reply to they) posted 3-Sep-2008 5:44pm |
I guess it depends on where you live, and how much money each parent is able to make. |
| southernyankee | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-Sep-2008 11:29pm |
Then wouldn't that be an argument for one of them to stay home? Economic reasoning 101: if going to work means that you have to hire daycare, then the oportunity cost of work is daycare, and vice versa, so if your wages are going down it becomes less worth it to pick work over daycare. |
| southernyankee | | (reply to Matty) posted 3-Sep-2008 11:34pm |
That sounds about right.
Remember, if one parent decides to stay home, that would mean they would earn less money, hence be in the lower tax bracket. So for instance, two parents both with crappy jobs paying 20 means 40 k, where the taxes start going up, but they still have to deal with high costs of daycare. But if one of them quits to stay home, they get a nice tax break from the less income but save on daycare.
So its only fair to either give them partial subsidy, or make daycare all tax deductible-- but without paying for the whole thing. |
| LindaH |
Probably. But when there's only one breadwinner because the other one is absent, disabled, or in school, it gets tricky. It would be nice if daycare were just plain less expensive. But then, quality would go down. So I guess some people are just out of luck. |
| Matty |
Hmmm...any day care service is already tax deductable; we do it every year, and it helps quite a bit. For me though, the most important part of any such subsidy would be a time limit...say, three years. I think it's important we begin to end our culture of entitlement. |
| Iseult | | posted 4-Sep-2008 11:43am |
Of course. Nice ones, not substandard ones where they hire pedophiles. |
| Lahdee |
I think more people would use day cares when they didn't have to. It would be easy to say "Well we get by on one income but hey if the govt is providing FREE day care, I'll work too and we can make a considerable amount MORE". As it is, most one income families with kids at home wouldn't benefit much by putting the kids in care as the other parent heads off to work. I think it would cause more people to want to take advantage of the opportunity, probably creating more trouble in the long run. Imagine how crowded they'd become. Wouldn't this be yet another thing paid for by taxes? |
| judgescratch | | posted 16-Sep-2008 10:44am |
No, the government should not provide day care centers for working parents.
No, single or happily married they should pay for daycare.
|
