posted on June 17, 2004 10:18:32 AM new
What I am saying is that I fully recognize the democrats platform is to grow government. Spend more money on social programs. Make life more equal via the government [re-distribution of income] rather than by encouraging individuals to become LESS government dependent and more self reliant.
Generations of children grew up quite well without all these government entitlements.
Their own parents managed to feed them. Their own parents/family managed to care for them. And for those who were TRULY needy, religious based groups helped by doing what they could.
We as a society have backed away from family....family support/family help...and turned instead to the government to cure all the ills in our lives.
Kerry is THE most liberal Senator in Congress. If elected he will continue to promote more government dependence. Next he'll be proposing that all families 'deserve' a three bedrm. 2 bath home and expect others to pay for it.
No one has yet addressed my question about the government paying for the children who DO have their mothers at home.
Nor why parents who *can* pay for the daycare of their own children not being required to do so.
posted on June 17, 2004 10:31:53 AM new
Why don't you answer your own dam question, lindak. Few people here would agree that parents should be sent to jail for poverty or children should be separated from their parents.
posted on June 17, 2004 10:46:21 AM new
And answer this, Linda...why is it ok to give government contracts, which tax payers pay for, to companies with off shore addresses? These companies pay NO income taxes (WE pay for this), yet the executives reap the benefits of living in the US.....
Why is it OK to spend billions on war.....
The richest 1% in this country got huge tax breaks.......
But NOT OK to help children?????
More compassionate conservatism????
Again,"the Greatest country in the World" shouldn't take care of it's poor? Did you get this out of your bible?
Punish children because they had the bad taste to be born to poor parents?
posted on June 17, 2004 10:51:04 AM new
And you quote Ann Coulter so much....despite the fact that her sex life makes Clinton look like a Tibetan monk???????
posted on June 17, 2004 11:09:51 AM new
fenix - Your question to me encouraged me to seek out the stats on how many children have stay-at-home parents. Moms or Dads.
This data from the US Census Bureau were the latest I could find.
-------
Two Married Parents the Norm
About 7-in-10 Children Live With Their Parents, According to Census Bureau Pre-Father's Day Release
A ratio of about 7-in-10 of the nation's 72.3 million children under 18 lived with two parents last year, according to data released today by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau.
Children under 15 represented 84 percent of the 49.7 million children under 18 living with two parents. Of these, [b]about 11 million lived with "stay-at-home" moms and only 189,000 with "stay-at-home" dads, according to the report, Children's Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002 [PDF 521K].
On the other hand, 19.8 million children under 18 lived with one parent: 16.5 million with their mother and 3.3 million with their father. About 3-in-10 living with their single father, or 1.1 million, resided in a household that included dad's unmarried partner.
In contrast, only
1-in-10 children who lived with their single mother, or 1.8 million, shared the home with mom's unmarried partner.
-----------------
Then CBS had a more recent article [more current than this 2002 info] that said this trend was increasing - more parents were making the choice for one parent to stay home.
Re-elect President Bush!!
edited to add the CBS news - 6-17-03
(AP) Nearly 10.6 million children were being raised by full-time stay-at-home moms last year, up 13 percent in a little less than a decade.
Experts credit the economic boom, the cultural influence of America's growing Hispanic population and the entry into parenthood of a generation of latchkey kids.
Of the 41.8 million kids under 15 who lived with two parents last year, more than 25 percent had mothers who did not work and stayed home, according to a Census Bureau report.
That was up from 23 percent, or 9.4 million children, in such situations in 1994, a bureau analyst said.
Full-time stay-at-home dads took care of 189,000 kids in 2002, up 18 percent.
------------
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 17, 2004 11:19 AM ]
posted on June 17, 2004 11:18:29 AM new
Gee, Linda, with that "change the suject" post I guess you proved your point! Fenix had his stats wrong so to hell with kids...Ok, NOW I get it! See, we Liberals aren't all that reluctant to change our minds
posted on June 17, 2004 11:21:54 AM new
Soon it will be a government society. The people say Someone owes me a living We don't need anymore afterschool programs. Let the people that truly need them have them but it will only turn out that the people that take advantage of these programs are the 2 working parents that are living beyond their means.
Crowfarm - Do you wish you had a 250,000.00 home? 2 cars, etc. I bet you do but you won't because you have a concience. I would never put my family in so much debt that I need the federal government to make new programs so that I can work and make my money to pay for my luxuries.
Now are these programs that hire employees to staff this program going to be making more than minimal wage? Do you think there is a teacher out there that is going to stay overtime? Will there be a nurse on duty? It's like Clinton and health care it just couldn't be done and if he had done it I think that would have been great.
I think before making statements like if I get elected I am going to provide after school programs. There needs to be some thought beind it. Read "No Child Left Behind" and you will see these programs are already in place and the government is having a tough time financing it.
This is a delema for both Democrats and Republicans. Where is the money going to come from? I think the people of the US need to have that question answered before another government project is started whether by Bush or Kerry.
I am not against taxation for schools as every child needs an education but leave it there. Not daycare and that is what an after school program is.
The differenct between Ann Coultier and Clinton is that Clinton was President.....
An employee of yours and mine.....
posted on June 17, 2004 11:28:56 AM new
crowfarm - I was not avoiding anything. I was searching for the stats I've given.
As compared to those of you here who HAVE avoided answer my question of why - when parents are able to pay for OR provide their own children with after-school care....do you find it necessary/acceptable for that to now become our governments job.
You're avoiding the question....not I.
As to how the money is spent....what I'm saying is that it is the Federal government's job to protect our nation and support a military to do so, it is NOT the governments job to take care of/raise our children....as kerry's proposal would do.
posted on June 17, 2004 11:34:39 AM new
First, Libra, i want my refund.
Second, "no Child Left Behind" is having funding problems because Bush vetoed the funding!
Why should individuals become less dependent on the government when large corporations accept hand outs all the time?
Why give huge tax breaks to corporations but say to kids "tough bounce".
Can't you see it's not the kids' fault their parents need help!
And, "living beyaond their means"?? Yes, some are but aren't you lucky....your husband didn't die young leaving 3 children behind like a friend of mine. Yes, he should've had life insurance but they couldn't afford it because two children had diabetes. Yes, they probably shouldn't have had children with diabetes...ah, what would be your solution to that?
Now, she's alone and struggling...not everybody has huge families who can take care of them....she and her children who had the nerve to let their father die should be punished for being poor.....OK now I understand.
posted on June 17, 2004 12:25:16 PM new
Crow -
First of all - I am not a he
Second - I didn't get any fact wrong - I never presented numbers on work at home moms
Linda - ok - so 25% of kids have stay at home home mons. In other words, 75% of our children do not have that type of after school supervision and guidance and could use it- why should we not offer it.
Linda and Libra - I'm curious as to how many divorced people that you know planned their divorce. You keep talking about these irresponsible people that had more people that they could afford. How many do you think were thrust ito that sitation folowing a divorce?
Oh and Libra- let me know if you need my address to refund my part of the schooling of your kids too since you feel this is an every man for themselves worl.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 17, 2004 12:26 PM ]
posted on June 17, 2004 12:31:01 PM new
crowfarm - Once again you are spreading lies.
Maybe you'd like to post your own proof here for all to see where you get your facts from.
again - taken from factcheck.org
DNC Fiction
But the ad makes a patently false statement when it says Bush "cuts key education programs by 27%." The DNC says that's a reference to Bush asking for Congress to appropriate less than the maximum amount of money Congress authorized for the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposes expensive new requirements on states. But alleged "underfunding" is not a cut from current spending levels.
In fact, federal spending for education has soared under Bush, even if it hasn't gone up as much as the DNC would like.
As shown in the chart below, funding for the Department of Education is up 58% in the first three years of Bush's term and is set to rise further under the budget he proposed in January.
It's already gone up more under Bush than it did during all of Clinton's eight years, in fact. So where's the "cut?"
Source: Budget of US Government; Fiscal Year 2005, "Historical tables, Table 5.2-Budget Authority by Agency: 1976-2009"
Furthermore, Bush is seeking additional increases -- not cuts -- in "key education programs" next year. His budget calls for a 9.8% increase for programs for low-income children, to $15.2 billion, and a 5.9% increase in funding for special education, to $12.1 billion.
posted on June 17, 2004 12:40:30 PM new
This is part of the article by Nedra Pickler that wasn't included in Linda's copy and paste.
"All across this country there are families who would like to enroll their kids in after school and child care programs, but they can't because budgets are tight," Kerry said in a statement issued Wednesday.
*********************************************
I don't know why some assume that most parents are living beyond their means (though many probably are) because the economy has changed for quite a few. Some parents are working two jobs a day at low pay with no benefits just trying to make ends meet. I think it must be difficult for them to juggle schedules and make sure that their children have care when they need it.
And before anyone jumps in and says they should have thought about that before breeding, perhaps times were better for them a few years ago. Crowfarm mentions illnesses, I know of one man whose wife died of breast cancer and left behind four children who now need care after school because he doesn’t finish work until 5:00 pm and then has an hour’s drive back home. And I'm sure there are others out there with equally tough situations who could really make use of a program like this one.
posted on June 17, 2004 12:46:22 PM new
LOL helen - you're a real cut-up.
---------------------
crowfarm -
And I'll share a neighbor who also lost her husband....she had 5 young children. Her husband had no life insurance either.
She remained in their home and continued to care for her own children.....because she received a widow's pension from Social Security and so did EACH of her five children.
There are programs in place to help those in that situation.
posted on June 17, 2004 12:56:12 PM new
fenix - I've changed my mind.
In other words, 75% of our children do not have that type of after school supervision and guidance and could use it- why should we not offer it.
First of all because we're already heads over heals in debt....remember what the dems are currently screaming about - the deficit?
Secondly - Out of your 75% - that figure doesn't state how many ALREADY have care that their *own parents are paying for*.
Thirdly - There is no reason to provide any entitlement when there is NO need. I'm not talking about low income single parents....who already are given aid in helping with day care while they work ....under our welfare programs.
I'm sure there are more reasons I just haven't come up with yet.
posted on June 17, 2004 01:01:21 PM new
So Linda, Bush IS funding the very programs you and Libra are so opposed to.....Ok I'll vote for him ........NOT!
posted on June 17, 2004 01:04:55 PM new
And Linda, why didn't you address this?
""And answer this, Linda...why is it ok to give government contracts, which tax payers pay for, to companies with off shore addresses? These companies pay NO income taxes (WE pay for this), yet the executives reap the benefits of living in the US.....
Why is it OK to spend billions on war.....
The richest 1% in this country got huge tax breaks.......
But NOT OK to help children?????
More compassionate conservatism????
Again,"the Greatest country in the World" shouldn't take care of it's poor? Did you get this out of your bible?
Punish children because they had the bad taste to be born to poor parents?""
You know why...because bullys only pick on those who can't fight back(poor children).....why don't you address your tax concerns to a corporate executive, face to face and ask him about why his company dosen't pay any income tax? Why the government is giving him such a big hand out?
posted on June 17, 2004 01:22:47 PM new
crowfarm - That's not the first time you have made untrue statements and offer no proof to back up what you say.
posted on June 17, 2004 01:24:13 PM new
Notice Libra and Linda carefully didn't offer reasons why those of us who don't have children should still pay taxes that go to education for children... And Libra won't be giving you that refund you asked for.
Realize that I gladly pay those taxes, because those children are our future. But by the standards being talked about here, doesn't that fall under paying for other people's children? Why did they have those children if they can't afford to send them to private schools? Why do they expect the government to provide schools for their children? And pay teachers?
And my taxes go toward buying books for those schools--shouldn't the parents be buying their children the textbooks they need? Paying for building and maintanence of schools?
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 17, 2004 01:45:41 PM new
Linda - I thought you would have been able to figure out the answer to your question pretty simply via the entirety of most posts. Becasue most parents cannot afford to pay for such services.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 17, 2004 01:45:50 PM new LOL helen - you're a real cut-up
No, Linda....asking how you propose to feed, clothe, house, educate and keep poor children healthy and safe is not a funny question. Anyone who thinks so is an insensitive #*!@.
posted on June 17, 2004 01:51:40 PM new
So basically what I see here is the dems supporting more Federal spending while at the same time complaining about how high the deficit is.
Are willing to accept all kerry's NEW proposed programs....and don't care how they'll be paid for...either by raising our taxes more or raising the deficit.
posted on June 17, 2004 01:53:33 PM new
This countries educational system is an absolute humiliation. We care more about controling and protecting others than we do our own. Linda and Libra here feel that we should throw every concievable dime at national defense but the fact of the matter is that if we don't get our act together and start educatng our kids and giving them preparation for the real world there is not going to be anything to defend.
Our society is crumbling and anytime a democrat suggests something that just might start suringg up the foundation it's jumped upon as entitlement and welfare.
I'm sick of argueing with with ppeople who live in a lala land where everyone owns half million dollars homes, has plasma TV and nannie for their 15 year olds. This module that they have created to justify their beliefs is so far detached from the real world that that there really is no point.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 17, 2004 02:04:48 PM new
fenix - Becasue most parents cannot afford to pay for such services.
That's been stated here as the reason to why some here THINK that is the case. But there's been no proof of *need* offered....only *want* of what 'would be so nice to have'.
As I've mentioned before it even will pay for children whose mothers are at home with their children. For crying out loud.....there's no need there.
And for those who are already paying for their own children - but are on tight budgets - how terrible. So now taxpayers should pay for their childs after school care so they're budgets won't be so tight?
Now those people who ARE currently paying their own way won't have to watch their money and how it's spent - thanks to the generousity of those who think there are unlimited funds and that's it's our governments responsibility to make things easier on their budgets.....no matter how they choose to spend the money they were using to pay for this prior to this bill being passed.
[now *I'm the queen of run-on sentences.
----------------------
Like I said....pretty soon we'll be paying for them to be kept overnight...so the parents won't have their sleep disturbed. After all - they need their rest - they have to get up early in the morning to go to work.
Maybe someday we'll be dressing them in little brown uniforms and having them report on their parents to the government....like they did in Germany.
posted on June 17, 2004 02:10:55 PM new
No helen - what I was laughing at was YOU telling me to answer "my own **** question" while at the same time calling me on the carpet for not answering the questions others pose.
Your posts *always* clearly point out the double standard you hold for those who agree with your positions and those who don't. That's what makes me laugh at them.
posted on June 17, 2004 02:29:51 PM newThis countries educational system is an absolute humiliation.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. It MOST certainly is. And all-the-while more and more funding has been thrown in to help. Well it hasn't helped. Clinton continued to spend more on education...it didn't help. The system's not functioning.
As anyone can see by the above stats....Bush too has REALLY increased educational funding....and asks for accountibility. That too makes the dems scream bloody murder.
Heaven forbid we should find out which teachers/schools aren't teaching the kids anything and deal with changing that problem.
Something gravid said a while ago comes to mind. He said all a child needs to learn is a pencil, paper and a good teacher.
It's all this other BS that's been added over the years. It's the lack of discipline in the schools. It's parents not taking an active roll in their child's education. It's teachers who aren't qualified to teach....who aren't any better at math, grammar or spelling than I am....teaching students. It's many factors.
None of which have to do with supporting the government paying for after school programs.
Linda and XXXXX here feel that we should throw every concievable dime at national defense but the fact of the matter is that if we don't get our act together and start educatng our kids and giving them preparation for the real world there is not going to be anything to defend.
And I've said the same thing...in the opposite way. IF we don't support a strong military these school problems and all the other issue we work to find solutions for aren't going to matter either if we don't protect ourselves from the likes of more 9-11's.
Our society is crumbling
imo, because we have lost our connections to our families, to faith and we're relying more and more on our government to take care of every problem....rather than becoming more self-substaining as were our ancestors.
posted on June 17, 2004 02:47:57 PM new
Hello All, looks to me like a lot of people on this post don't really know what is happening to working class people in the U.S. I wonder if these posters would like to see the U.S. be more like China. Maybe these people would like the U.S. to make laws that limit a family to one child? That way these people would have to worry less about their ALL MIGHTY MONEY.
About people having more children then they can afford, you all must remember a lot of people already had children and could afford them before Bush came along. Please remember that under Bush people have lost jobs, taken pay and benefits cuts, pay more for health care and insurance, gas, education, utilities and food.
About "chanting lies, lies." I will continue to point out lies as long as some people keep POSTING them.
posted on June 17, 2004 02:53:26 PM new
It's a question of priority, linda. Do we continue to dole out corporate welfare with wild abandon or do we take care of our children and the country. Do we destroy the schools, hospitals and infrastructure of Iraq so that we can spend billions rebuilding or do we take care of our children and the country? Instead of endangering our country by inflaming the mid east, we should be protecting the country, borders and shores, focusing on defense against terrorists rather than spending billions in Iraq.
It's so strange that after Bush has gone through a surplus of almost 300 billion to a deficit that is currently 500 billion and expected to rise that you are so worried abour an after school care program for children whose parents are working.
