posted on June 16, 2004 11:36:33 AM new
Issues like this are one's I don't agree with and see them as bring more socialism into play in our country.
My concern is that if trends like this continue, pretty soon we be seeing parents having children and turning them over to the state so their parents don't have to be bothered raising them at all. Maybe they'll start keeping the children overnight....so their parents can sleep better.
---------------
From The Associated Press:
Jun 16, 1:14 PM EDT
Kerry Wants Federal Afterschool Program
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
Kerry says that, as president, he'd spend more money on keeping schools open late for after-school programs. (Audio)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) --
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Wednesday he would create a federal program that would pay to keep schools open until early evening to help working parents.
Kerry, visiting an after-school and summer school program center, said he would spend an additional $1.5 billion on after-school programs. He said he would get the money for keeping schools open until 6 p.m. from repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people earning more than $200,000 a year.
"I don't get it and I'm sure you don't either when you think of the choices that we make as adults in our country," Kerry said. "The wealthiest people in America are getting a huge walk-away-with-the-store tax break, but a whole bunch of kids who need to have after-school adult input aren't getting it."
Kerry also wants to give parents more money to help cover child care costs, to the tune of $20 billion over 10 years.
Kerry says he would raise the child and dependent care tax credit to cover up to $5,000 in expenses, up from the $3,000 maximum. He would extend the benefit to some parents who currently are not eligible, including stay-at-home parents and some in lower-income families who cannot get the nonrefundable credit because they do not owe any tax.
Kerry announced the new spending on child care and after-school programs during a campaign stop in Ohio on Wednesday before heading back to Washington for private meetings.
Kerry's campaign said that under his child care tax credit plan, a couple earning $60,000 and spending $10,000 on child care for two children would get an additional $800 cut.
The credit is available for child care expenses for children up to age 13, as well as for care for dependents with disabilities.
Parents currently can get a credit for up to 35 percent of their first $3,000 in expenses for one child or $6,000 in expenses for two or more children. The percentage of expenses that can be credited decreases with higher incomes, so middle-class families typically can claim 20 percent.
Kerry said he would pay for the expanded credit by closing certain corporate tax loopholes, raising $20 billion over 10 years. Kerry policy adviser Robert Gordon said about $8 billion would be spent on raising the limit to $5,000; details of how the rest of the money would be distributed among stay-at-home parents and lower-income families would be determined later.
Kerry pledged to increase federal support for after-school programs from its present level of $1 billion to $2.5 billion in 2007.
Kerry's campaign said his after-school plan would serve 3.5 million children, an increase of more than 2 million children from the level today.
The Bush campaign said Kerry voted against Bush's tax-cut package, which included a $1,000-per-child tax credit. Kerry has said he wants to keep the child tax credit while rolling back other tax cuts.
---
AP Political Writer Ron Fournier in Washington contributed to this report.
----------
posted on June 16, 2004 01:29:38 PM new
Linda - I completely understand your concerns but with the reality of our current world being that most families require two incomes to stay afloat and the numerous studies showing kids involve in organized activities between the hours that kids get out of school and when their parents return from work are less likely to get involved in trouble with the law, drugs, gangs, etc, then isn't it worth exploring options that will provide these types of activities and supervision?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 16, 2004 02:00:39 PM new
Linda_K, what you don't see is a lot of kids get in trouble between the time school lets out and their working parents get home from work. A program like this will help kids that could make a mistake during those hours. One mistake could hurt them for the rest of his or her life.
You also don't seem to realize how hard and long people have to work these days. With wages going down and health care, health insurance, education, gas, utilities, and food prices all going up. Its not easy for a good hard working American family to pay for all that is going up with their wages going down. Kerry's idea is a good one.
LETS OUTSOURCE BUSH'S GOVERNMENT BY VOTING FOR JOHN KERRY AND DEMOCRATS FOR CONGRESS
posted on June 16, 2004 02:06:59 PM new
I don't know, fenix. I have multiple problems with programs like this.
First of all it's more redistribution of income...and I'm against that - totally. Because some choose to have more children than they can provide for....why do people thing 'we' [collectively] need to use our hard earned dollars to pay for 'their' life choice? Can't afford to take care of your own children....don't have any...or have less.
Second if the dems are so very concerned about our high deficit then why would they even be thinking about adding to it? I know....kerry says this money's going to come out of the change he's proposing in the tax laws. BUT he says that about every program he's been proposing. There's only so much there...and all his promised programs will cost way more than what the projected income from that change will be.
Third....why are children whose Mother's stay at home eligable for this program? These mothers should be responsible for providing for their care, imo....NOT our government [read our taxes].
And fourth....if these children are 'held' over in their schools....they're not going to be able to enjoy participating in say a Pop Warner football team. They'd need transportation. I don't believe that's included in this program.
To me....it's strickly our government taking on responsibilities that belong in the laps of parents. And way too many are allowing the government to create and increase programs like this where people are becoming less self-reliant and more government dependent. What's wrong with daycare centers? What's wrong with hiring babysitters to watch their children? Now this is becoming a responsibility to our Federal government? Bigger government - big brother. The function of the schools used to only to teach the children....now they feed them too. Now they're going to babysit them. Unbelievable to me.
Thank you for listening to my vent. That felt good.
posted on June 16, 2004 02:17:24 PM newwhat you don't see is a lot of kids get in trouble between the time school lets out and their working parents get home from work.
I'm not saying children should be unsupervised. I'm saying it's NOT our governments job to do it. That's what parents are for....or babysitters or private after school care programs. NOT the government.
You also don't seem to realize how hard and long people have to work these days.
What in the world would make you come to that conclusion? I realize what working involves. That doesn't change a thing about who should be doing it and who should be paying for it.
It's more socialism....slowly but surely sneeking in our lives and in our pocketbooks.
posted on June 16, 2004 02:27:48 PM new
Linda -personally I think these types pf programs would be most beneficial to highschool age kids that you can't exactly put into day care.
Now about budget deficits - It's about investing in the future. Yes, there are going to be higher fundng outputs in the short term but i f the long termrewards are lessened strains on our criminalb justice sytem including court cost and less of these people ending up in jail, and more responsible taxpaying productive aadult contributing to the system then aren't the short term trade offs worth it?
I don't believe that the kids should be forced to stay until 6, I believe that the community should become involved in the schol and these programs to provide them with reason to want to stay whether it be local artists and muscicans, theater groups etc that come in to offfer thei talents to replace programs that have been eliminated from from our schools. Mentors coming in to utilize existing computer labs to teach advanced skills. Local business owners coming in mentor students in entrpenural skills. etc.
I agree that th government cannot do everything, nor should it. But if it has the capability to provide a venue in every community where the community can come together to lend their knowledge, skills and experience to help not just keep a kid off the street but to help them find a reason to be somewhere else, then doesn't it owe it that much?
The programs that are created can eventually help fund the program. Music and Theater groups can put on performances to help raise funds, art programs can combine with local galleries, entrepenueral groups can hold sales, computer groups can market their serivces. With time, effort and a little imagination it can become something that givesboth ways.
Call me idealist but I'm not the only one out there and if the right face was put on this, it could be done
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 16, 2004 02:36:39 PM new
An idealist? More like a dreamer in my book. Nothing the government runs/pays for would ever turn out so lovely as what you have suggested.
What is the problem you have with babysitters taking care of these children as has been done in the past...rather than our government?
Also why would stay-at-home moms have a need to have their children there when they could be caring for them?
It's like 'here's a new program - need or not - hop on the free bandwagon.' But it's not free - it would come from a redistribution of someone elses income...hard work. That's socialism.
posted on June 16, 2004 02:43:08 PM new
I guess I need to be a little more clear.
I worked with a woman who had six children. After school they went to the YMCA. She paid a for their after school activities herself. With two incomes she was quite capable of doing so. These people will now stop paying to take care of their own children and start relying on the government paid for programs.
posted on June 16, 2004 02:46:47 PM new
Linda - how many stay at home moms do you think there are. I was in high school 20 years ago and I can't think of a single person that I knew at that time whose mother stayed at home.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 16, 2004 03:01:24 PM new
My mother had to work to support 5 children. She wasn't home when I got home from school. All of us have been in some sort of trouble or another because she couldn't afford after-school supervision. What's wrong with helping children stay on the right track? These are the same children you #*!@ and moan about that are in trouble with the law, vandalizing property because they have nothing better to do, etc., etc., etc. Everyone knows there is a problem, but when it comes to fixing it, money is better spent on the children of Iraq.
This would be a great program. My daughter works full time for a bit over minimum wage. It's all there is around here. She needs to have hours that coincide with Tiffany's school hours. It's next to impossible to find one that is accomodating to that. Her take home is $348 every two weeks. She gets $45 per week in child support. Her rent is $600 (and this is rent in the inner city so imagine what the 'burbs would be). By the time she pays her rent, utilities and other living expenses, there is no money left for daycare. Even at low income, it would cost her $90 per month. She doesn't have $90 extra per month. So, Tiffany gets picked up and spends the afternoon at work. She will spend the entire summer at my daughter's job. Fortunately, she has an understanding boss - me. This type of program would be ideal.
I can't understand people not wanting to invest in the children of this country. Would you rather invest in another war? Children are the future of this country. Their education is already in a #*!@ hole thanks to the financial woes most of the states find themselves in.
Linda, you were one of the lucky ones who apparently didn't have to raise children as a single parent. If you were and had to struggle like so many do, you might be thinking differently.
Look into the eyes of a latchkey child and tell them they aren't worth the cost of keeping school open later.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jun 16, 2004 03:02 PM ]
posted on June 16, 2004 03:16:28 PM new
fenix - How many? I don't know. In my circle of friends...all of their DILs stay home and are raising their own children. I'd assume [admitting to doing so] that many welfare moms stay home too.
But that's not the point. The point is IF their mothers are home there is absolutey no reason that I can think of to have the government paying for their care too. No matter how many there are. Those who are working and can afford to have their nails done, etc. can pay for their own children too. That's one of the big problems with these type of entitlement programs to me. They aren't JUST for the poor and truly needy.
-----------
Cheryl - I grew up in a generation where most mothers stayed at home. But there were many mothers like mine who had to work. We stayed had babysitters when we were young...and the government didn't pay for them. When we got old enough [12] to be left by ourselves we were. And didn't get into trouble. A different value/moral system was in place there. We didn't DARE get in trouble. It what the parents expectations for their children are. Being home alone doesn't automatically equal = getting into trouble of some sort. A parent hopefully is teaching their children what is allowed and what is not when they're not under that parent's watchful eye.
------
One of my girlfriends that was recently here visiting with me, has had a long term career of setting up day care centers in many areas. They are a booming business right now. She has explained to me how the poor families have their tuition paid for by the government. It's not like there's not already help out there already.
There is help out there, but it depends largely on which area you are in. The waiting list my daughter would have to get on is so long, Tiffany will be in high school. The smaller ones in our area won't take her because she's school age. A lot of parents are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Don't think I didn't see the hotwheel track on my behind when I was growing up even in high school. A lot of mother's were stay at home moms when I was growing up as well. My mother started working full time in the 1970's when my step-father left. There are a number of years between me and my brothers (18 between the youngest and me). My mother disciplined us rather stearnly. However, with no supervision, my brothers acted and then did the thinking part later. To this day, I cannot look at a hotwheel track.
posted on June 16, 2004 04:16:02 PM new
Where is it written that the government has to pay for our children. If you can't afford them then don't have them.
My granddaughter was in an afternoon school program at her grade school funded by the YMCA through their donation program. It was open until 6 p.m. There is ways to have afternoon school programs without the federal government getting involved. If they do get involved then they must screen everyone so that the child they are paying for is the child staying in the afternoon program. But of course there will always be someone to abuse it. The school was not responsible, they did not provide bussing for the children who stayed until 6. Parents were responsible for pick up.
I was fortunate that I was in a profession that required employees 24 hours a day. With the job openings I could work any shift that I had to so that both my husband and I could work different shifts and be responsible for our child. We did that up to her age of 8. We never had to worry about snow days, sick days or early release days. It can be done if families want to sacrifice but now a days workers have it in their minds that it is a 9-5 M-F work week and heaven forbid if they have to work Saturdays or Sundays. That's family time.
posted on June 16, 2004 04:25:36 PM new
Everyone needs to remember that we all have to live within their means. If you can't afford it don't buy it....
Drive around your town and see the homes that are being built. $250,000. $300,000.00, 2400 sq feet 3,000 sq feet, swimming pool in the back yard. Plasma TV's hanging on the walls. 2 cars in the driveway. The list is long. Families have to remember they don't have to compete with the Jones'. If they can't afford it don't buy it. Foreclosers are at an all time high and it is the houses that are being built by the people who can't afford them.
It is more important to take care of your children than it is to live like a millionaire.
posted on June 16, 2004 04:32:10 PM new
I have no children and am willing to have my tax dollars spent on after school programs. They benefit all of our society not the few fortunate haves.
posted on June 16, 2004 04:43:25 PM new
This could open a can of worms if they don't keep close tabs on it. What's to say that someone enrolled in the afterschool programs never attends and the parents get the money and they get in trouble. It could happen. There is always fraud in any government program. i.e. the food stamp program.
posted on June 16, 2004 04:53:12 PM new
I grew up with a stay-at-home mom! And I'd be hard pressed to remember (though that could be age ) any kids I knew that their mother did work. I guess I AM THAT OLD!
Anyway, I stayed at home with mine, until they were 11 and 12. Then I did work, up until recent years..
posted on June 16, 2004 05:44:32 PM new
Libra - what money are you talking about? The plan is to fund the schools to stay open longer not to give anything to the parents.
My old building was run by two single fathers. One raising his child as well as his ex-wifes first child that was not his, the other bringing up three of his own.
They work their tails off running three businesses to keep a roof over their kids heads and make sure their will be money to send them to college so that they can have the educational experiences that they never had.
They have no plasma TVs and don't own houses and all of their kids could benefit from programs that kept them off the streets and help them explore their interests and talents until their fathers can get home.
In a perfect world mom would be home baking cookies and wlecoming the little ones home but the truth of the matter is that this ia a far from perfect world. One mother simply abandoned her family, the other certifiable nutcase.
These men are not the exception to the rule anymore, their situations are more and more becoming the norm in our society. Why do should we sacrifice these kids and the future of our society. Is the message that we want to send our youth really one of community appathy and every man for themselves? Aren't the best results achieved when people work together for a common goal and isn't that goal in the best interest of our long term survival as a society?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
Schools are in trouble now and if they added that service, even paid by the federal government, it will be difficult. It will cost more than Kerry has planned for. First, all schools will need after school programs including and not excluding the parochial and private schools. Even though the parochial and private schools will not have after school programs in their facility the students there will be able to take advantage of a program at a school closest to them. Any Federal program for school children must include the parochial and private school children, but those children will go to the nearest school which offers the program.
Example busing. Every child is included in busing no matter if they go to parochial, private or public school.
I hope he has thought this out and not just speaking off the top of his head. If they don't include the parochial school children the ACLU will step in and win.
If their parents pay taxes all children whether public, private or parochial are eligible in federally funded programs. If Kerry elects to give federal funds to parochial or private school he can't because of the separation of church and state. I honestly think this is a no win situation.
JMHO.
If it happens I will applaude him.
Edited to add the sentence I put the middle put at the end where it should have been
[ edited by Libra63 on Jun 16, 2004 09:47 PM ]
posted on June 16, 2004 10:10:07 PM new
Libra - Extending the hours of public school systems would no more apply to private school students than the high school football team would. The programs would apply only to students which are actually enrolled in the school.
I'd also love to hear you explain how busing applies to private schools. Please expand in detail with verifiable facts how that one works.
BTW - there is only 1 n in Fenix.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 17, 2004 06:53:56 AM new
Another waste of taxpayer dollars... I for one am not willing to see my tax dollars do something that the parents of these children should be doing...
More social welfare for those unwilling to take care of their own...
As Linda pointed out... no one forced these parents to have more children then they can take care of... that's their problem, let them fix it... more government handouts are not what they need, this will in now way wake those people up that having all those children is the wrong thing to do, if you cannot support them without government handouts... but I am guess many are welfare participants just like their parents...
posted on June 17, 2004 08:15:34 AM new
Well, Linda I AGREE with you! You are right about parents having responsibility for only having children they can afford and care for. SEE, Linda, a liberal can agree when some one is right. We don't just chant over and over again...it's a lie ...it's a lie until we believe we're right.
After all, WHO is going to take care of these children who stay late...the TEACHERS? THEY have children of their own to go home to! They would have to HIRE other people to handle the after school program and the last thing we need is more cumbersome JOBS. And since the Republicans have cut funding to after school programs the parents should now quit those unnecessary jobs that they need to pay the mortgage and buy food and get their lazy butts home and take care of those kids. And Bush gave those people HUGE tax breaks for having children...can't that pay for a babysitter? But he did cut funding so poor kids no longer can get breakfast at school...this should make you happy! No socialism here! After all, if that child wanted a breakfast she should have had enough sense to be born to rich parents. The nerve of these children, coming into this world and wanting just to be fed and taken care of! Socialist brats!
WHY should the "Greatest country in the World" take care of it's children? Can't they take care of themselves??????
We just can't keep running a huge deficit by taking care of children when we've got Haliburton ..er...I mean ..the war to pay for! Can't these people see that!!!!
posted on June 17, 2004 08:25:30 AM new
Hey Linda, I just had a brilliant idea! Since there's so many jobs now why don't we go back 100 years and put these socialist brats to work! If they could work 8 to 12 hours a day 100 years ago why can't they put in a few hours after school...any 7 year old can flip burgers and clean toilets! If they had the nerve to be born and burden us with their care the least they can do is contribute a little and not expect to be handed free food! That's Socialism!
posted on June 17, 2004 08:36:28 AM new
witty post, crowfarm -
Twelve, are you one of those republicans that is against abortion because its killing a human being, therefore morally wrong ...and then want to propose we 'ill-legalize it as such and thereby NOT force anyone to have children they cant take care of?
Just curious where the twain meets on this one from the thoroughbred republican voice here.
posted on June 17, 2004 08:38:14 AM new
Twelve- Last night I did a lot of reading on No Child Should Be Left Behind. Very interesting read. It passed early in the Bush Administration. It sounded good and I agreed about the children but the funding is getting out of hand where it almost can't be supported anymore and now Kerry wants to have after school programs. This program will have to include every child whether public, private or religious. No child can be excluded. If you read about the No Child Should Be Left Behind there are after school programs connected with that. Now if every school in the US has to have that new program along with the old programs the deficit will be much greater.
Tax dollars are getting out of line and I agree Parents need to take responsibility for their actions and be responsible for their children. They go out and spend live beyond their means then both parents have to work and now we have to take care of their children. Davebraun said he would be willing to pay more taxes and that is great, but they will need more than him to foot the bills that his program will need.
It's easy to say I will do this and that but remember the money has to come from us and soon us will not be able to afford anything anymore.
Fenix said "The programs would apply only to students which are actually enrolled in the school." And that includes every school. Public, Private and religious. If there is a program like that I will bet that all parents will take advantage of it whether they work or not.
The only people that can live like millionaires are millionaires themselves and when someone has money they don't think about the little guy but they are the ones that pay the taxes.
posted on June 17, 2004 08:39:03 AM newAs Linda pointed out... no one forced these parents to have more children then they can take care of... that's their problem, let them fix it... more government handouts are not what they need, this will in now way wake those people up that having all those children is the wrong thing to do, if you cannot support them without government handouts... but I am guess many are welfare participants just like their parents...
So I guess you agree the governement should not be giving families tax credits for having kids? If the government should not be responsible for taking care of kids and that responsibility belongs to the parents, then the government shouldn't be giving tax breaks to families. Linda, I thought you supported programs that benefited the "family structure"? Are you doing a flip flop or are you just against this because it was suggested by Kerry?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 17, 2004 08:47:01 AM new
::Fenix said "The programs would apply only to students which are actually enrolled in the school." And that includes every school. Public, Private and religious. If there is a program like that I will bet that all parents will take advantage of it whether they work or not. ::
No Libra it does not include Private and religious schools, it especially does not include religious schools considering that this is a proposal to increase federal funding to enble these schools to stay open longer and religious schools are not eligible for federal funding.
You have now made this statement twice plus your out in left field "bussing applies to private schools" comment. At any point in time do you intend to present factual proof of these claims?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 17, 2004 08:48:07 AM new
It's always amazed me how the same people who object to help or as they call it "programs" for children raise such holy hell rather than allow an abortion or birth control. Remember the objection when the suggestion was made to stock public bathrooms with condoms? Give birth to those poor unfortunate babies and then leave them to die is their disgraceful policy. Give birth, then let them starve and suffer disease without medical care or appropriate housing and then keep the little brats out of sight! That's their final solution. And, I suppose the message is, "that should teach their parents a lesson"???
posted on June 17, 2004 09:07:41 AM new
I would invest in children of this country if parents would live within their means and support their children also.
I want someone to tell me why we should be responsible for someone else's children when as parents we lived up to that obligation. My husband and I sat down and talked about how many children we could support and that is how many we had. It's called birth control. Many times I went without but I didn't cry to the government that I needed their money. Nobody owes me a living except myself.
posted on June 17, 2004 09:41:40 AM new
Libra says,"I want someone to tell me why we should be responsible for someone else's children when as parents we lived up to that obligation"
WELL, Libra, I have no children and have paid taxes for over 35 years. These taxes have helped to pay for schools for YOUR children!
The huge tax breaks given to people for having children ....who do you think pays for that...other parents????? NO! I DO!
So if you and your husband were so independent of the government is raising your children please refund MY money!
What's wrong with daycare centers? What's wrong with hiring babysitters to watch their children? Now this is becoming a responsibility to our Federal government? Bigger government - big brother. The function of the schools used to only to teach the children....now they feed them too. Now they're going to babysit them. Unbelievable to me.
This type of program would be ideal.
