Posted on 03/13/2014 12:24:32 PM PDT by Olog-hai
“For millions of families in the United States, childcare is their single largest household expense at nearly $15,000 a year,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday in a speech on the Senate floor.
“And in an economy where most families have two working parents, childcare isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.”
The Senate on Thursday is scheduled to vote on a bill that would amend and reauthorize through fiscal year 2020 the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. The program provides funding to the states for child-care subsidies for low-income families, as well as money to improve the quality of child care. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Married couples in which one parent stays home to raise their children while the other works to support the family should (according to Reid) pay higher taxes to subsidize families in which both parents choose to work? I’m not sure I see the logic there. I would have thought that those who sacrifice on stuff, and live on one income, had no obligation to subsidize two income families.
In the view of the left, it is a necessity even for the welfare people.
I am sympathetic to your issues, but do not feel that it is the job of the government and taxpayers to either fund the costs for day care through subsidies or whatever, or to actually provide day care for anyone’s children.
Presumably, if the mother of your child is not married, and has almost no income now due to the layoff, she is qualifying for tax credits and welfare payments of some type, medicaid, probably free 0bamacare, unemployment benefits, possibly food stamps, etc., which are paid for by other working people. Some of those people also actually pay for their own day care expenses, in addition to taxes.
Where do you feel is the right place to draw the line on taking money from me and my family to pay for these things for others?
Take note that “single” here means “never married” versus divorced or widowed—so to create motherhood in that instance means creating a child through a means that is quite anti-God. Marxism has always been out to destroy the traditional family, because doing so brings a society down and makes it easier to replace it with one based on government dependence.
It’s not logic; it’s liberal dogma.
LOL! So just out of curiosity how do you refer to single divorced mothers raising a family? And what is it about their situation that prevents them from needing daycare?
Definitely a necessity IF you run a communist country. The earlier you can control the minds the better, which is what government funding of daycare would be, control.
I’m trying to find out what’s conservative about that viewpoint. Do you agree with Reid?
Looks like you should have waited to have a child if you both want to work.
.
I'm trying to find out what's conservative about referring to working women as 'a problem'. What would you have them do? Should they go on welfare and stay home with their kids? No, that's not particularly conservative. Should the fathers be required by law to give up half their salary to support the family they left in the lurch? No, there's nothing particularly conservative about that either. So your solution is to narrow your definition to single women who had kids out of wedlock, as if they are somehow in less need of childcare as married women are, or divorced and widowed women are. And people wonder how the Democrats can be so successful with their "war on women" claims.
In a traditional family, the wife works. There is no such thing as no work in the household. Business, media and government have destroyed the family in an unholy alliance.
So you agree with Reid, then. You want government-provided daycare to substitute for what a mother is supposed to give to her child? and a missing father figure?
If you don’t understand and/or reject the traditional family, you are not a conservative. Maybe you are a libertarian. You’re certainly throwing in with the Democratic definition of the “war on women” by attacking the conservative viewpoint—never mind supporting the Dems’ war on men (rarely mentioned).
” If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. “ Samuel Adams
Which can only be done in a society and economy where the father doesn’t have to work to support 3 other fatherless families AND his own.
And they’re going to make it worse by creating a daycare entitlement which, again, that one father has to work to support OTHERS’ childcare needs.
If the gov’t wasn’t confiscating half my income, I’d have enough for the family to live on one salary.
What’s a “single mother”? How did she get into that situation?
Just what I was trying to surmise.
Never mind Reid referring to two-parent families where both parents work (or are forced to by government and business pushing a certain social agenda together).
Exactly according to Marx’s plan.
I noticed your post just 23 seconds after mine.
Why doesn’t someone in Congress on our side get up and say these things?
“Both parents wouldn’t HAVE to work if you didn’t take half their money, Harry!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.