Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/07/2026 7:11:45 AM PDT by dennisw
The Trump administration is drafting a Health and Human Services policy that would, for the first time, let a married parent who stays home with the children collect federal child-care money that Washington has spent thirty years routing almost exclusively to day-care centers.
The New York Times, citing people familiar with the talks and a draft document, reports the change is a priority for Vice President JD Vance and would tap the Child Care and Development Fund, the 1990s program built to help low-income parents pay for care so they could work or go to school.
Typical aid runs about $9,000 per child a year.
Under the draft, a married couple in certain income brackets could use that assistance for “parent-based childcare,” meaning one spouse stays home while the other works at least 35 hours a week.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
When I was born in 1958, federal welfare was I believe limited to public housing and hospital construction subsidies.
Absolutely they are. How did you get from what I posted that I don’t think they are???
Supporting the American family is not a handout.
I am 100% supportive of the goal. But social engineering doesn’t suddenly become a good thing when we do it. It’s still socail engineering.
And the government can’t give you anything it hasn’t first taken from someone by force.
Same here.
The skinnies will take the money and have a slave tend the piccaskinnies.
There was also government cheese until you were about 7.
Correct. Remember PPP?
That requires increasing the bureaucracy and will empower the surveillance state.
We can cut taxes, spending, subsidies, and regulations to make it more affordable. Taht’s the anti-statist way of doing it. But the Administration wants to use government to do it.
What happens wehn Democrats control the government? You know they’ll bury this program in regulations designed to cut the legs out from under it.
In South CArolina, they have a law that when a woman comes in for AFDC, she has to name the dad and they garnish his wages. I’d enact that nationally, but with an out clause:
If he marries the mom, as long as they stay married, there’s no garnishment. Marry her, stay with her, and raisethe kids together.
But that might build up families, the cornerstone of a free, prosperous society, and get people out of povery, which would mean fewer people to “help” (i.e., fewer people dependent on the government.) That is unacceptable to them.
The federal welfare system was built piecemeal.
Each program is independent of the other and it encourages fraud and abuse at every possible opportunity.
What might be done instead is to have the welfare component of Social Security be used to fund most federal welfare benefits. The exceptions would be housing and medical.
If you got SNAP benefits now, you’d get less Social Security later on unless you repaid the federal government for the SNAP benefits.
But you say you’re hungry, then take the SNAP benefits as if you starve to death you won’t live to get Social Security anyway.
Ditto for Obamaphones, TANF, etc.
Would your Social Security be reduced? Only if you got welfare. Most people would get the same amount of Social Security. It would come as Earned SS and Welfare SS each month.
What about disabled children?
Parents and care providers could take a realistic look at Junior’s prospects.
It might be better to put the cost of Junior’s special education into a trust fund managed along with the state pension system and let Junior stay at home.
What about housing? States control the cost of construction.
Hotels used to have basic rooms only with bathrooms down the hall and no guest kitchens whatsoever.
Over a period of 10 years, federal housing subsidies could be phased out, first by freezing the amounts and after five years lowering the subsidies by 20% per year.
Agreed. The $9,000 should have never existed in the first place.
States might mandate a worker benefit fund.
That might be set at roughly 70% of the amount of a PPACA silver plan for a 60-year-old, which might come to $800/month (or $5/hour for a part-timer).
The 60-year-old worker would simply take employer health benefits.
The 25-year-old might take employer health benefits at say $400/month and put the remainder into a state pension plan managed investment trust at the rate of $400/month which might be used to pay for childcare, used as a down payment for a house, used for living expenses if unemployed or entering retirement.
States might phase in such a system in over five years.
“There was also government cheese until you were about 7.”
It probably would have cost my mother more for gas to fetch it than the cheese was worth.
My mom would buy cheese and salami by the head from a place called Roma Importing.
I remember my mother going to apply for welfare. After two hours of inhaling the body odors of people living in cold water flats, she was told the state would lien the family home for the amount of the welfare money. She left with only her children.
We actually sort of have something like this - it’s called Married Filing Jointly on tax returns.
Folks today look at that as a “marriage penalty”, but that’s really only the case if you have both spouses with incomes.
With only one working, it’s favorable rates compared to single.
It will also decrease child care companies.
It will also decrease child care companies.
It will also decrease child care companies.
It will also decrease child care companies.
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.