Whoa, let's play nice, kids. I don't think Scothia meant that personally. And I don't think you'd disagree that your Mom, given a choice, would have preferred to raise her kids without a day care center involved.
Someone did come across as bitter, all right--you might want to check that chip on your shoulder at the door.
Bitter!... Well, there are three unrelated sentiments so far on this thread that have more condemnation for parents than for the Union that is extending its reach deeper into the American family with more control of the lives of children. We can have a discussion regarding the propriety and necessity of day care on another thread. Unless you know me personally, WE won't be having that discussion at all. I suggest that Scothia, Prime Choice, and any other self-righteous sophists go and start one. But, if you believe that Unionized Child Care Providers pressuring legislators and businesses for further benefits won't effect you because you have the luxury to stay at home with them, then you are delusional or no one in your household has a job. Take a closer look at their intentions and ask, "Who is paying for all of their demands?" Answer: Public Funding (State Subsidy), and Increased Enhanced Rates (Progressive Pricing... need versus ability). In Oregon, Washington, California, Illinois, Rhode Island, we are already paying for it.
The SEIU is establishing a new government entitlement using the back door, folks.
Someone did come across as bitter, all right--you might want to check that chip on your shoulder at the door.What you said.
Everyone knows - and I mean EVERYONE - that in some circumstances the mother has no choice and she must day care her kids. Even Dr. Laura, the most vociferous supporter of stay at home mothers says this. We are not talking about those mothers - we are talking about those who choose convenience and possessions first while whining how they 'have to work'.