• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aid for Child Care Drops When It Is Needed Most - NYT

3-year olds?

hardly.

BUT BUT...THEY DON'T DESERVE THE MONEY OF BILLIONAIRES BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ATTRIBUTED TO SOCIETY AT ALL YET, AND THEY DON'T CREATE JOBS LIKE THOSE BILLIONAIRES DO!!!!!! :lol:
 
AH the typical conservative rhetoric is alive and well i see. putting aside your disgusting use of vocabulary for those children, most European countries are decades ahead of us with green energy, because their governments subsidized the development and research of these technologies, and now for example, large parts of Germany's economy is green energy and its a huge asset to them. We started in that direction with Carter, and then Reagan came along and put a halt to it, unfortunately for us. So when you look at the big picture, one failure in a business like that, is not a huge loss, its such a small part of the budget, especially when you take into account military spending, oil subsidies, farm subsidies, for businesses that do not need any money at all and are making huge profits.

Maybe one day we will concentrate on green energy as opposed to political paybacks also.
 
Maybe one day we will concentrate on green energy as opposed to political paybacks also.

It might be harder to distingish between the two than you think.
 
It's an approach that keeps us from being 15 trillion in debt with no relief in sight.

There are all kinds of brutality a people can do to keep debt down. Not sure I would recommend them all. I suspect even you have a limit. Sometimes it is better to drown saving another than pretend drowning is OK.
 
There are all kinds of brutality a people can do to keep debt down. Not sure I would recommend them all. I suspect even you have a limit. Sometimes it is better to drown saving another than pretend drowning is OK.

We've gone well past that point, if you cannot admit that...
 
...So...to reduce the debt...we should START BY CUTTING...programs that benefit poor young children? Nothing else in the federal budget stick out to you guys?
 
...So...to reduce the debt...we should START BY CUTTING...programs that benefit poor young children? Nothing else in the federal budget stick out to you guys?

I mentioned one right off the bat.
 
I mentioned one right off the bat.

-----Originally Posted by Thunder----
what a heartless approach towards helping children.

MrVicchio
It's an approach that keeps us from being 15 trillion in debt with no relief in sight.

^thats kinda what i was talking about
 
Subsidizing daycare is cost effective. It cost far less than the alternative - having one parent stay home and having the family qualify for far more dollars in benefits than the daycare subsidy.

Say mommy and daddy work for minimum wage and get $100 per week of daycare assistance. Daycare subsidy is cut and mommy has to quit to take care of junior. Family income is halved. The household now qualifies for food stamps, rental assistance, medicaid and maybe WIC - and I guarantee those will cost more than $400 a month.
 
Subsidizing daycare is cost effective. It cost far less than the alternative - having one parent stay home and having the family qualify for far more dollars in benefits than the daycare subsidy.

Say mommy and daddy work for minimum wage and get $100 per week of daycare assistance. Daycare subsidy is cut and mommy has to quit to take care of junior. Family income is halved. The household now qualifies for food stamps, rental assistance, medicaid and maybe WIC - and I guarantee those will cost more than $400 a month.

thats a really good point.
 
-----Originally Posted by Thunder----
what a heartless approach towards helping children.

MrVicchio
It's an approach that keeps us from being 15 trillion in debt with no relief in sight.

^thats kinda what i was talking about

Sorry, it's a peeve of mine. If you have a problem with those two statements then you should have addressed them, not make a vague accusation.
 
Sorry, it's a peeve of mine. If you have a problem with those two statements then you should have addressed them, not make a vague accusation.

no, i know, my bad, i guess i was just kinda being lazy lol, won't happen again.
 
Well I read the article and I'm a bit stumped - where are the Dads? Where's child support from said ex spouse?
These children didn't just materlialize on their own.
Their mothers surly didn't conceive via parthenogenesis.

All the more of a reason NOT to have children unless you CAN and WILL be able to support them. The government CANNOT and WILL NOT always be there to support you!

And per one example in the article: teh 11 year old who drove around on the bus.

This article made me extremely thankful that I'm married - and chose to be a stay at home mom.
 
Heart Wrenching Emotion Driven story to further the cause for "Government to help cause no one else can!!!"

From a political standpoint, it is not up to the government to help the poor. From a religious standpoint, it IS up to those who profess a belief in God and Christ to do so. There are going to be a lot of people with a pitchfork up their ass wondering why the hell they are in hell. The reason is simple - Jesus said that "whatever people do unto the least of these they have done unto me". But no, it's not up to the government. People have free choice whether or not to follow the teachings of Christ. God intended it that way.
 
Last edited:
From a political standpoint, it is not up to the government to help the poor. From a religious standpoint, it IS up to those who profess a belief in God and Christ to do so. There are going to be a lot of people with a pitchfork up their ass wondering why the hell they are in hell. The reason is simple - Jesus said that "whatever people do unto the least of these they have done unto me". But no, it's not up to the government. People have free choice whether or not to follow the teachings of Christ. God intended it that way.

Ok, i KNOW this is not a religious argument, but i neeeeeed to say this. If someone comes up to you with a gun, and says, "you either give me all your money, or i kill you". well yeah you have a choice, but not really, just like the whole religion thing if you REALLY believe in that stuff, is not a choice either. yeah follow me and everything i say and devote your life to me, or don't, but if you DON'T you go to a place of eternal torture...
 
From a political standpoint, it is not up to the government to help the poor. From a religious standpoint, it IS up to those who profess a belief in God and Christ to do so. There are going to be a lot of people with a pitchfork up their ass wondering why the hell they are in hell. The reason is simple - Jesus said that "whatever people do unto the least of these they have done unto me". But no, it's not up to the government. People have free choice whether or not to follow the teachings of Christ. God intended it that way.
The **** does religion have to do with this thread?
 
The **** does religion have to do with this thread?

I'm actually defending religion here (i can't believe it), but when someone actually holds to a belief like Christianity, then IT SHOULD be involved in almost every thread, they should always be asking "what would Jesus do" in a sense. the poor is a big issue in the new testament, and considering a lot of people make that book a huge part of their life, then i think it belongs here.
 
I'm actually defending religion here (i can't believe it), but when someone actually holds to a belief like Christianity, then IT SHOULD be involved in almost every thread, they should always be asking "what would Jesus do" in a sense. the poor is a big issue in the new testament, and considering a lot of people make that book a huge part of their life, then i think it belongs here.

Yes, but the "giving and helping" part should be voluntary. Not fored by government because some people think it's a good idea.
 
Yes, but the "giving and helping" part should be voluntary. Not fored by government because some people think it's a good idea.

Giving and helping is voluntary, paying your taxes is not.
 
Yes, but the "giving and helping" part should be voluntary. Not fored by government because some people think it's a good idea.

also, the person who posted the original post that you were responding to said that in their post about it not being the governments place to do those things, i was just saying i think that, that distinction needs to be made, if the person is a right wing conservative christian, as many liberals use the bible as a source of argument for their evil empire of wealth redistribution.
 
It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of children. That is a familys responsibility. Churches help all the time. Lay-off my tax money.
 
It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of children. That is a familys responsibility. Churches help all the time. Lay-off my tax money.

my point stands, if churches are doing such a great job, why the hell are there programs that help parents take care of their children, if these churches are doing such a perfect job? what, if we reduce everyone's taxes by a little, that they are suddenly going to spend all that extra money on children charities? no.
 
Back
Top Bottom