• 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!

Should Daycare Be Subsidized

Should Daycare Be Subsidized?

  • Yes, Should Be Fixed Price (Quebec)

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Yes, Means-Tested (France)

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • No, It Should Not Be Subsidized

    Votes: 30 75.0%

  • Total voters
    40
Along those lines, it only makes sense to only start having kids after you've completed a graduate degree, established yourself in a career, own your home, etc...

no No NO you people need to STOP with this responsible behavior crap, it's that type of lifestyle that could ruin our friends vision of a Socialist Utopia.
 
No, it is a truthful one. People are going to be irrepsonsible, so what is your solution to that? My question stands, if you are unable or unwilling to answer it that is your problem not mine.

People are going to be irresponsible because we do everything to eliminate repercussions for that stupidity and irresponsibility. We teach our kids that every bad pencil smudge has a quick eraser.

If we have real, serious, and measurable consequences for the most egregious mistakes, you'll find a reduction in those mistakes. We'd have less gun crime if they allowed the death penalty to be a real deterrent.
 
It is if you have bought in to the current narrative that the nuclear family is outdated. There are important reasons for this structure. There is teamwork for the good of the household. One works, one can stay home. I don't even care which does what. Maybe one full time and one part time job in order to juggle childcare responsibilities. It also develops more balanced kids who are raised with a father and a mother seeing them work together for a common cause. It's all about priorities. When you have kids you are no longer the most important person in your life. You may work a job you don't especially like in order to feed your kids. Parents (not sperm donors) care more about the wellbeing of their kids than of their own. If this is a foreign concept to you then you have either bought in to the nanny state mentality, your parents have utterly failed as parents, or both.

I always marvelled at the way my parents acted as I grew up with my four, and then three, brothers. Everything they did, virtually every penny they made and spent, was earned and used to provide things for me and my brothers. I remember clearly that my mother stayed home, looked after the kids and the house, did all the finances, and when we got a little older she worked part time in a bank and then a pharmacy - my mom was one very smart, savvy cookie. My dad, on the other hand, was pretty simple - went to work every day and came home and played with the kids and did odd jobs around the house. He got an allowance of $5 every week to buy a coffee at work and a pack of cigarettes for the week. Any entertainment was based around the kids - enrolment in sports for the kids, going to the movies with the kids, etc. My parents never went out just by themselves and left us with a sitter or me with my older brothers. And they never took vacations themselves, always just the yearly family vacation at the cottage or a car trip of some sort, nothing elaborate.

They had fun and "partied" when they were single and dating, but were generally of that class of people that grew up responsible for themselves because back then no one looked out for you if you didn't look out for yourself. And nobody who wasn't married had kids, unless a husband or wife died prematurely, and then church groups and friends helped out those left behind. And once married and when kids started popping out, well, your life changed because now you had even more responsibilities and your child/children was number one on that list and God help the poor sod who didn't take raising a child seriously - they'd be ostracized.

I had great teachers in the lessons of responsible living and life. My generation, I'm sad to say, has failed our children in many respects because we had it so good and we could provide so much more to our children and we've spoiled them.

Today, it's the hedonistic me-now generation that believes they're entitled to have it all - fresh out of school, they deserve the six figure salary - get married, don't let it cramp your free lifestyle - have kids, let the government provide because I'm damn sure not gonna give up next year's Lexus for the snotty nosed brat.

I don't know if we ever get out of it, but the best way to start is to pull our kids off the teat and throw them out to the wilds on their own to fend for themselves and start learning how to live responsible lives.
 
so lemme get this straight tech30528, because of this wacked out life philosophy you've got, you are not only able to take care of your own family, but the adult children of another family & (are you serious?) the father of the other family? (whew did I get that right?)
see I knew I was right, gawd only knows where things like this would lead. Before you knew it the government gravy train wouldn't have any riders. Don't tell me you go to church on Sundays too ;)

Taking care of my son and staying married by having my own shortcomings pointed out and having the ability to fix them, yes.

Providing a home and assistance to my wife's father to get him thru a tough medical condition and the depression that came with it to the point that he is now not only self sufficient but taking care of his own family again, yes.

Taking in my stepson who's own father failed him and helping him fill in the gaps and move forward, yes.

4 years ago I was unable to do any of this, had a new business on the verge of failure every day, a wife in school and losing a home to foreclosure. Lost the house, stuck with the business, wife finished school, paid off all of our debt and no longer have or want credit cards or car payments. Business is up and running and we are helping other family members turn their lives around too. Conservative values instilled by previous generations and the ability to face our own shortcomings... still working every time it is tried.

BTW our government does not support any of this. If you are self employed (a business owner) you are not eligible for assistance programs. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment benefits. Speaks volumes, doesn't it? Government prefers dependent voters no matter what they say about providing a hand up. The intent is to build dependency and become a good little cog in the machine. **** that. I was taught better. I'm teaching better.
 
Last edited:
By the same token, if you reward something does that not encourage it?

That's why I am for reform, limits, etc. It won't reward them, but help them.
 
That's why I am for reform, limits, etc. It won't reward them, but help them.

Obama has been busy removing as many limits as possible. Buying votes using other people's money is very politically popular.

EDIT: How about this limit: no qualification, other than exclusion for having used your benefit in the past, is needed at all; every US citizen can get 3x the federal poverty level, in cash, at anytime in their adult life that they should request it.
 
Last edited:
That's why I am for reform, limits, etc. It won't reward them, but help them.

You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Your plans just rob Peter to pay Paul. Shuffling money around does nothing.

You're not proposing anything other than a shift of blame, ending in the same result.
 
"They [socialists] always run out of other people's money."
Perhaps it never dawned on her that one day we'd elect a regime that had no compunction whatsoever?
That could indeed think it had an unlimited supply by increasing the debt by six trillion, creating 85 billion a month from thin air
and somehow getting away with stupendous tax increases during an economic depression?
While we consider the efficacy of government subsidized daycare in Quebec.
Will the wonders of modern science never cease?
 
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Your plans just rob Peter to pay Paul. Shuffling money around does nothing.

You're not proposing anything other than a shift of blame, ending in the same result.

A society is only as great as it treats its poor. My way will give people a hand up and not a hand out if limits are put into place as well as education for retraining.

You are for removing ALL safety nets for people. Your plan increases the poverty rate and crime rate ending in more money spent for prisons, etc.
 
Obama has been busy removing as many limits as possible. Buying votes using other people's money is very politically popular.

EDIT: How about this limit: no qualification, other than exclusion for having used your benefit in the past, is needed at all; every US citizen can get 3x the federal poverty level, in cash, at anytime in their adult life that they should request it.

The problem with that is that it doesn't solve the problem of keeping people OFF welfare. To do that you need a retraining program and possibly daycare during that time.
 
A society is only as great as it treats its poor. My way will give people a hand up and not a hand out if limits are put into place as well as education for retraining.

You are for removing ALL safety nets for people. Your plan increases the poverty rate and crime rate ending in more money spent for prisons, etc.

No, I'm not for removing ALL safety nets. I am, however, for anything that would make people think twice about bringing an 18 year money pit into existence and pawning it off on the general public.

Since these people would die on the streets at a bare minimum of taxpayer expense, it wouldn't increase the poverty rate. It also wouldn't increase the crime rate because I'd just paddy them up a few buses at a time, drive them out to California, and set them free to do as they choose. Wouldn't affect my state at all - let those silly-nanny liberals carry the burden.

You can sit there and play semantics by saying you approve of "hand ups" instead of hand outs, but it's all the same thing. It's just the same socialist drivel and rhetoric.
 
You can sit there and play semantics by saying you approve of "hand ups" instead of hand outs, but it's all the same thing. It's just the same socialist drivel and rhetoric.

No it's not the same thing, but your way would just cause more money to be spent wastefully busing people. It's ok, you're part of the problem and eventually you'll die out so one less problem to worry about.
 
No it's not the same thing, but your way would just cause more money to be spent wastefully busing people. It's ok, you're part of the problem and eventually you'll die out so one less problem to worry about.

Sorry, but the USA isn't quite as socialist as you want it. Your kind will die out before mine.
 
The problem with that is that it doesn't solve the problem of keeping people OFF welfare. To do that you need a retraining program and possibly daycare during that time.

Why not, since once you get your check, you are then off welfare for life?

The current "safety net" programs don't do that either and cost considerably more. Many now require the presense of a dependent to even "qualify" for them which is simply insane. Try to get gov't "help" to buy some basic carpentry/landscaping tools, a used truck and some pocket cash to buy gas and find work - they will simply laugh at you.
 
You can sit there and play semantics by saying you approve of "hand ups" instead of hand outs, but it's all the same thing. It's just the same socialist drivel and rhetoric.

I'm fine with a very basic social safety net that takes people who have been hard-working all their lives, who happen to fall off the horse, and helps them climb back on the horse again. Limited, short-term help isn't a problem. It's when it becomes long-term, extensive help that doesn't require the individual to solve their own problems or take control of their own destinies that I dislike. In this case, it's not "help struggling parents with daycare costs in the short term until they can do it on their own", it's "pay for daycare forever and ever and ever".

No way in hell.
 
A society is only as great as it treats its poor.

You're advocating the poor be treated like needy children instead of autonomous adults. That is not an appropriate way to treat the poor. The poor are adults who wear big boy and big girl underwear. Being poor doesn't make them less in charge of their own affairs.

Your way makes them increasingly dependent and expectant over time on the external providing things to them and solving their problems for them.

My way treats adults like adults, subjecting them fairly and equally to the same set of laws. It does not insult their adult free will or decision-making by training them to expect to be nursed and soothed when they're having a bad day.
 
You're advocating the poor be treated like needy children instead of autonomous adults. They have a need? Then society should rescue them and provide for it.

Your way makes them increasingly dependent and expectant over time on the external providing things to them and solving their problems for them.

My way treats adults like adults, subjecting them fairly and equally to the same set of laws. It does not insult their adult free will or decision-making by training them to expect to be nursed and soothed when they're having a bad day.

How is helping them by having welfare limits, retraining, and daycare during that time treating people like needy children?

The current welfare does that and that's NOT what I'm advocating. You're way throws them to the wolves by removing all safety nets.
 
If society wants people to have children and wants those kids to be properly cared for, then subsidies for daycare should be provided. I think the anti-abortion folks can lead the way by writing out the first checks.
 
If society wants people to have children and wants those kids to be properly cared for, then subsidies for daycare should be provided. I think the anti-abortion folks can lead the way by writing out the first checks.

Except that's far too simplistic. Society wants people who can afford to have children and can afford to properly care for their children to have children. Those who cannot need not apply.
 
Except that's far too simplistic. Society wants people who can afford to have children and can afford to properly care for their children to have children. Those who cannot need not apply.
Well, I live in the real world where everyone has children, those who can least afford it having the most. Now, if you favor mandatory abortions and birth control for the stupid, poor and genetically unfit...you may be living in the wrong decade, and the wrong country. Adolf went thataway.
 
How is helping them by having welfare limits, retraining, and daycare during that time treating people like needy children?

Because it's provided to them by the external on the basis of their need. Only children are supposed to be entitled to their needs being met for them, and with that of course comes a lack of independence (they're not allowed to make their own decisions). Once you're old enough to make your own decisions, you're considered old enough to go out and meet your own needs. They go hand in hand.

You want the poor to be regarded as society's children just because they have needs. That is not a decent way to treat the poor, even though you allege it's with the best of intentions.

The current welfare does that and that's NOT what I'm advocating. You're way throws them to the wolves by removing all safety nets.

By this rationale, all 18-year olds are "thrown to the wolves" because we've decided 18 is the age of /adulthood/majority.
 
Last edited:
Well, I live in the real world where everyone has children, those who can least afford it having the most. Now, if you favor mandatory abortions and birth control for the stupid, poor and genetically unfit...you may be living in the wrong decade, and the wrong country. Adolf went thataway.

If you've demonstrated you're too incompetent to care for yourself such that you need society to come to the rescue, then you've more-than-demonstrated you are too incompetent to become a child's guardian. And given we have charged the state with responsibility to rescue children from unfit environments, it makes rational sense to condition welfare with birth control regimens, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Adolf Hitler.
 
Well, I live in the real world where everyone has children, those who can least afford it having the most. Now, if you favor mandatory abortions and birth control for the stupid, poor and genetically unfit...you may be living in the wrong decade, and the wrong country. Adolf went thataway.

We also live in a world where people murder each other, that doesn't mean we should make it an acceptable thing. We hold people accountable for their actions. Those who make bad decisions, and there are some decisions that are both life-changing and life-ruining, ought to be responsible for the consequences of those choices.
 
Except that's far too simplistic. Society wants people who can afford to have children and can afford to properly care for their children to have children. Those who cannot need not apply.

So you are advocating the successful having children and those who are unable to care for themselves avoid having others they can't care for either? I'm afraid in today's world that will make you some kind of "ist". Not sure which one, but your common sense will likely make you a target of the willfully weak.
 
If society wants people to have children and wants those kids to be properly cared for, then subsidies for daycare should be provided. I think the anti-abortion folks can lead the way by writing out the first checks.

Society doesn't want YOU (by YOU I mean anyone who thinks it is someone else's responsibility to raise their children for them) to have kids, they want productive people to have kids. Government wants you to have kids. Big difference. Government benefits from welfare babies because they do it with other people's money. Society doesn't need the burden, or for that matter the offspring of the obviously needy.
 
Back
Top Bottom