I know everyone in my companies salary and beleive me, what people make and what they should make has so little to do with time, effort and dedication to the job that I'm more than happy to let some stressed out overburdened parents get over a little. BTW, you should look into Eugenics, seems to go along with your view of the world......
Great. I'm glad you are more than happy picking up the slack but I'm sure as hell not.
When I first moved here, my household income was $45,000 a year. The three of us lived in a 2 bedroom apartment (900 sq ft) for $980 a month with no car payments, no debt, and $150 a month for child care. We lost $50 a month until I got my first salary review, and we didn't buy anything unless we absolutely had to. There is no way a family of three could live anywhere around here for 50 miles for $22K, unless it was in a cardboard box, or they have three families in their house (which is illegal due to zoning)
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
well thought out answer, thanks, that is helpful. While I am at it, should I move to a different country, you know, "love it or leave it?" If it was still a problem, I would have left already. Obviously, I moved here to further my career, which I have done quite successfully. The point is, no family can survive in a medium sized city like DC on $22K.
I could care less about "sporting facilities" in my area the city builds lavish "athletic complex fields" that I will never ever ever use or benefit from in any way but they tax me property tax on around $35,000 over that which my house is actually worth.
This latte tax is just as sick.
When I buy coffee it is to buy coffee not to fund daycare.
When I pay property tax it is to have roads, fire fighters and police not to have expensive "athletic complex fields"
I really get sick and tired of liberal socialists.
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
I don't normally pay very much attention to who writes what, but I did a serious double take when I saw that it was you who wrote this to someone else.
well thought out answer, thanks, that is helpful. While I am at it, should I move to a different country, you know, "love it or leave it?" If it was still a problem, I would have left already. Obviously, I moved here to further my career, which I have done quite successfully. The point is, no family can survive in a medium sized city like DC on $22K.
No one is entitled to live in any particular city because they feel like it. Joe shouldn't get government handouts to live in Beverly Hills to suppliment an imaginary income of 30k a year. If he can't get a good enough job to live in a particular city comfortably, he doesn't belong in that city. He can move to lompoc or barstow or needles or somewhere else where his 30k a year (probably 25 - 29 in those cities) will go much much further.
So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have. I always will as well.
The scary thing is that you actually believe this nonsense.
I don't remember the 1st trumptman division being sent over to fight in the War on Terror. And when was the last time you put out a house fire, arrested a rapist or funded a breakthrough in modern medicine? Do you not find it tiresome laying tarmac in order to drive anywhere?
I know you like to think you are solely responsible for your success (and every else to blame for their problems) but there *is* such a thing as society that you *are* a member of whether you like it or not. And the government, when it is living up to its billing as "by and for the people" is the agent of that society and does many, many good things. I know it sometimes does things you disagree with but that is mainly because there are many people who disagree with your views and it's their government too.
No one is entitled to live in any particular city because they feel like it. Joe shouldn't get government handouts to live in Beverly Hills to suppliment an imaginary income of 30k a year. If he can't get a good enough job to live in a particular city comfortably, he doesn't belong in that city. He can move to lompoc or barstow or needles or somewhere else where his 30k a year (probably 25 - 29 in those cities) will go much much further.
Nice, because that has nothing to do with this thread, or why I posted that information in the first place. This thread isn't called "affordable cities in America". It is about taxes leading to incentives for a society as a whole (not just the affluent) to reproduce itself.
The fact that someone can design a good day care does not mean the government should provide day care for all. Likewise think about other public endeavors and how closely government day care is likely to resemble your ideal day care scenario.
I was not talking about some 'ideal...scenario', I was talking about actual daycares I have seen, including the one where we previously sent our children.
Quote:
Do public schools serve nutritious meals? No they serve fast food crap. Is public housing safe? Generally no they are gang infested, drug warrens that resemble hell on earth. This is coming from a man who use to walk his students home to them.
The public schools I have seen, attended, and sent to my children to in Canada do not serve lunch. Children bring their own. I can't really comment about the quality of school food in the States. There is good food in daycares, in the ones I have seen. As for public housing, I have seen some very good public housing, I have seen some very poor public housing. I have even lived in excellent public housing (although this may be cheating a bit, as this was military housing - very nice - in Ottawa in the 70s). I have also seen some excellent government supported co-op housing.
As for your general theory that 'public endeavors' are poor, this is an inaccurate and insulting theory. Lots of government workers do excellent jobs and they and their organizations produce excellent results. An interesting example was provided just yesterday in a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that Canada?s government-run public health care system was twice as efficient ? in terms of minimizing costs spent on administration vs. costs actually spent on care ? than the privately-run U.S. system. An astounding 31 per cent of health-care expenditures in the United States are spent on administration: this is known as private-sector waste. Dedicated government workers win out over corporate fat-cats. It is time for you to revise some of your uninformed prejudices Trumpetman.
Quote:
As for the criticism of parents who send their children to day care, over staying home with them. It isn't conservative crap it is reality. Children need time and attention. If you don't care to give them it, then don't have them.
?However if no one cares to stay home and raise them, then why have them? So they can complete the Yuppie Suburbia dream package? That is pure bullshit. Kids need a commitment, and if you aren't willing to make it, don't have them just because you have a "need" for a child while also having a "need" to leave them and have a career. .
Once again, this is conservative crap. Who said that children were not getting care and attention from a nanny or from daycare? It is not just a question of ratios, but also a question of the quality of the program. The daycare my older children attended provided excellent programs, including early-reading programs, outings organized with special teaching programs by staff from museums etc. and , visits to the daycare by musicians, authors and others, and crafts that few homecare environments can equal. And kids need other things too, including socialization with other children.
As to why people have children if they are not going to stay home with them all the time, this is a silly comment. Why indeed do people have children at all? I guess, that we had children - if that question is really possible for anyone to answer at a purely rational level - because we like children, because we thought that we could provide them with a loving and fulfilling environment and upbringing provided by both us and other caregivers (including grandparents), and because we thought that we could contribute to society by raising happy, well-adjusted, productive adults. So far, I think that my wife and I have succeeded.
Nice, because that has nothing to do with this thread, or why I posted that information in the first place. This thread isn't called "affordable cities in America". It is about taxes leading to incentives for a society as a whole (not just the affluent) to reproduce itself.
No, this thread is about subsidizing poor single mothers so they can live and raise their kids in seattle instead of being fiscally responsible and living within their means there or elsewhere.
I started the damn thread so don't go around telling me what it's about.
No, this thread is about subsidizing poor single mothers so they can live and raise their kids in seattle instead of being fiscally responsible and living within their means there or elsewhere.
I started the damn thread so don't go around telling me what it's about.
It is funny, but reading your original post, and the link you provided, I don't see any mention of poor single women. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
1) In my area, a 1000 square foot apartment costs over $1,000 a month, much less a house. A normal townhouse typically starts at around $180,000. That is affordable, for a family earning in the neighborhood of $65,000 a year. Granted, there are slums you could live in for less (if you don't value safety, or care that your kids are going to terrible schools)
2) Who would work a second job if they were losing money because of it? There is a large area in between the income of one job, and the reduced income of the second job due to child care expenses. If you would lose money by having the second job, obviously you wouldn't do it (I doubt anyone likes to PAY to work
3) Your plan could quickly be disrupted by any number of events. For instance, the real estate market could crash. There is every indication housing is overpriced in our country, and is in fact a bubble. In addition, given that you live in California, there are a number of natural disasters that could effect you financially. I assume you would be opposed to my east-coast tax dollars baling you out of a Californian earthquake when you willingly live in an unstable geological environment?
4) Your employer IS THE GOVERNMENT (public school teacher, right?). That is irony for you..
1) James, on this point I am speaking a generality, so please don't apply it personally. "Slums" often have a crime rate only slightly higher than other parts of town. Most people don't even investigate them for only one reason. Almost all the folks living in them are black or hispanic. My condo that I lived in for three years and rented out for another 4 was at Pine Ave. and PCH in Long Beach. You could walk from my condo to Long Beach Poly which was the high school Snoop Dog attended. Needless to say it would be considered a "slum." However I was never a crime victim there. It got me into my first home for which I am thankful.
However that high school also had some fantastic programs for the children that were applying themselves. Likewise many of the schools in the areas have low test scores not because the curriculum or teachers are so terrible. (Many are clean, pleasant places.) They have them because they children might be learning English or come from profoundly broken homes.
2) I never said they were losing money because of it. I simply said they weren't bringing home from it the amount of money they think they are gaining. The second income earner often takes a job with fewer demands and a more flexible schedule. This often means lower pay as well. If you take a $10 an hour job. You might only be bring home $3-4 an hour after all the additional expenses. For that small an amount of money, I think it better for them to consider forgoing the second income and work on just getting by on one. I'm not hypocritical about this because my wife and I have done it. We have forgone the $200,000 she would have made in the last 5 years. (Most second income earners nor even first are college educated and would even make as much as my wife did.) Likewise we still live better now on my one income than we did earning two. When she was working we were making $80,000 a year and now we will just be getting up to $58,000 this year.
3) The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Nick, pay for day care because California could slide into the ocean via an earthquake and you could die. Nice reasoning. Trying hard at this game of life gets you a chance. That is all. Nothing is guaranteed. Promising that the government can guarantee it is nothing but a big lie. As for the housing bubble, I'll have you do some homework. (Teachers can give that you know) Look up something called the affordability index with regard to housing. It relates people's incomes with their mortgage payments and you will see it has remained fairly steady while ticking up just a bit in the last couple months here.
As for housing prices dropping, on all my properties they could drop 20%+ and I would still owe less than they would be worth. Remember what I said about the middle class expectation? It makes itself felt in the house buying experience. A few loose roof shingles, a little old carpet, some big time weeds and trash in the yard, dirt, dust and nasty paint colors inside. I have watched them drop the houses price usually a minimum of $25,000. Since I can take care of all those things in a week, I make that the instant I buy the house. I mean you have to be able to tell the difference between cosmetic and serious building damage, but there is a lot of money to be made just for spackle, paint, and some yard work. I call them cosmetic fixers and both my three bedroom homes have been purchased that way. The most expensive one was $143,000 and is 1,700 sq ft.
4) Yep I work as a teacher. It isn't ironic it is working for the provider that has literally 100% of the dollars in education. Our k-12 system isn't like our colleges. Note that everyone bashes on our k-12 system while our public/private college system is consider the best or among the best in the world.
To get to the point, I have no doubt that in a voucher system I would earn even more than I do now. I don't know what I would earn in a purely private system because I haven't ever seen one. I haven't argued that government has NO function. (Which you will see me slapping someone else around with in the next post or two (Hey the government builds roads so you should provide univesal day care...please....)) Rather most people will agree that the government should provide services where there is a large return on the government dollar. Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not.
The scary thing is that you actually believe this nonsense.
I don't remember the 1st trumptman division being sent over to fight in the War on Terror. And when was the last time you put out a house fire, arrested a rapist or funded a breakthrough in modern medicine? Do you not find it tiresome laying tarmac in order to drive anywhere?
I know you like to think you are solely responsible for your success (and every else to blame for their problems) but there *is* such a thing as society that you *are* a member of whether you like it or not. And the government, when it is living up to its billing as "by and for the people" is the agent of that society and does many, many good things. I know it sometimes does things you disagree with but that is mainly because there are many people who disagree with your views and it's their government too.
I don't remember day care being one of the primary roles of government either.
As a society we have decided there are functions in our common interest by which we benefit by all paying for them. Drinking water, roads, electricity, etc. None of those have a damn thing to do with day care.
As for my "member of society" status. There is a difference betweeen taxation for the common good and taxation to redistribute income. We are not talking about building a road or bridge so everyone can drive to work. We are talking about redistributing income by taking money from some working folks and giving it to other working folks so they can work but pay nothing for day care while doing so.
Gee I drink water so.....free cars for all.... makes about as much sense.
We are talking about redistributing income by taking money from some working folks and giving it to other working folks so they can work but pay nothing for day care while doing so.
Oh econo-guru, please debunk one thing for me, brought up by ol' Anders, above, and ignored by the conservatives for some odd reason.
Cost of daycare is smaller then the tax generated by more working mothers. More people economically active, smaller wealfare bill in total, larger economy, lower individual tax burden.
Care to comment?
(And once you've done that, be nice to see you in that hilarious 'Euro-taxes = dead French folks, all the faul of the eco-lobby thread. Hehehe.)
I was not talking about some 'ideal...scenario', I was talking about actual daycares I have seen, including the one where we previously sent our children.
The public schools I have seen, attended, and sent to my children to in Canada do not serve lunch. Children bring their own. I can't really comment about the quality of school food in the States. There is good food in daycares, in the ones I have seen. As for public housing, I have seen some very good public housing, I have seen some very poor public housing. I have even lived in excellent public housing (although this may be cheating a bit, as this was military housing - very nice - in Ottawa in the 70s). I have also seen some excellent government supported co-op housing.
As for your general theory that 'public endeavors' are poor, this is an inaccurate and insulting theory. Lots of government workers do excellent jobs and they and their organizations produce excellent results. An interesting example was provided just yesterday in a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that Canada?s government-run public health care system was twice as efficient ? in terms of minimizing costs spent on administration vs. costs actually spent on care ? than the privately-run U.S. system. An astounding 31 per cent of health-care expenditures in the United States are spent on administration: this is known as private-sector waste. Dedicated government workers win out over corporate fat-cats. It is time for you to revise some of your uninformed prejudices Trumpetman.
Once again, this is conservative crap. Who said that children were not getting care and attention from a nanny or from daycare? It is not just a question of ratios, but also a question of the quality of the program. The daycare my older children attended provided excellent programs, including early-reading programs, outings organized with special teaching programs by staff from museums etc. and , visits to the daycare by musicians, authors and others, and crafts that few homecare environments can equal. And kids need other things too, including socialization with other children.
As to why people have children if they are not going to stay home with them all the time, this is a silly comment. Why indeed do people have children at all? I guess, that we had children - if that question is really possible for anyone to answer at a purely rational level - because we like children, because we thought that we could provide them with a loving and fulfilling environment and upbringing provided by both us and other caregivers (including grandparents), and because we thought that we could contribute to society by raising happy, well-adjusted, productive adults. So far, I think that my wife and I have succeeded.
First of all let me just say I love how you can call me uninformed from Canada when I lived and worked in these poor neighborhoods myself. I walked the children to the housing projects etc. Keep reading your "informative" magazine articies. I deal with the reality of the situation daily in my job.
You mention that the public schools where you live do not serve lunch and that children bring their own. What a heartless country! To expect a parent to make a sandwich or prepare food for their own child! How could you possibly expect that... and you still sitting there...with electricity... terrible. I'm sure Canada likely has a free and reduced price lunch program. Perhaps you don't see or know about it because your neighborhood is too affluent.
As for your public housing experience. I don't think the average person has access to military housing. I am talking about public housing in the most blighted parts of cities. Call me when you have PERSONALLY investigated them.
As for my theory that public endeavors are crap. I didn't say that. I said most of the ones that attempt to redistribute income are crap. Giving someone something for nothing creates a bad mindset. Having everyone pay for a piece of infrastructure they all use does not create that mindset. As for whether it is insulting or not, I don't really care.
I just love how not wanting to pay for day care is an attack on government as a whole. You really crack me up.
Likewise I love how your children have to go to day care to actually socialize with other children. It says something very sad to me that all our children are locked away in little rooms so their parent can run off and afford McMansions and ever larger SUV's bought with ever more credit. Here, here... we are all for that.
You dismiss the ratios because you cannot get around them. 1 to 1, or even 2 to 1 feels nothing like 15 to 1. If you think your child is getting true interaction with an adult, you are wrong. The activities are nice I suppose, but what counts is the interaction.
Did you know that you can take a child, surround them with well intentioned sources of speaking and they will never learn to speak? You could choose the most child friendly, intelligently designed examples of spoken word and they will NEVER learn to speak. It is done through adult interaction. They have dont studies on this involving children of parents who both happen to be deaf. Adult interaction is the missing link. It is why we blow thousands of dollars in both good and bad neighborhoods on schools and enrichment programs and see such poor results. It is because the child needs an adult, not just from 6:30 until 9 at night, but someone accessible throughout there day without the entanglement of 14 other children competing for their attention.
If you want to start a thread on socialized medicine you are welcome to do so, but I won't distract this thread with it.
You can keep discussing with your nanny from up on high how you aren't ignornant on these matters. I will continue to work with these children daily as I have for over a decade and deal with my "ignorant" first hand views.
Some of you just want women to stay home producing and taking care of children (and cook for you, clean, iron etc).
There is no guarantee that the kids grow up any better (or better persons) if you force the mother (I think you should foce BOTH parents to stay as long as the other parent does to take care of the small kids. So if the mum stays home 4 months, the dad should stay home the same amount of time after her.) to stay with him home.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
*snip* about upbringing
Good on you Nick.
Originally posted by trick fall
I know everyone in my companies salary and beleive me, what people make and what they should make has so little to do with time, effort and dedication to the job that I'm more than happy to let some stressed out overburdened parents get over a little. BTW, you should look into Eugenics, seems to go along with your view of the world......
Great. I'm glad you are more than happy picking up the slack but I'm sure as hell not.
Originally posted by james808
When I first moved here, my household income was $45,000 a year. The three of us lived in a 2 bedroom apartment (900 sq ft) for $980 a month with no car payments, no debt, and $150 a month for child care. We lost $50 a month until I got my first salary review, and we didn't buy anything unless we absolutely had to. There is no way a family of three could live anywhere around here for 50 miles for $22K, unless it was in a cardboard box, or they have three families in their house (which is illegal due to zoning)
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
Originally posted by BR
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
well thought out answer, thanks, that is helpful. While I am at it, should I move to a different country, you know, "love it or leave it?" If it was still a problem, I would have left already. Obviously, I moved here to further my career, which I have done quite successfully. The point is, no family can survive in a medium sized city like DC on $22K.
I could care less about "sporting facilities" in my area the city builds lavish "athletic complex fields" that I will never ever ever use or benefit from in any way but they tax me property tax on around $35,000 over that which my house is actually worth.
This latte tax is just as sick.
When I buy coffee it is to buy coffee not to fund daycare.
When I pay property tax it is to have roads, fire fighters and police not to have expensive "athletic complex fields"
I really get sick and tired of liberal socialists.
Fellows
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I really get sick and tired of liberal socialists.
That's why I support Stephen Colbert's suggestion to rename the Democratic Party to "The Dragon-Slayers."
Are you against the slaying of dragons?
HA! I didn't think so.
Originally posted by BR
Well then, that's obviously not the neighborhood (or city) to live in. Move elsewhere. It's a free country.
I don't normally pay very much attention to who writes what, but I did a serious double take when I saw that it was you who wrote this to someone else.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
That's why I support Stephen Colbert's suggestion to rename the Democratic Party to "The Dragon-Slayers."
Are you against the slaying of dragons?
HA! I didn't think so.
Well a couple of years ago you wouldn´t think americans would have been against democracy either...
Originally posted by james808
well thought out answer, thanks, that is helpful. While I am at it, should I move to a different country, you know, "love it or leave it?" If it was still a problem, I would have left already. Obviously, I moved here to further my career, which I have done quite successfully. The point is, no family can survive in a medium sized city like DC on $22K.
No one is entitled to live in any particular city because they feel like it. Joe shouldn't get government handouts to live in Beverly Hills to suppliment an imaginary income of 30k a year. If he can't get a good enough job to live in a particular city comfortably, he doesn't belong in that city. He can move to lompoc or barstow or needles or somewhere else where his 30k a year (probably 25 - 29 in those cities) will go much much further.
Originally posted by trumptman
So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have. I always will as well.
The scary thing is that you actually believe this nonsense.
I don't remember the 1st trumptman division being sent over to fight in the War on Terror. And when was the last time you put out a house fire, arrested a rapist or funded a breakthrough in modern medicine? Do you not find it tiresome laying tarmac in order to drive anywhere?
I know you like to think you are solely responsible for your success (and every else to blame for their problems) but there *is* such a thing as society that you *are* a member of whether you like it or not. And the government, when it is living up to its billing as "by and for the people" is the agent of that society and does many, many good things. I know it sometimes does things you disagree with but that is mainly because there are many people who disagree with your views and it's their government too.
Originally posted by BR
No one is entitled to live in any particular city because they feel like it. Joe shouldn't get government handouts to live in Beverly Hills to suppliment an imaginary income of 30k a year. If he can't get a good enough job to live in a particular city comfortably, he doesn't belong in that city. He can move to lompoc or barstow or needles or somewhere else where his 30k a year (probably 25 - 29 in those cities) will go much much further.
Nice, because that has nothing to do with this thread, or why I posted that information in the first place. This thread isn't called "affordable cities in America". It is about taxes leading to incentives for a society as a whole (not just the affluent) to reproduce itself.
Originally posted by trumptman
The fact that someone can design a good day care does not mean the government should provide day care for all. Likewise think about other public endeavors and how closely government day care is likely to resemble your ideal day care scenario.
I was not talking about some 'ideal...scenario', I was talking about actual daycares I have seen, including the one where we previously sent our children.
Do public schools serve nutritious meals? No they serve fast food crap. Is public housing safe? Generally no they are gang infested, drug warrens that resemble hell on earth. This is coming from a man who use to walk his students home to them.
The public schools I have seen, attended, and sent to my children to in Canada do not serve lunch. Children bring their own. I can't really comment about the quality of school food in the States. There is good food in daycares, in the ones I have seen. As for public housing, I have seen some very good public housing, I have seen some very poor public housing. I have even lived in excellent public housing (although this may be cheating a bit, as this was military housing - very nice - in Ottawa in the 70s). I have also seen some excellent government supported co-op housing.
As for your general theory that 'public endeavors' are poor, this is an inaccurate and insulting theory. Lots of government workers do excellent jobs and they and their organizations produce excellent results. An interesting example was provided just yesterday in a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that Canada?s government-run public health care system was twice as efficient ? in terms of minimizing costs spent on administration vs. costs actually spent on care ? than the privately-run U.S. system. An astounding 31 per cent of health-care expenditures in the United States are spent on administration: this is known as private-sector waste. Dedicated government workers win out over corporate fat-cats. It is time for you to revise some of your uninformed prejudices Trumpetman.
As for the criticism of parents who send their children to day care, over staying home with them. It isn't conservative crap it is reality. Children need time and attention. If you don't care to give them it, then don't have them.
?However if no one cares to stay home and raise them, then why have them? So they can complete the Yuppie Suburbia dream package? That is pure bullshit. Kids need a commitment, and if you aren't willing to make it, don't have them just because you have a "need" for a child while also having a "need" to leave them and have a career. .
Once again, this is conservative crap. Who said that children were not getting care and attention from a nanny or from daycare? It is not just a question of ratios, but also a question of the quality of the program. The daycare my older children attended provided excellent programs, including early-reading programs, outings organized with special teaching programs by staff from museums etc. and , visits to the daycare by musicians, authors and others, and crafts that few homecare environments can equal. And kids need other things too, including socialization with other children.
As to why people have children if they are not going to stay home with them all the time, this is a silly comment. Why indeed do people have children at all? I guess, that we had children - if that question is really possible for anyone to answer at a purely rational level - because we like children, because we thought that we could provide them with a loving and fulfilling environment and upbringing provided by both us and other caregivers (including grandparents), and because we thought that we could contribute to society by raising happy, well-adjusted, productive adults. So far, I think that my wife and I have succeeded.
Originally posted by james808
Nice, because that has nothing to do with this thread, or why I posted that information in the first place. This thread isn't called "affordable cities in America". It is about taxes leading to incentives for a society as a whole (not just the affluent) to reproduce itself.
No, this thread is about subsidizing poor single mothers so they can live and raise their kids in seattle instead of being fiscally responsible and living within their means there or elsewhere.
I started the damn thread so don't go around telling me what it's about.
Originally posted by BR
No, this thread is about subsidizing poor single mothers so they can live and raise their kids in seattle instead of being fiscally responsible and living within their means there or elsewhere.
I started the damn thread so don't go around telling me what it's about.
It is funny, but reading your original post, and the link you provided, I don't see any mention of poor single women. Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
Originally posted by james808
1) In my area, a 1000 square foot apartment costs over $1,000 a month, much less a house. A normal townhouse typically starts at around $180,000. That is affordable, for a family earning in the neighborhood of $65,000 a year. Granted, there are slums you could live in for less (if you don't value safety, or care that your kids are going to terrible schools)
2) Who would work a second job if they were losing money because of it? There is a large area in between the income of one job, and the reduced income of the second job due to child care expenses. If you would lose money by having the second job, obviously you wouldn't do it (I doubt anyone likes to PAY to work
3) Your plan could quickly be disrupted by any number of events. For instance, the real estate market could crash. There is every indication housing is overpriced in our country, and is in fact a bubble. In addition, given that you live in California, there are a number of natural disasters that could effect you financially. I assume you would be opposed to my east-coast tax dollars baling you out of a Californian earthquake when you willingly live in an unstable geological environment?
4) Your employer IS THE GOVERNMENT (public school teacher, right?). That is irony for you..
1) James, on this point I am speaking a generality, so please don't apply it personally. "Slums" often have a crime rate only slightly higher than other parts of town. Most people don't even investigate them for only one reason. Almost all the folks living in them are black or hispanic. My condo that I lived in for three years and rented out for another 4 was at Pine Ave. and PCH in Long Beach. You could walk from my condo to Long Beach Poly which was the high school Snoop Dog attended. Needless to say it would be considered a "slum." However I was never a crime victim there. It got me into my first home for which I am thankful.
However that high school also had some fantastic programs for the children that were applying themselves. Likewise many of the schools in the areas have low test scores not because the curriculum or teachers are so terrible. (Many are clean, pleasant places.) They have them because they children might be learning English or come from profoundly broken homes.
2) I never said they were losing money because of it. I simply said they weren't bringing home from it the amount of money they think they are gaining. The second income earner often takes a job with fewer demands and a more flexible schedule. This often means lower pay as well. If you take a $10 an hour job. You might only be bring home $3-4 an hour after all the additional expenses. For that small an amount of money, I think it better for them to consider forgoing the second income and work on just getting by on one. I'm not hypocritical about this because my wife and I have done it. We have forgone the $200,000 she would have made in the last 5 years. (Most second income earners nor even first are college educated and would even make as much as my wife did.) Likewise we still live better now on my one income than we did earning two. When she was working we were making $80,000 a year and now we will just be getting up to $58,000 this year.
3) The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Nick, pay for day care because California could slide into the ocean via an earthquake and you could die. Nice reasoning. Trying hard at this game of life gets you a chance. That is all. Nothing is guaranteed. Promising that the government can guarantee it is nothing but a big lie. As for the housing bubble, I'll have you do some homework. (Teachers can give that you know) Look up something called the affordability index with regard to housing. It relates people's incomes with their mortgage payments and you will see it has remained fairly steady while ticking up just a bit in the last couple months here.
As for housing prices dropping, on all my properties they could drop 20%+ and I would still owe less than they would be worth. Remember what I said about the middle class expectation? It makes itself felt in the house buying experience. A few loose roof shingles, a little old carpet, some big time weeds and trash in the yard, dirt, dust and nasty paint colors inside. I have watched them drop the houses price usually a minimum of $25,000. Since I can take care of all those things in a week, I make that the instant I buy the house. I mean you have to be able to tell the difference between cosmetic and serious building damage, but there is a lot of money to be made just for spackle, paint, and some yard work. I call them cosmetic fixers and both my three bedroom homes have been purchased that way. The most expensive one was $143,000 and is 1,700 sq ft.
4) Yep I work as a teacher. It isn't ironic it is working for the provider that has literally 100% of the dollars in education. Our k-12 system isn't like our colleges. Note that everyone bashes on our k-12 system while our public/private college system is consider the best or among the best in the world.
To get to the point, I have no doubt that in a voucher system I would earn even more than I do now. I don't know what I would earn in a purely private system because I haven't ever seen one. I haven't argued that government has NO function. (Which you will see me slapping someone else around with in the next post or two (Hey the government builds roads so you should provide univesal day care...please....)) Rather most people will agree that the government should provide services where there is a large return on the government dollar. Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not.
Nick
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
The scary thing is that you actually believe this nonsense.
I don't remember the 1st trumptman division being sent over to fight in the War on Terror. And when was the last time you put out a house fire, arrested a rapist or funded a breakthrough in modern medicine? Do you not find it tiresome laying tarmac in order to drive anywhere?
I know you like to think you are solely responsible for your success (and every else to blame for their problems) but there *is* such a thing as society that you *are* a member of whether you like it or not. And the government, when it is living up to its billing as "by and for the people" is the agent of that society and does many, many good things. I know it sometimes does things you disagree with but that is mainly because there are many people who disagree with your views and it's their government too.
I don't remember day care being one of the primary roles of government either.
As a society we have decided there are functions in our common interest by which we benefit by all paying for them. Drinking water, roads, electricity, etc. None of those have a damn thing to do with day care.
As for my "member of society" status. There is a difference betweeen taxation for the common good and taxation to redistribute income. We are not talking about building a road or bridge so everyone can drive to work. We are talking about redistributing income by taking money from some working folks and giving it to other working folks so they can work but pay nothing for day care while doing so.
Gee I drink water so.....free cars for all.... makes about as much sense.
Nick
Originally posted by BR
No one is entitled to live in any particular city because they feel like it.
Right. Add that to the whole country and kick the poor people out of the States, e.g. to Mexico. And voilÃ*, you don't need the coffee tax.
Originally posted by trumptman
We are talking about redistributing income by taking money from some working folks and giving it to other working folks so they can work but pay nothing for day care while doing so.
Oh econo-guru, please debunk one thing for me, brought up by ol' Anders, above, and ignored by the conservatives for some odd reason.
Cost of daycare is smaller then the tax generated by more working mothers. More people economically active, smaller wealfare bill in total, larger economy, lower individual tax burden.
Care to comment?
(And once you've done that, be nice to see you in that hilarious 'Euro-taxes = dead French folks, all the faul of the eco-lobby thread. Hehehe.)
Originally posted by Chinney
I was not talking about some 'ideal...scenario', I was talking about actual daycares I have seen, including the one where we previously sent our children.
The public schools I have seen, attended, and sent to my children to in Canada do not serve lunch. Children bring their own. I can't really comment about the quality of school food in the States. There is good food in daycares, in the ones I have seen. As for public housing, I have seen some very good public housing, I have seen some very poor public housing. I have even lived in excellent public housing (although this may be cheating a bit, as this was military housing - very nice - in Ottawa in the 70s). I have also seen some excellent government supported co-op housing.
As for your general theory that 'public endeavors' are poor, this is an inaccurate and insulting theory. Lots of government workers do excellent jobs and they and their organizations produce excellent results. An interesting example was provided just yesterday in a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that Canada?s government-run public health care system was twice as efficient ? in terms of minimizing costs spent on administration vs. costs actually spent on care ? than the privately-run U.S. system. An astounding 31 per cent of health-care expenditures in the United States are spent on administration: this is known as private-sector waste. Dedicated government workers win out over corporate fat-cats. It is time for you to revise some of your uninformed prejudices Trumpetman.
Once again, this is conservative crap. Who said that children were not getting care and attention from a nanny or from daycare? It is not just a question of ratios, but also a question of the quality of the program. The daycare my older children attended provided excellent programs, including early-reading programs, outings organized with special teaching programs by staff from museums etc. and , visits to the daycare by musicians, authors and others, and crafts that few homecare environments can equal. And kids need other things too, including socialization with other children.
As to why people have children if they are not going to stay home with them all the time, this is a silly comment. Why indeed do people have children at all? I guess, that we had children - if that question is really possible for anyone to answer at a purely rational level - because we like children, because we thought that we could provide them with a loving and fulfilling environment and upbringing provided by both us and other caregivers (including grandparents), and because we thought that we could contribute to society by raising happy, well-adjusted, productive adults. So far, I think that my wife and I have succeeded.
First of all let me just say I love how you can call me uninformed from Canada when I lived and worked in these poor neighborhoods myself. I walked the children to the housing projects etc. Keep reading your "informative" magazine articies. I deal with the reality of the situation daily in my job.
You mention that the public schools where you live do not serve lunch and that children bring their own. What a heartless country! To expect a parent to make a sandwich or prepare food for their own child! How could you possibly expect that... and you still sitting there...with electricity... terrible. I'm sure Canada likely has a free and reduced price lunch program. Perhaps you don't see or know about it because your neighborhood is too affluent.
As for your public housing experience. I don't think the average person has access to military housing. I am talking about public housing in the most blighted parts of cities. Call me when you have PERSONALLY investigated them.
As for my theory that public endeavors are crap. I didn't say that. I said most of the ones that attempt to redistribute income are crap. Giving someone something for nothing creates a bad mindset. Having everyone pay for a piece of infrastructure they all use does not create that mindset. As for whether it is insulting or not, I don't really care.
I just love how not wanting to pay for day care is an attack on government as a whole. You really crack me up.
Likewise I love how your children have to go to day care to actually socialize with other children. It says something very sad to me that all our children are locked away in little rooms so their parent can run off and afford McMansions and ever larger SUV's bought with ever more credit. Here, here... we are all for that.
You dismiss the ratios because you cannot get around them. 1 to 1, or even 2 to 1 feels nothing like 15 to 1. If you think your child is getting true interaction with an adult, you are wrong. The activities are nice I suppose, but what counts is the interaction.
Did you know that you can take a child, surround them with well intentioned sources of speaking and they will never learn to speak? You could choose the most child friendly, intelligently designed examples of spoken word and they will NEVER learn to speak. It is done through adult interaction. They have dont studies on this involving children of parents who both happen to be deaf. Adult interaction is the missing link. It is why we blow thousands of dollars in both good and bad neighborhoods on schools and enrichment programs and see such poor results. It is because the child needs an adult, not just from 6:30 until 9 at night, but someone accessible throughout there day without the entanglement of 14 other children competing for their attention.
If you want to start a thread on socialized medicine you are welcome to do so, but I won't distract this thread with it.
You can keep discussing with your nanny from up on high how you aren't ignornant on these matters. I will continue to work with these children daily as I have for over a decade and deal with my "ignorant" first hand views.
Nick
There is no guarantee that the kids grow up any better (or better persons) if you force the mother (I think you should foce BOTH parents to stay as long as the other parent does to take care of the small kids. So if the mum stays home 4 months, the dad should stay home the same amount of time after her.) to stay with him home.