Trump goes left, new childcare subsidies

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I don't think that's what he meant. If I earn money by sacrificing my time, it is mine. That ownership means I get to decide what to do with it. It doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to hoard it up in some storehouse and laugh at the poor people who need help... it means I get to decide if I want to give it to a cause or not.

If government decides the causes, that removes my ability to give to causes I want to give to... and that means a corrupt government may shut off funding for causes it doesn't believe in because it, not individuals, make those decisions. We have seen many times that it is far easier for a government, with centralized power and force of law, to become corrupt than it is for the population as a whole, with distributed power and no such force of law, to become corrupt.

I think that's what this issue really comes down to. Do you trust the government or the people to do what's best?

If you're making money with societies participation, why do they not have a right to some of that money?

That aside, I would argue that society is corrupt. More corrupt than government atleast and your first paragraph proves it. Government is capable of mandating people help society, but you mention that you should be able to help causes you find worthy. That means you're not going to approve a cause you don't. People mostly find worth in causes that help people like them. Those who need the most help, need that help because they're alone.

I'm going to illustrate this with the broken family example. Above a poster wrote that a single mom should be helped by her friends and family. Single moms don't typically have the strongest family structure though, it's very possible they don't have any family members to lean on and even if they do... why should those family members help? I've never had a very close family so I just don't get it, being related to someone doesn't automatically form a stronger bond. Then when it comes to friends, that's an even weaker bond than family. I've lent friends $30 or $50 and they thought it was a huge deal, I can't imagine something on the scale of taking care of children... that's into the many thousands of dollars.

Most people just don't give that type of value away. Maybe that's because society is corrupt... our culture is one of mindless consumerism and self interest. Those aren't the values that are conducive to enabling people to raise children properly.

The local community should provide help. I give every year to a local charity that takes care of the elderly. I have nothing in common with these people. However, they are in my community, they are elderly and just want some love during christmas. Many of these people ask for things like shoes, coats, etc. I provide several hundred dollars of gifts every year to this charity. It is run by a local church.

Here is an example of why folks like me get annoyed. I used to volunteer for Big Brothers / Big Sisters. My "little" lived in a 1 bedroom apartment with his mother and older sister. The mother always had some sort of "disability" that prevented her from working. The sister was in her early 20s I surmise and held little odd jobs, not making much money. Long story short, this chick winds up pregnant. Not married. No real income. Living at home in 1 bedroom apartment with mother and little brother. Complete and utter irresponsibility on her part.

So now as a tax payer, I need to subsidize this hoe's bad decision making with child care. Of course, I already subsidized the housing, her medical care, etc. I guess what is a little more for child care? The thing is this sort of story is common in ghettos across America. You probably have close to 95% out of wedlock birth rates in some areas.

At what point does society say enough of this sith? We can't afford to constantly be paying for other people poor decision making. Money does not grow on trees.

a reply to: Edumakated

That's the perfect example of generational poverty. The kid this girl has will end up the same way, and their kid, and their kid and so on...

I'm not saying we should just pay for each generation with nothing expected in return, but we can offer programs to help educate, motivate and break the cycle.

Or, we just force abortions on anyone who's on welfare, if that's the way you want it to go. Either way, the government has got to get involved.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't think anyone (well, maybe a few exceptions) thinks simply cutting the cord is a good idea. It may sound like it at times, because a lot of people are frustrated, but typically I have found they really want to help people up, just not support them for eternity.

And the sad part is that, no matter what is done, some would rather starve than hit a lick at a snake.

But for the vast majority, I want to see welfare transformed into a safety net, not a comfy hammock. I want it to empower people to be more than are right now, to be happy and content in the fact that, yes, they can succeed in this society without help. I want it to give people hope for a real future, not make them hope the program doesn't get cut.

But to do that, we have to start somewhere.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Byrd

I would say a better summary would be: "To what extent am I my brother's keeper?"

If my brother is in need, do I help him? I think the typical answer to that question would be "yes." If my brother needs help for his entire life, do I help him? That answer would be more of a maybe. If my brother needs me to give up my life and sleep in a gutter with him so he can feel better about himself, do I help him? I think that answer would be a negative.

If you will read my post in the spirit I wrote it, you will see it's a question of how severe will the consequences to me (and the millions like me) be to helping? If the consequences are sufferable, I would be tempted to suffer them; if the consequences are insufferable, I would not. At this point, I do not have a good enough understanding of the potential consequences to make a truly informed decision.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

I am not familiar with California's program. If I remember correctly, usn't California having some serious financial problems?

That aside for the moment, the program does sound promising as you have described it. I like the fact that we have a record of local experimentation to look at.

I wish I could comment more but I seriously have no knowledge about the program.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

If you're making money with societies participation, why do they not have a right to some of that money?

Because society did not participate for your sole benefit. Society participates for the benefit of all. By that logic, everyone would be entitled to everyone else's money. Also by that logic, society would be responsible for every loss of income as well.

I would argue that society is corrupt. More corrupt than government atleast and your first paragraph proves it.

If government becomes corrupt, all of it is corrupt; all governmental power is centralized. If society becomes corrupt, it is more likely than not that the corruption will be contained, because power is spread throughout all people. There are certainly some in society who are corrupt, but there are also many who are not.

Government is capable of mandating people help society, but you mention that you should be able to help causes you find worthy. That means you're not going to approve a cause you don't. People mostly find worth in causes that help people like them. Those who need the most help, need that help because they're alone.

Many times, people who are all alone are all alone for a good reason. I've tried to help people who were down on their luck before who wound up stealing from me. I've had good experiences as well. The lesson is that some simply cannot be helped, for a myriad of reasons. Trying to help someone like that is an exercise in futility.

But that aspect aside, I have donated money many times in the past to local organizations that are designed just for people who are alone. They literally search out people who have been overlooked, asking people, even investigating leads to try and find unfortunate souls who have nowhere to turn. They ask utility companies who has trouble paying their bills, and ask grocers who seems to have trouble buying enough food. I have seen some pretty horrendous conditions existing right under my own nose. And the government wasn't helping them.

Government serves 300 million people. One lonely person is not a concern for them. For a charity to receive money from the government, they have to help enough people to make themselves look attractive to beaurocrats. Not only that, but receiving funds from the government requires a lot of paperwork and compliance with regulations that make smaller charities, like the ones I mentioned above, unable to participate.

I've never had a very close family so I just don't get it, being related to someone doesn't automatically form a stronger bond. Then when it comes to friends, that's an even weaker bond than family. I've lent friends $30 or $50 and they thought it was a huge deal, I can't imagine something on the scale of taking care of children... that's into the many thousands of dollars.

Firstly, I am sorry to hear about your family.

The only reason the government can give large sums is because so many people pay in. That's how charities work; many go in together to help a few.

The charities I mentioned have given families thousands of dollars... or should I say, thousands of dollars worth of help. Instead of just dumping money on them and walking away thumping their chest, they gave clothes, food, household essentials, needed appliances, prepaid utilities. Sometimes they would include small amounts of money, depending on the circumstances. They researched each family to try and find out what they needed most. No government would ever do that.

Maybe there isn't such a group in your area... if not, why not start one? I bet you would find that there are a lot of generous people in the country.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

And because I am now replying on a tablet, I'm responding individually.

What do you do about the educated people who can't get jobs?

That is another subject. Government is tasked in the Constitution with "promot[ing] the general welfare." That means establishing an atmosphere that is conducive to business and prosperity among the people. It isn't doing that.

Instead, government is busily promoting a climate that is hostile to small business and which thereby does not produce enough opportunity to go around. It does this by unreasonable regulation, high taxation, apathy toward illegal immigration and those who employ illegal immigrants, and no consequences for moving outside the country.

It is fiscally impossible to maintain overall prosperity under those conditions.

My one big worry is that if you're unwilling/unable to obtain an education you're giving the government the responsibility of finding you a job. Any job they find (even cleaning roadsides) is already contracted out to someone who is trying to make a living. Is it right to take a job away from that person?

In any community, there are jobs that need doing but are not being done, usually because no one wants to pay for them. I mentioned picking up litter from the roadside. How about cleaning parks? Building new parks or expanding old ones?

What about letting them volunteer to help others? Work a soup kitchen? The idea is not to make a profit from them, but to encourage them to find a better job while giving them something productive to do.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think it is a good move campaign wise and even in a conservative sense. Anything that means well for the family, and therefor the very foundation of society, could only benefit the country. Better families equals more people paying taxes, a bigger middle class, and a better upbringing for children.

It might not be libertarian enough, maybe even a little progressive, but it is definitely conservative.

originally posted by: ketsuko
But when we come to place where you depend on the government to provide your housing, your clothing, your food ... you receive all of those under the government's conditions. You don't get to say, "Yeah, I don't really like chicken." If the government gives you chicken, it's what you get.

Same with health care. You get what they provide when and where. There are no second opinions.

And if the government doesn't care to provide or can't or won't, then you just go without because there is none.

Big enough government provides options, you only get stuck with one uncomfortable choice when government is also responding to the people who say "help should be uncomfortable", and therefore they make it uncomfortable.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I am not familiar with California's program. If I remember correctly, usn't California having some serious financial problems?

That aside for the moment, the program does sound promising as you have described it. I like the fact that we have a record of local experimentation to look at.

I'm not overly familiar with it either, I heard a snippet about it on LWT. I don't think it's contributing to California's financial issues though. The big thing they found was that it was deficit neutral because there was a much higher rate of women returning to work afterwards. People weren't losing their jobs to care for children.

Note that we already somewhat have this in the US where people take leave through a patchwork system of vacation and sick days. Those tend to cost companies more money, because they have to put work on hold and it's harder to higher replacements (which are more often permanent rather than temporary). Having an actual official type of leave that can be taken and scheduled in advance lets companies better manage their workload and ensure they have enough workers when they need them.

a reply to: Aazadan

That's why I only mentioned the financial concern once. It is not a foregone conclusion that this one program contributes to it, only a concern. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Scheduled leave is definitely preferable to unscheduled. There is a downside, though, and that is that, no matter how you cut it, the company is still paying for someone who is not working. It is an additional, mandated vacation from that viewpoint. The question is whether or not the positives outweigh this negative.

I really need to look into the program if/when I have the time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

Trumps child care initiative only applies to the rich. Most poor folks cannot file long form. He needs to do it like in Hillary's plan so the people who need it get it. Like the earned income credit, not as a deduction.

a reply to: TheTory

Donald Trump is delivering (another) major speech today, in order to tie-together the initiatives he's announced thus far.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

If government becomes corrupt, all of it is corrupt; all governmental power is centralized. If society becomes corrupt, it is more likely than not that the corruption will be contained, because power is spread throughout all people. There are certainly some in society who are corrupt, but there are also many who are not.

I'm not so sure about that. My view of humanity may just be more grim than yours though.

Firstly, I am sorry to hear about your family.

I bring it up, because it means I have some insight into the idea of broken families. I don't know if mine is or not, I have some relationship with my parents (though we don't speak much), but nothing beyond that. From what I can see though, people who are in broken family units now, grew up in broken families, and that's what they're going to pass on to their children. The idea that people should rely on friends and family is fundamentally broken because these people have little to no family to rely on. Friends often times come from the same socioeconomic background as well which means poor single mothers don't often know people with the resources to truly help them.

Charity can help, but because it's voluntary it just doesn't funnel enough money (and it's somewhat biased). Government and taxation is what's required. I like the idea of financial incentives if you take steps to get out of your situation, but that also requires some underlying support structure like child care, money for college, and so on. I also think that while that can mitigate some problems, it doesn't solve them. I'm about to hit 400 semester credit hours, I've seen a lot of people come and go in college, I'm sure you've seen the same.

Not everyone is cut out for sitting in a classroom and learning. Some can't take the structure, some don't have the discipline to study, others just have too many other obligations. I know you mentioned alternatives to education, such as working a government provided job, but I see education as the big one and unfortunately you simply can't educate everybody.

Maybe there isn't such a group in your area... if not, why not start one? I bet you would find that there are a lot of generous people in the country.

I don't know, my community isn't exactly a nice community. It has some good, honest people in it but it's a dying community filled with high crime and suffers from the largest per capita drug problem in the US. I would love to help it out, but realistically there's nothing I can do. My schedule provides me with just enough time to eat, sleep, and web browse for about 1 hour a day to unwind. The rest is school, I tend to be pretty busy.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
It needs to be income based though, we don't need families making 100k a year now get cash back for childcare costs.

I wholeheartedly agree I go even a step further. Any family making at least $60,000 a year has zero excuse to require government subsidies for economic assistance.

I have personally seen families with four kids and no credit cards making right about 45,000 a year get by with healthy food, daycare, decent vehicles with insurance, and are able to not only add funds to their retirement and child's education future, but take out of state vacations more than once a year as well.

Get rid of the damn beer and cigs and one family will have saved thousands of dollars in a year. Eliminate frozen dinners, sodas, and energy drinks on a daily basis and thats another thousand or so saved a year.

People can't #ing manage their money because of all the damn consumerist brain washing on TV, Radio, and Print media.

In any case day care assistance is a beneficial thing for society. Nobody over 60k a year though needs to be eligible unless they have six children or more.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I wholeheartedly agree I go even a step further. Any family making at least $60,000 a year has zero excuse to require government subsidies for economic assistance.

I have personally seen families with four kids and no credit cards making right about 45,000 a year get by with healthy food, daycare, decent vehicles with insurance, and are able to not only add funds to their retirement and child's education future, but take out of state vacations more than once a year as well.

Where you live matters a lot. In San Francisco it costs $1500/month to rent a cardboard box in someone elses living room. A small 1 bedroom apartment is right around $4000/month right now. That alone is $48,000/year in just rent and a 1 br is by no means sufficient for a 6 person family.

a reply to: Aazadan

I didn't mention it in my original idea because it tends to bring out anger in so many, but Bernie had the right idea on education. I'd like to see free tuition for everyone in the top 50% of their high school class... for two years, college or trade, then four years if in the top 25% of the college class after 2, 6 years if in the top 15% after 4, 8 years if in the top 10% after 6.

I'd also include two years to help those on welfare, then the above applies.

Notice I haven't said a word about college being the only way. Some education needs to be there, though, even if it's just job skills classes. We already have free GED classes available here; why not include classes on interview skills, writing a resume, that sort of thing.

The point is there's always a way, if one has the will. But we are seeing that government alone isn't the way. We tried the experiment and it has failed. Private charity in a thriving economy us the only thing that will work. No economy can thrive when most of its wealth is forceably shuttled to others.

Too bad you can't find a way to help your neighborhood.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I didn't mention it in my original idea because it tends to bring out anger in so many, but Bernie had the right idea on education. I'd like to see free tuition for everyone in the top 50% of their high school class... for two years, college or trade, then four years if in the top 25% of the college class after 2, 6 years if in the top 15% after 4, 8 years if in the top 10% after 6.

Something I would like to see is a way to help older students. To be fair, there are grants and scholarships for non traditional students (I get one now actually), but I think free college that only looks at recent high school grads misses a bunch of people. Many times an 18 year old may not have the right mindset for college or any other structured learning but that same person at 23, 28, or even 50 could be in the right frame of mind to be ready to learn more and change their situation.

That's a group I would want to do a lot to target though, because older students tend to be more serious, they're also more likely to have gotten themselves stuck simply from having been around longer to have made mistakes.

Too bad you can't find a way to help your neighborhood.

I firmly believe my town can't be fixed. They were a big steel industry hub, but when those jobs left the town declined. Now it's nothing more than a public university (and a pretty good one too for certain majors), a hospital, and a few thousand residents who can't seem to escape. In the last 10 years the town has lost 1/4 if it's non student population. Even if we were to bring back industry the worker base to fill the jobs is gone.

a reply to: Aazadan

By my idea, older students could be helped. Ever hear of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)? I used it. WIA is a federal grant program (signed into law by Bill Clinton) that pays tuition for the unemployed to help them get a 2-year degree. Once they get that, my plan would kick in after those first two years. Think of it as a backdoor for older folks.

The whole idea is to help those who need help, and encourage hard work and success.

What would it cost? A lot at first, so much it might have to be rationed to lower-income areas. But over time, it would pay for itself. We have a local trade school here that works with high school students. The tuition is $50 a year, subsidized by the state. The idea is that kids learn a trade and start making good incomes right out of school, and they will then be paying more taxes. It works. It has had no negative effects on the budget.

Education doesn't cost in the long run... it pays.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: DBCowboy

Problem is easily solved by dismantling the corrupt, vulture-like insurance industry and instituting public healthcare for all US citizens.

Well, maybe not "easily" as such, but it'd be a step in the right direction. No more exclusive programs, no more vulture insurance corporations.

I don't see why childcare is not a thing the US Government pays for, presumably it does not to benefit giant corporations as usual.

Corporatocracy. What a fun system.

They've set an example with the public education system. The last thing you want is the government imposing catchment areas for daycare facilities.