Women have the human right to choose to work or not when they are bringing up kids.

reply to post by Revolution9


1. Women have a right to choose to NOT get pregnant! They need to use common sense and decide these things before hand,so they aren't bringing children into this world in an unstable family situation.
2.Women need to be taught from the beginning that there is NO KNIGHT in shining armor. No one is going to sweep you away into a castle and you'll all live happily ever after.Those are called fairy tales for a reason. Parents need to bring up they're daughters to make informed intelligent decisions over who they pick as a mate.Not to just follow where ever they're heart leads them. It will generally lead them to heartache.
3.Having been there and done that,I can say with authority,that if you find that you have a man who does not wish to fulfill his obligations to support the family. Stop hanging on to him.Any man can find himself without a job in this day and age.But a loser will always lose a job no matter how badly his family is depending on him.Then make excuses as to why he can't get another one.Forget him and move on. You made a bad choice and now it falls on you as a women to fix the situation and work,no matter whether you like it or not.
4.This is NOT the first time that women have had to pick up the mans part and support the family financially.During WW2 while the men went away to fight the women were left to not only deal with the children,but also run the factories that were left without enough workers.(I'm sure this was true in other countries as in America).
The bottom line is this,if you are going to make bad decisions that will effect your children,then you have to pick up the pieces and fix the situation you are in.This is nothing new,women have been having to support and try to raise children by themselves forever. The man dies or becomes ill etc.The difference is that we have a group of people that PURPOSELY get pregnant over and over to stay on government handouts,feeling that THEY are entitled to be handed money for having those kids.Thats how back in the 80s it was shocking for Americans to see that we had generation after generation of families that had never worked. They just waited till they were old enough and got pregnant to stay on welfare.Okay so what about the guys then? They can't get pregnant right? Well they just shacked up with they're girlfriends that were getting the money so they didn't have to work. It's a down right mess.So yes people get mad and angry about the whole thing.I don't think anyone here would be upset about someone that lost a husband and was trying to raise they kids they ALREADY had before he died getting money.It's the others that have made it they're career to get pregnant that are the problem.
Sorry for the long post.

Originally posted by Revolution9
reply to post by Dustytoad

 

It's not really my choice to pay for our state pension or the roads on which you drive. I hate cars and don't have one for environmental reasons. Yet I still have to pay for the road on which you drive. I still might have to pay for your pension or your medical bill.

I am happy to do that if you are happy to help out with the poor kids and single mothers.

Is that a deal? Lol!

Unless you live 100% off the grid your tax dollars spent on those same roads get your groceries to your local grocers, they get utility repair men out to fix power poles that get power to your home, they get your doctors to the local hospitals and doctors offices, they get the police, fire, and ambulances to your home should you ever need assistance. You use the roads just as much as everyone else whether you drive a car or not. Truth be told the computer you typed that ignorant post with arrived on the very roads you paid taxes on, yet claim you do not use.

i think major corporations like google, etc should open private schools at their major offices with the best teachers they can afford so their employees who have kids can take them to work with them and get them a much better education than they would get a public school.

but that would mean giving back, which i think breaks about 30 corporate by-laws.

I'm going to confine these comments to the OP, I'll be back with more for another who's really got it coming to him.

For the OP I'm going to go a bit easier because at least he acknowledges men's roles in this (or the lack there of).

He does need a bit of wisdom though - let's get started, shall we?

From the OP ~

As a man who had a childhood with his mother absent I KNOW what a curse it is to be deprived of the affection of one's mother through childhood and how that can have very dangerous and severe repercussions in adult life. These poor kids of non-working single mothers atleast have their mothers there for them, to make some kind of human adult in the future.

You BLAME these women for doing this? Your blame is misplaced. I tell you none of these women actually want their lives to be like that. We all want a stable partner and an income that can allow us to aspire to the greater things in life. The reality of life and society is that not everyone can have this.

I take it you're a grown man. Whattaya whining for your Mommy for now? The world is too full of Mama's Boys - suck it up soldier and be a man. You could consider yourself lucky that you were introduced to the hard, cold realities of life when young.

Now you don't say *why* your mother was absent - I'll assume she was out working. You do realize, yes, that she was doing this FOR YOU. Love is not all kisses and cutesy poo - if she was out working to put a roof over your head and food in your belly - you ought to get down on your knees and kiss her feet in gratitude. You got a helluva lot more that many get.

I believe your anger at women and your lament of lack of affection is misplaced, also. Where the hell was your father? If anyone is to blame - perhaps it is him.

Let's say for the sake of argument that both of your parents were 'there' and they simply both worked. Maybe they did this to make a better life for you?

ALL of my relatives worked their asses off to provide for us a nice life. Male, female, even the elderly - my immigrant Nana who barely spoke English was out busting her ass in a factory to bring in more money. Do I have an anger towards these people? HELL NO! I ADMIRE them and I always did! I got a damned good work ethic out of it, too.

I'll tell you who decided to STOP working - my father. Why? He fell in love with booze. And drugs. And then took up with a whore. Did Mom give him the heave ho? You bet your sweet ass she did and good riddance to the loser. He was in no way a loser when she married him, either.

Did she go on welfare? Hell NO - she went to WORK! I am damn glad of it too - like she always said, the few times I lamented the lack of a stereotypical family - I couldn't have that around you kids. EXACTLY.

Who was at fault here? HE WAS. He CHOSE to empty the booze down his throat and the drugs into his veins. He *chose that* over his family. Good Expletive Riddance! I have no use for this turd of an excuse of a waste of flesh and when he dies I will not even expend the energy to spit on his grave.

Am I angry that my Mom "wasn't there"? NO! I admire her guts and determination. And she was there *enough*.

I have a perfectly good relationship with her. Do I feel like I missed anything? NO. I feel I GAINED a great deal by having an educated and determined role model.

Did she latch onto another man and start pumping out more kids? NO. And that is why I agree with all the sentiments posted in the thread you're rebutting here -

IF YOU CAN'T FEED 'EM - DON'T BREED 'EM.

ESPECIALLY the welfare leeches who are doing it *on purpose*. As for those who wind up single mothers due to circumstances beyond their control - 1) you go after that man for child support. 2) if that's not enough to live on - you seek money for work training in a divorce.

If neither of these things are possible - you get your ass out there and you WORK anyway! My Mom did - and my "father" paid not one damn dime in support. NOT ONE. He sure had money for booze and drugs - and- making more kids though. (He abandoned them also.)

Let's put the blame where it belongs. And let's stop making things easy for people just because they didn't think things through carefully. You screwed up? You *suck it up* and deal with it. It's not society's mess - it is YOUR mess to fix.

No more free rides for fools. I don't even believe in free rides for victims of circumstance. Sick, disabled - SURE.
Bad luck, partner turns into a jerk - at most - they should get some aid for job training.

We need to stop promoting weakness. Kids need to be toughened up - not coddled *more*

I don't mean to direct any undue harshness at you, OP. I believe you are just confused. You need to run yourself a reality check - nothing can be done to change *your* past. But *you* can change how you look at it. And perhaps let it go and move on.

"Women have the human right to choose to work or not when they are bringing up kids."

That's a "human right"? If so why is it only for women? I'm tired of this entitlement that some women think they should have. You wanted equality, I fought for it and now you want something for only you? BS imo. Equality is equality, not when you think it's only convenient. Guess what? This isn't the 50's, 60's, 70's anymore. It takes 2 to provide for a family now. That means in the workplace AND in the home.

reply to post by Revolution9


Shouldn't you really have kept this in the original thread instead of starting a new one?

reply to post by Revolution9

Sooner blame all the idiot young men who don't know how to make a relationship work or stick to one woman. Blame the authorities for deliberately breaking up the nuclear family for economic purposes and business profiteering.

This right here is the meat of your arguement, however the blame also applies to women who spread their legs to immature little boys just looking for a little playtime and then run when a bun goes in the oven. This is what is born of human civilizations when the goal of sex is not to procreate, but when procreation has become a side affect and the goal is to take pleasure in the act of sex. I fully believe you should be required to have a license to have sex and in order to have a license you need to have a job, and an education which includes teaching how babies are made because there are alot of stupid people out there who do not understand that sex is for making babies period, and is what nature intends it for. Instead you have people trying to change nature and so abortions have come about as a way to flush that poor unwanted unborn child diwn a toilet and into oblivion.

The blame goes fully on these men and women who do not think ahead of time, or as some have heard it called "looking before you leap".

reply to post by 0mage


You. Sir. Have got to be one of *The Most* SEXIST cretins I have ever come across.

Who, in the HELL, do you think YOU are? King Farouk?

You do not want a wife, you want a SLAVE.

I was really going to pick all your demanding, slave driving, self gratifying CRAP apart - but upon re consideration I realize that anything I would say would be wasted on you.

Good grief. And the worst part is that you mention NOTHING of what YOU would give in return. NOTHING.
Except oh I will be faithful. Yeah? Who in the hell would WANT you? This is like applying for a job and saying - oh, I'll keep the seat warm, anyway. I'll show up, anyway.

Pahleez! You want a servant to wait on you hand and foot and be beautiful and cheerful *at all times* - even if YOU - the man - should decide to let yourself go, turn into some ugly fatass?

What. In the world. - are you smoking? Scratch that - let me try again - exactly *how many* pills have you taken? You may wanna call 911 - I think you may be at the limit. You may want to contact some mental health professionals also.

And then you have the GALL to LECTURE women on how they should behave? To suit your lazy ass?

It's NO WONDER that you're single.

You should count yourself lucky you've never encountered me IRL. Or my Grandmother - Oy Vey! She'd see CRAP like this - Lord help ya you'd be praying for death.

Give my regards to Rosie Palmer, anyway. And you can take your Bibles and Korans and use them in all sorts of creative ways too.

Originally posted by Revolution9

Originally posted by Sinny
I AM A WOMAN.

I refuse to have a child until, my higher education is over, and I can earn enough to put a roof over our heads, buy our food, buy our own clothes, and hopefully with a committed partner.

I COULD HAVE: Left school, got pregnant, got a FREE flat, and FREE everything. Like a whole lot o people I know have done.

THE BENEFITS AREN'T A LOT? MAYBE NOT COMPARED TO THE DEFENSE BUDGET, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? ITS STILL DARN TOO MUCH, WHEN MY TAXES PROVIDE THEM WITH A STANDARD OF LIVING I CANNY AFFORD MY SELF.

YES: Women have a choice to work or not, HOWEVER, that choice shouldn't be at the expense of every body else.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE A NEW "HIGH RISE FLAT = 3 BABY" CULTURE.

I laugh at there sad existences, but I know they laugh at me, muggings here, paying for it.

edit on 30-9-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

I am feeling you. I even just gave you a star.

I am just saying don't blame these women, men and kids who are not so bright as you. Even don't blame those young girls who see it as a way to getting atleast their own place and getting away from messed up families, etc.

Someone like you is not going to be messed up because you are a bright person. However, not everyone can be like you my friend. I wish they could, I really do.

So I am wishing you well in your development and your career, a happy marriage, long lasting partner and beautiful kids (if that is what you choose). But if life rewards you please look after those idiots who have messed up. Please spare a thought (and a few pennies) for alternative people who are really struggling with this authoritarian and quite frankly marxist work environment.

Those women you see with more than you, it is not the state giving them that. The state only gives them enough to really survive very basically. They are obviously going out with dodgy men or doing something naughty. It is only a minority doing that. You are may be feeling the clinche and the injustice of our present economy. But please don't go looking for scapegoats among the poor. They don't deserve that. Sooner look to those in power who are doing this to us all.

edit on 30-9-2012 by Revolution9 because: spelling

edit on 30-9-2012 by Revolution9 because: spelling

"Someone like you is not going to be messed up because you are a bright person. However, not everyone can be like you my friend. I wish they could, I really do."

Ha. I like your fallacies, they are at least funny.

I have a IQ of 160. I have worked all over the World, and even off World(dont ask). I am an artist, writer, blah blah... Lets just say others, and myself consider me bright.

However, I was conceived of rape. Then, my mother, at the age of 15, gave me up for adoption. The family that adopted me treated my like, well, i dont really have an accurate and honest correlation with anything I know.

Lets just say, I wished I had died at birth growing up.

Im not sure if I am messed up or not. That is very subjective.

What is "messed up" anymore anyway?

But that is not my point.

I just want to tell you, that there is no correlation whatsoever, with "being bright", and "being messed up".

In fact Mr. Pompous pants, if you honestly look at History, most of the famous people, the gifted people, were very "messed up"..

You know right, that Pythagoras, killed a rival mathematician, because he was interfering with his cult followers and ideas?

Pythagoras had a cult, number one, and he killed another Person because of that persons theories, and the fear of his own followers moving towards this other mathematician.

Should I bring up Mozart, or Beethoven?

How about how "eccentric" Nikolia Tesla was? He is the only reason you have the modern World, and technology today.

I find the brighter the person, the more "messed up" society will label he/she as.

Why would it not be this way to begin with? How does one break the mold, unless he appears to have a flame coming out of his bunghole?

You get the drift grandpa?

Putting aside the sloppy sentiment for mothers and their 'rights' I would like to make a clear statement.
People should not have children if they are not ready and willing to feed them, clothe them, educate them, provide medical care, and a safe and loving home wholly on their own dime. Your kids are not mine, they are not related to me through blood or adopted through law by me or anyone in my family.

The average child, if properly raised to adulthood and placed through a 4-year college degree program will cost about $250,000 - to be conservative in the numbers. What people are asking for is for the government to provide financial support over only a couple of decades that in equivalence would readily purchase a very nice home in full. My wife and I are working 30 years to purchase our home, and you want me to buy yours, too? Why? And, to make it even worse, the bulk of the people who live on welfare raise children who do the same. Are you kidding me? You're saying I have to pay for this the entire time I have to work, every single year, that this will never end?

In the past women who had children out of wedlock or outside of a clear and legal committment of the father to provide support were, and should be, ostracized. Their children clearly far better off in a different family that actually had the wherewithall to provide the correct home. Prior to late in the last century this was the norm. If anything, the child has far more value than the parent and it should be viewed as child abuse to bring a child into a family that has no working parent at all.

Over the last 50 years it is clear that women who raise children on their own perpetuate the epidemic of poverty that has struck far too many in this nation. This situation is especially hard on the male children born into this life who are far more likely to be involved in crime, drugs, gangs, and far more likley to fail in their life, serve time in prison, and often to die young, than those from traditional two-parent families.

I could go on with this discussion, but it really does not matter because there are far too many people who feel that 'just because' they are entitled; with no ethical, religious, national policy stance, or anything to base their viewpoint. It is nothing more than "I'm here, pay me."

The reality is that all over the world there are millions upon millions of children born with none of the advantages or benefits our poorest members of society receive. I have witnessed the way others live their lives here and in many very poor nations and I know, without doubt, that as a society we can be better - but it has to start with young men and women realizing that there really are hard limits to social largess and we are fast coming up on that day. We need to draw the lines back where they were prior to the current welfare state. If we don't, the alternative is a complete collapse of the economy, the government maybe, and all of our children will live just like those desperately poor, with no hope, no chance for even a basic education to lift them out of the dirt.

I'll keep this short. When someone says something is a human right than it must (IMO) mean that if everyone in the world exercised that right than society would be the same or perhaps even better off position. Most simple example, if everyone exercised their right to be happy then we would live in a happy society. With the OPs example if everyone chose to exercise that right than no one would go to work and society would crumble. I'll be honest and admit I don't believe we have all the rights some people would lead us to believe that we have. I'm sorry if my idea of what a human right is is considered draconian.

On a side note a good philosophical thread would be the debate of "what are human rights?"

reply to post by Revolution9


Here's the thing about government benefits such as food stamps and welfare.

They are not meant to be a long term solution! They are there for the people who through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a situation so dire, they no longer have the means to support themselves WHILE they look for suitable employment.

I have no problem seeing my tax dollars go to such people. I do however have a problem seeing them go to people who think it is my (and every other taxpayer out there) responsibility to support you and your children just because you don't WANT to work. Guess what, there are mornings when I don't want to go to work...I just want to stay home and lounge in front of the tv and play with my kids...but, I do not do that. Why? Because it was MY choice to have children, and as a result of that choice I assumed the responsibility of providing for them (along with my husband).

So while you may believe it is an inalienable right for you to choose whether or not work, perhaps consider having a little more pride in yourself as a parent, and do what is right for your children...because once you have those kids, it's not about what YOU want anymore. It's about what THEY need.

Originally posted by SarnholeOntarable
I read that thread and felt bad...because,10 years ago I took (emergency)custody of my children,quit my job,and went on assistance to be a full time dad.The mother is estranged to this day.The tables are turned in my case.Kids are a hell of a load and I respect their proper upbringing.So I think I know it all?I highly doubt it....

I went from a 6-figure, college-educated, upper management, 13-year career ball-buster, in a predominately male oriented field, no less.........to a stay-at-home house slave...er, I mean, stay-at-home mom to 3 children, almost literally overnight.

I kid you not, and am bearing my soul here, I almost lost my mind.
I have seen the event horizon of insanity.
Imagine going days at a time without ever having a conversation with an adult human being?
ATS, ironically, played a major part in keeping me grounded insomuch as providing that daily interaction that most people take for granted.

I remember about a week into my new role as house slave, I decided that I was going to learn how to make the best muffins. FAIL. Those suckers were like eating balls of lead. You could have used them as artillery rounds.

I'm a terrible housekeeper. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'll scrub the hell out of a toilet, but I've got to be in the mood to do it. I just can't wrap my brain around investing a substantial amount of time each and every day into some sort of cleaning task.
Cleaning, cooking, laundry, grocery shopping, dentist & doctor appointments, birthday parties, homework, boogers, diapers, snacks, juice spills, the never-ending bane of toys perpetually manifesting themselves in every square inch of the house at such an incredible pace that it seems to mock your every effort to keep them in the play room.
I can honestly say that I work more now, than I ever did when I actually got paid for it. And add that to the fact that the job I actually got a paycheck for, ended at a certain time every (well, most, depending on the project circumstances) day.
The job of house slave never ends. You never get a day off and you never get a "drive home after work". And after a while, everybody, especially the Mister, begins to think that you are their very own Mammy plantation slave. Why use the trash can? Just throw it on the floor, 'cuz Mom will pick it up.

I've worked through many moments of "what am I doing with my life???"
What I have become to realize is that my job now, is more important and rewarding than any career I prided myself in acheiving.
I am personally attending to raising my own children into responsible, educated, respectful, morally compassed human beings. Not their daycare providers, not their teachers,....me.

I have accepted my role as house slave, for the benefit of mankind!


LOL....

reply to post by U4ea82


I wish I could give you more stars ! This is the most intelligent rebuttal yet .

I think that OP is of the mind that if mothers work then their children suffer and thinks that all mothers should stay home with their children (it is the vibe I am getting at least) . Which is untrue .

As the old saying goes "It takes a village to raise a child" . My mother and father worked since I was in diapers . Mom would drop me off at either my grandparents or trusted friends/neighbors to babysit me . And I turned out perfectly fine , normal and healthy . I knew my mother loved me when I reached the age where I could reason , because she went out and worked to provide me with the things I NEEDED . She did without so I could HAVE .

I once asked her when I was a teenager why she worked for my entire life (not out of anger but out of curiosity) . She said " I brought you into this world , it was and continues to be my responsibility to provide for you " .

Another thing that I would thank her for was giving me the opportunity of spending time with my Grandparents and other's who babysat me that I would not have gotten if she had chose to be a stay at home mother . It was a great learning opportunity and helped me grow and become independent , instead of hanging off her apron strings . It gave me precious time with my Grandparents who I dearly miss now .

Another statement made by the OP that I disagree with is .......
"Your blame is misplaced. I tell you none of these women actually want their lives to be like that. "

The OP acts if he knows and speaks for all mothers on welfare . I hate to tell you OP but you could not be more wrong . I have seen far to many of these women who DO find this style of living perfectly acceptable , who knows how and are good at working the system . And these are the very women we are ranting about .

Down with single mothers and that sort of thing what what...
Let them live in old pig sheds on the common and chuck them vegetable scraps, and if that's not jolly well bloody good enough for them they can always break their childrens legs and send them begging on the streets. Well not my street, don't want dirty, filthy, starving plebian children of single whores lowering my house price.

/sarcasm off

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

I fully believe you should be required to have a license to have sex and in order to have a license you need to have a job, and an education which includes teaching how babies are made because

Now this I actually can get behind. I think sex is given way too much importance and most of that comes from sex being completely commercialized. Corporations use people's sexual vulnerabilities to sell products and services and we are inundated messages, both overt and covert that we should be having sex at every turn. Women are taught that being desirable is paramount. Men are taught that women are always "asking for it." Pornography degrades the act of sex into something that bears no resemblance to reality. Sex is treated as something to be engaged in as casually grabbing a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

I would have NO problem making sex a licensed act, something you need to go to training for, like driver's ed. Something needs to counteract the misinformation we are force fed at every turn. For the most part it is women who pay the price. I mean look at how many times you see the phrase "spread her legs" on ATS alone, as if it is always the woman who is instigating the sexual act, when we all know damned well men will coerce in every way possible to get their rocks off. It's simple biology.

Note though I totally disagree with the last half of your sentence that claims sex is ONLY for procreation. If that were the case then humans who lacked the ability to reproduce would not be sexual. Sex has an additional function which is to build intimacy between a couple. The bible never says "only have sex if you want to have a child." There are many examples of the celebration of intimacy between a loving couple.

I agree that the role of sex for humans has been perverted, but not because people are having sex without the express aim of making babies. The ideals of intimacy, loyalty, trust and mutual care have been replaced with the "ideals" of conquest, objectification, casualness and disrespect. And this is apparent on BOTH sides, although I believe women suffer more for it.

There is literally no reasonable defense of a person who is a welfare leech. Literally none whatsoever. Oh, it's their choice, baww, tough. They should have to live with the consequences of their choices and actions just like everybody else on the planet.

Whatever happened to personal accountability? Whatever happened to considering the impact of one's actions on the world before taking those actions? Whatever happened to "I'm a single unwed mother with no job or work ethic, maybe it's a BAD IDEA for me to have six kids in five years, because I would be an unfair burden on society and a poor role model for my children."

Don't get me wrong, I am all for state-sponsored welfare. Because terrible, random things happen to people all the time, such as getting cancer, developing age-related disabilities, having a crippling mental illness, house burned down, laid off, etc... And because social darwinism is for Nazis, I cannot possibly say that it would be just to leave people like that to die. We owe it to them, as previously productive members of society, to care for them in their time of need. Those are the kind of people who use welfare as the temporary crutch that it was designed to be, I cannot fault them in any way.

But the people who see welfare as their personal ticket to not work... screw them. Simply, screw those guys, I don't care how little of my tax money they're getting, I really don't, because they do not deserve it.

Just because a person makes a choice, it does not mean that society has to bend around backwards to ensure that there are no negative consequences for that person's choice. Hell, I have the choice to go rob a bank, but does that entitle me to get out of jail free? Hell no it doesn't. And it shouldn't. And so too it shouldn't entitle a person with no economic viability to do whatever they want on somebody else's dime.

OP, you nearly turned me into Mitt Romney. Like, I could feel myself growing magic Mormon undies, an expensive haircut, and an undying hatred of poor people and "welfare queens", it was the damnedest thing. You should be careful with a power like that. Fuh reals.

reply to post by Revolution9


I believe it would be great if all children had a parent to stay home with them full-time, at least until 1st grade, but it is simply unrealistic for our (U.S. / U.K.) system for the taxpayers to support doing so in any meaningful way.

My wife stays home with our baby. I work 50 hours a week from the office, and plenty of additional after-hours work at random hours and over the weekend from home. In order to spend time with my wife and baby, I sleep about 4 hours a night. You can bet if we could be subsidized for her to not work and I could work a typical 40 hour week to get by, or not work at all, that's what I would do. I would not continue spending time away from my family so that I could earn tax money to allow others to stay home with their children.

If we were to pay out of taxpayer money for single mothers to stay home with their babies, then we better also pay for. Married couples to stay home with their babies. It wouldn't make sense to me to pay a single mom to be with her baby, but not a married mom and dad.

Yes, there are and should be upsides to being in a stable, well-functioning marriage before having children. All kinds of things can happen (someone's spouse suddenly goes nuts and leaves, a condom breaks, etc.), but if you're not prepared to deal with a situation, then don't put yourself in it.

While I believe every child should have at least one parent full-time at home, I don't believe single moms (or dads) should get special treatment. Ir we want to pay a single mom to stay at home $40k a year so she can provide housing, food, etc., then we need to pay married couples $60k/year.

reply to post by dogstar23


You bring up a core issue that I think leads to this "welfare state" and that is the exorbitant cost of child care. It's a mortgage payment in most cases. How is a single parent able to afford paying for childcare at a low paying job and make it worthwhile? If it costs you more to send your kids to daycare and go to work than it does to stay at home and care for them, who in their right mind would do that? There's no incentive to other than "well you SHOULD go to work." Not to mention that many low paying jobs do not have the luxury of nine to five hours - most low paying jobs work changing shifts that make scheduling child care a real challenge. Not to mention the instability it causes for the children.

As for working couples, they face the same challenges - you basically work to take home a few extra dollars, and maybe benefits, above what you are paying out for childcare. You go to work to to pay for someone else to raise your kids. It's insanity. If we have a society where two incomes are needed to live above the poverty level then something better needs to be done about childcare. It's no wonder people are in so much debt.

If we made child care subsidized, as opposed to giving handouts for staying at home, there would be more incentive for single parents to find a job because they would not have to make the choice between basically going to work to send their kid to daycare, or staying at home to care for them and not contributing. Couples who both needed to work would also benefit.

Not perfect but a different approach to the problem.

reply to post by Revolution9


to raise a child properly is a full time job.