universal child care?

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

[opebo]

Most people make pretty good parents. WIth that in mind, I would much rather encourage parents to spend more time with their child as opposed to encouraging parent to foist the kid off on someone else.

I agree.  To increase taxes in order to pay for universal child care could make it harder for many working families, and force parents to spend even less time with their children because they have to work harder to pay the taxes.  It could even force some mothers who currently stay at home into the workplace.  I don't think this is the direction in which we should move.

Hah, tax increases would be applied to high income people, dazzleman, as you well know.

You know, the working class does pay taxes you know - otherwise we wouldn't have money coming out of our paychecks and we wouldn't have to file taxes once a year. If you think that only the rich would be paying, you're delusional.

It would certainly be easy enough to devise such a tax system, if not for the fact that the rich are too powerful under the current system.

Since reality contradicts your point by your own admission, your point is moot.

The whole point of any political action I suggest is to reduce the power of the rich, Dibble.  Of course accomplishing such a goal will be difficult, but I think not impossible, as evidenced by some small level of well being for workers acheived in western Europe and in the US during the 1930's-1970's hiatus.

[opebo]

I'm for a lower birth rate in general. We should improve the availibiltiy of contraceptives/condoms, better sex ed...

I'm very much in agreement with that plan.

Why on earth do you people want a low birthrate?  Are you still fighting the battles of the 1960's?  The modern birthrate in much of the world is disasterously low, and the resulting population decline and aging will lead to economic dislocations far worse than anything caused by 'overpopulation'. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why on earth should any working-class voter prefer to be forced to work for an unlivable pittance than having the option of Welfare?  (of course this is a hypothetical question as welfare is already largely extinct.  Also, I'm looking for an answer other than the obvious one - he is stupid). 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, generally it doesn't.  Only in technical/vocational fields, and even then, often only ephemerally.  But I'm certainly all for free education. 

[opebo]

The thing about low birth rates is this:

A low birthrate will necessarily mean economic hardship, as capitalism relies on an ever-expanding market.

Trumping that concern is that a low birthrate is better for the environment.

Fair enough.  I must admit that as soon as I posted above about the birth-rates, it occured to me that my concerns were based on the assumption of the continuation of the capitalist heirarchy. 

I'm sure solutions could be found to a declining population if we were willing to radically change our power relationships.