universal child care?

[WalterMitty]

would you support universal, free child care for all working parents?

yes, i would.

[John Dibble]

No.

[WalterMitty]

No.

but having poor mothers live off the dole doesnt bother you?

[John Dibble]

No.

but having poor mothers live off the dole doesnt bother you?

Did I say it didn't? No, I just said I don't support universal child care. If poor mothers or just poor parents in general are your target group, then why not just ask about a program for such people rather than a bloated and unnecessarily large program that encompasses everyone?

[TomC]

I lean against it in practice because I believe that it's tough enough to adequately fund K-12. But I'm not against it in theory.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

[WalterMitty]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

wasnt it on the california ballot a couple of weeks ago?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

wasnt it on the california ballot a couple of weeks ago?

That was pre-school.

[WalterMitty]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

wasnt it on the california ballot a couple of weeks ago?

That was pre-school.

did you vote yes?

[Moooooo]

Of course.

[MaC]

no.  The concept of a government program that can actually do it efficiently is as absurd as it is unfair for those who don't have children to pay for it.

[J. J.]

One argument for it, means tested, is welfare.  Often, people getting welfare can not work, because they have children.  In that respect, I would favor it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

wasnt it on the california ballot a couple of weeks ago?

That was pre-school.

did you vote yes?

No, it is funded by taxing only the rich, and I feel that the rich deserve to continue to pay a lower percentage in California and local taxes than the poor.

Just kidding, of course I voted yes.

It failed pretty hard, BTW. It  only won San Francisco, Alameda, and Imperial counties.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Neutral on it. I'm doubtful about implementing it on a naitonal scale witohut testing it in states so I'd allow california to have it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neutral on it. I'm doubtful about implementing it on a naitonal scale witohut testing it in states so I'd allow california to have it.

LOL, California or New York seem to be the first to test everything out.

Some California stuff:
MTBE additive ban
Real workplace safety regulations
Stem cell research


Some NY stuff:
Only hands-free cellphones allowed while driving
Abortion legalized (1970)

I'm sure there's plenty more.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Neutral on it. I'm doubtful about implementing it on a naitonal scale witohut testing it in states so I'd allow california to have it.

LOL, California or New York seem to be the first to test everything out.

Some California stuff:
MTBE additive ban
Real workplace safety regulations
Stem cell research


Some NY stuff:
Only hands-free cellphones allowed while driving
Abortion legalized (1970)

I'm sure there's plenty more.

I oppose the hands free cellphone part. Its not the government's business to decide what kind of cellhpoens peoples use at any time.

[John Dibble]

I guess, but I haven't really studied the issue.

wasnt it on the california ballot a couple of weeks ago?

That was pre-school.

did you vote yes?

No, it is funded by taxing only the rich, and I feel that the rich deserve to continue to pay a lower percentage in California and local taxes than the poor.

Just kidding, of course I voted yes.

It failed pretty hard, BTW. It  only won San Francisco, Alameda, and Imperial counties.

Might be cost issues - apparently Quebec tried to impliment universal preschool. The initial estimate was $230 million over five years. Actual costs turned out to be $1.7 billion per year, 33 times as much as estimated. And this is only for pre-k, I wouldn't want to imagine how much it would take for universal daycare for all kids(say 0-12) for the entirity of the United States.

[A18]

would you support universal, free child care for all working parents?

yes, i would.

You are a socialist clown. Change your avatar to Democrat immediately.

[adam]

No. This massive government program would require spiking taxes for everyone, even those without kids. I would be more eager to give tax incentives to businesses that offer child care as to encourage others to do the same.

[Nym90]

For everyone below a certain income level, I would.

Removing the primary impediment to working for those with children is an important step to take, for the children especially, as well as for the economy as a whole.

[??????????]

You are a socialist clown. Change your avatar to Democrat immediately.

[Max]

No. This massive government program would require spiking taxes for everyone, even those without kids.

Those without kids are allready better off. They could spend lots of money on themselves instead of feed children.

[adam]

No. This massive government program would require spiking taxes for everyone, even those without kids.

Those without kids are allready better off. They could spend lots of money on themselves instead of feed children.

As is their right to do so. They chose not to have kids (most likely) because they didn't feel like and/or couldn't afford the maintance and time that goes into raising a child. Why force them via taxes?

[dazzleman]

I don't believe in universal child care.

Why should stay-at-home mothers, who are making a financial sacrifice to be more involved in raising their children, pay higher taxes to subsidize working mothers, who might be financially better off than they are?

I don't think we should tilt the balance in favor of more mothers working, as opposed to being more involved in raising their children.  I also have concerns about the quality of care that would be offered by government-run day care.  I suspect it would be similar to what is offered in some lower-end public schools.

I think this is a well-intentioned idea that would have unforseen negative effects.  I also don't think that taxpayers should be forced to continously expand their subsidies of the personal choices of other citizens, and this is another example of people being forced to pay for the lifestyle choices of others.  To the greatest extent possible, people should make their own choices, and also pay for them.

[Inverted Things]

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.