It's sad that these workers are not more valued by our society and paid a living wage. It's sad that our government just doesn't seem to care, people making the laws in this country get paid fantastic and can afford to hire nannies so they don't care about anything else.

I also think that if some families gave up their monstrous houses and 3 car payments and got out of debt they could stay at home with their children and raise them themselves.

Ummm...

I've got news for you KAP. Staying at home is no longer an option that can be taken for granted. It is very often a luxury as many places in this country are no longer affordable on a single salary. Believe me when I tell you that I didn't drive a big SUV and I didn't have a big house when I lived in the SF Bay Area. And yet when my daughter was born we had to put her into day care when she was 4 months old. We had no family or relatives that we could have watch her and eve though it broke my wife's heart, financially we had no choice. If you think that parents put their kids into day care just so they can drive bigger cars and have bigger houses then that just goes to show how out of touch with reality you are. Sadly, as much as I would like to be otherwise, daycare for babies and toddlers is new reality now and unfortunately it doesn't look like that will be changing anytime soon.

'It's sad that our government just doesn't seem to care, people making the laws in this country get paid fantastic and can afford to hire nannies so they don't care about anything else.'

what should the government do? if these persons can't afford to take care of their own children, why did they have them? is the government obligated to be their daddys?

another thing. how is it that someone who has a few bucks and hires a private worker keeping anyone else from doing the same?

it makes me sad to see liberal idiots huckstering for cradle to grave entitlements.

Typical ignorant right wing response...

"It ain't my problem, so screw 'em!"

Well guess what, it is your problem! The kid that you screw -- figuratively speaking of course -- when they're a baby may be the same kid that you support on welfare when they are adults....

'Well guess what, it is your problem! The kid that you screw -- figuratively speaking of course -- when they're a baby may be the same kid that you support on welfare when they are adults....'

so not letting them screw me is screwing them?

so either i give them welfare now or later? is that what you are saying?

then how do you explain the trans generational recipients who have been subsidized for going on three generations now?

my feeling is if you make the parents responsible now, more than likely they will raise kids who will be responsible for themselves later. you have it bass ackwards as per usual.

so save you guilt pushing bullshit for some dimwitted liberal. they'll buy anything.

I chose not to have children. I have no intention of paying for yours. People who have children are responsible financially, morally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. for their own. Expecting the taxpayers to pay for the upkeep of your children is the height of entitlement arrogance.

I do not believe in cradle to grave entitlements, what I do believe in is the government mandating a living wage so that someone can support their family.

'I do not believe in cradle to grave entitlements, what I do believe in is the government mandating a living wage so that someone can support their family.'

again, you have it bass ackwards. if the government does anything, they should mandate that you can't have kids until you can afford them.

PS. the world doesn't owe you or anyone else a living and neither does the government.

Aug8girl, I did not say the government should pay for these children, what I said was the government should mandate a LIVING WAGE so that people can support their family.

I do not believe in just handing out welfare checks to people.

'I did not say the government should pay for these children, what I said was the government should mandate a LIVING WAGE so that people can support their family.'

which part of the constitution will you piss on to get that done?

Right on, aug8girl. I have two small boys but find myself on your side of this debate. The government already gives tax credits to parents who use institutional day care. This means the rest of us are, in effect, helping pay their way. I feel sad for every parent who must work and leave the kids at daycare (and more sad for the kids who, as decades of research suggest, aren't getting the caliber of spontaneous learning opportunities and nurturing they need). That said, why on earth should full-time mothers and fathers pay more in taxes when they're not part of the PAID workforce? Makes no sense to me.

I think the real issue here is how little we value children and quality child care workers. They have the most enormous responsibility and the low wages do not reflect their true value. I simply cannot believe that some people do not view childcare, education and healthcare as rights, not luxuries. We think nothing of demanding clean streets, sewers, water and highway maintenance for our tax dollars. As a law-abiding, voting taxpayer, I am shocked that my tax dollars are not used for this at a much higher level. Most civilized countries recognize quality child care as a fundamental service, not a luxury. Based on the judgement of "if you can't afford kids, don't have them" only the wealthy could afford them. Or those with extremely large families. Childcare, healthcare and education must be accepted as necessities for the benefit of all of society. So is keeping them healthy. Because all workers pay taxes, not just the wealthy.

'Based on the judgement of "if you can't afford kids, don't have them" only the wealthy could afford them.'

???????? my parents had me and they were certainly not wealthy. they didn't go whining and crying for the government to raise me either.

BTW-i'd like for you to point out to me in the constitution where it says you have a right to education, healthcare, child care etc. the government does not owe you any such thing.

No, I'm afraid I am not the one who has it ass backwards. Government entitlement for child care has been the norm for decades -- ever heard of public schools? You say you don't wish to pay for someone else’s choice to have children, fine. But who paid for your school (assuming for the moment you went to school)? Do you think that was just 'free' service that you happened to luck into? Who do you think paid for that? It was paid for by the generations of people that paid taxes into the systems that they themselves benefited from when they were children, just as we do now as adutls.

So you say that it is 'unfair' that you as a childless adult have to pay for someone else's choice to have kids? Bull Shit! It's unfair and selfish for you to say that it was okay for someone else to pay for the benefits of your 'free' education but not for you to pay back the system and give another child the same opportunity to grow and succeed just as you had. That is the epitomy of selfishness.

And yes, it is a choice of providing 'welfare' for children (your choice of words, not mine) now as opposed to later. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a well adjusted child that is given proper care and opportunities to grow and succeed turn into well adjusted adults that live happy lives, have families of their own and also PAY TAXES! Taxes that will go into programs that benefit you, the childless woman, and you, the short sighted conservative, that pay for our public safety services, that pay for your Medicare benefits, that pay for disability if -- god forbid -- you ever get injured on the job enough so you can't work. Oh, and the taxes these 'welfare children' will also pay for the roads you drive your Big Ass SUV on.

As far as explaining the 'trans generational recipients' of welfare subsidies is concerned I don't, because that is just a myth. Oh, I'm quite sure that there are plenty of people that have figured out how to game the system and mooch off our tax paid money, but it's naive to think that this profile of a welfare recipient is an example of the norm. I would wager 'trans generational welfare recipients only represent a small fraction of the people on welfare, less than 5% if that. If you can show me credible evidence otherwise I will eat my words, but until them it's just a bunch of right wing BS IMO.

Thank you for saying it so well mgm531. I am personally exhausted by the fools who think using tax dollars for the benefit of health and education actually is "welfare." Providing essential services is the whole point of giving the government the right to tax workers in the first place. People like irvingchang believe that the government should only provide services that he personally requires. Talk about a sense of entititlement!