[LordOpie]

I'm really having a hard time with the logic behind cutting taxes. If you think taxes are too high, help me out here...

Please explain how cutting taxes and running a deficit is a good idea. Explain why the repubs don't cut programs first, then say, "see, we're not spending this money, now we're going to cut taxes." Or why not collect taxes and refund the surplus at the end of the year or pay down the debt?

I'm being sincere when I'm asking for some insight.

 

[Westy]

Read this

I have not had a chance to read this yet, but from interviews I have seen with Peterson he has it, right-deficits are bad mmmkay. IMO low interest rates have done more for the economy than the tax cuts have, and the interest rates don't give you the big hangover that deficit spending gives you.

 

[Silver]

Explain why the repubs don't cut programs first, then say, "see, we're not spending this money, now we're going to cut taxes." Or why not collect taxes and refund the surplus at the end of the year or pay down the debt?

I'm being sincere when I'm asking for some insight.

This might help:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=251788

I haven't read the whole thing, but the first page nicely sums up Norquist better than I could.

 

[N8 v2.0]

I'd be interested in what people on here who own business and employ others think about tax cuts.

 

[Silver]

I'd be interested in what people on here who own business and employ others think about tax cuts.

Ohh! That would be me.

I think they are a terrible idea. Personally, they help me out, and leave more money in my pocket. However, I'm not looking forward to paying 25% or more in payroll tax in 20 years. That's going to really suck.

 

[LordOpie]

This might help:

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=170&contentid=251788

I haven't read the whole thing, but the first page nicely sums up Norquist better than I could.

I only read the first page, I didn't sound like it was going to explain why people this it's okay to put the horse before the cart, if you will.

 

[dante]

well, duh, it's the repubs answer for everything:

situation 1: really good economy, budget surplus. solution, give the people back their money, as if we're running a surplus, why not?

situation 2: really bad economy, running a defecit. solution, tax cut to spur the economy.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Because one sid eor the other stops it all fro going thru...........

Pass a tax cut....(rep as reported) .....feel good organizations (libs/Dems) won't stand for cuts in service.

Now you have a decrease in taxes and a steady expense to incure.

Conversly.....Dems push for more services.....get it thru but now the Rep will fight it out to stop the taxes from being raised. Increased expenses and steady taxes....similiar problem.

That is REALLY general but I think it is pretty accurate.....generally speaking.

 

[BostonBullit]

exactly....you can't cut the programs because people will always cry for the children and old people, but if you cut taxes eventually it gets rid of "programs". now you could hope that the "programs" that get cut are the ones that should be cut, like a room full of pinheads studying the flow rate of ketchup as it relates to the mirgratory patterns of the sea snail, or paying some slub in The Village to hit a trashcan with a bat 5 times, flick some red paint on it and call it "art", but that's not how it works. Faced with having to cut programs the libs/dems will ALWAYS strike at the weak first, that being the children, elderly, poor, and handicapped. why? simple, to scare people into accepting more taxes as the only way to "save" these poor souls. and the cycle continues.....


I say starve the beast, eventually it'll shake out. might be a rough decade or two though.

 

[LordOpie]

but if they cut taxes, do they actually cut spending? Doesn't seem that way at all.

 

[dante]

exactly....you can't cut the programs because people will always cry for the children and old people, but if you cut taxes eventually it gets rid of "programs". now you could hope that the "programs" that get cut are the ones that should be cut, like a room full of pinheads studying the flow rate of ketchup as it relates to the mirgratory patterns of the sea snail, or paying some slub in The Village to hit a trashcan with a bat 5 times, flick some red paint on it and call it "art", but that's not how it works. Faced with having to cut programs the libs/dems will ALWAYS strike at the weak first, that being the children, elderly, poor, and handicapped. why? simple, to scare people into accepting more taxes as the only way to "save" these poor souls. and the cycle continues.....


I say starve the beast, eventually it'll shake out. might be a rough decade or two though.

Hmmmm, ok, first thing, cut the military spending in half. Do we really need to spend more than the next 20 countries combined? Do we really need specific items such as the F22 stealth fighter when the F15s, F16s and F18s that we have already can take on any and all other planes in the sky? Do we need pet projects like the Osprey which has crashed again and again and has proven to be an absolute waste of time and money, and yet since it's being built in some powerful congressman's district it keeps getting funding? Do we really need 40,000 troups in S. Korea or 30,000 in Germany? Do we really need a "missile defense shield" when 19 men with box cutters killed more people than Pearl Harbor and nuclear deterrence has worked for 60 years? Do we really need hand-held nukes when daisy-cutters do the job just fine?

Then fully fund things that will *decrease* the cost to society, like pre-school in the hopes of a better educated (and less incarcerated) society. Fund after-school activities so that kids aren't doing drugs or getting into trouble. Fund community college for all because it's CHEAPER to send someone to college for a year than it is to send them to jail.

Sound good?

edit: troop numbers are estimates, am too lazy to look them up

 

[RhinofromWA]

Hmmmm, ok, first thing, cut the military spending in half. Do we really need to spend more than the next 20 countries combined?

Maybe that is why we are the go to country when manpower and hardware is needed

Do we really need specific items such as the F22 stealth fighter when the F15s, F16s and F18s that we have already can take on any and all other planes in the sky?

more than likely yes we do need them as a part of the weapons quiver available to the military.

Do we need pet projects like the Osprey which has crashed again and again and has proven to be an absolute waste of time and money, and yet since it's being built in some powerful congressman's district it keeps getting funding?

I agree dump the Osprey (though it is hell'a cool ) But drop the accusation after that......

Do we really need 40,000 troups in S. Korea or 30,000 in Germany? Do we really need a "missile defense shield" when 19 men with box cutters killed more people than Pearl Harbor and nuclear deterrence has worked for 60 years? Do we really need hand-held nukes when daisy-cutters do the job just fine?

More than likely yes. You make a good point with box cutters....maybe we should highjack civilian planes and crash them in to towns that we have a skirmish in? That would do the trick.

Then fully fund things that will *decrease* the cost to society, like pre-school in the hopes of a better educated (and less incarcerated) society. Fund after-school activities so that kids aren't doing drugs or getting into trouble. Fund community college for all because it's CHEAPER to send someone to college for a year than it is to send them to jail.

Sound good?

edit: troop numbers are estimates, am too lazy to look them up

I like how you have a fuzzy outlook on things...it is cute.

I won't knock for the troops numbers thing.....I don't care either.

Seems like well off advantaged kids get the items mentioned above yet go out and kill cats for sport, drag race down city streets, and commit crimes as well. They go to preschool, have after school activities, get shoved into community college by their parents and still faulter to be the upstanding human beings they should be ...given enough money was spent on them.

but it all looks good on paper and at political convetions....

 

[Westy]

I'd be interested in what people on here who own business and employ others think about tax cuts.

Try running your business like the Government runs, then let's see how long you last.

 

[jmvar]

I like how you have a fuzzy outlook on things...it is cute.

Fuzzy and cute.....lets look at the numbers....after school programs are being cut everyday for kids..

The after-school hours also are the most common time for
teens to become pregnant,7 and being unsupervised after school
puts kids at greater risk of truancy, receiving poor grades, mental
depression, and substance abuse.8 In fact, according to a
University of Southern California study, being unsupervised after
school doubles the risk that an eighth grader will smoke, drink, or
abuse drugs.9
A national survey of 90,000 seventh to twelfth graders released
in 2000 found that teens who hang out unsupervised with friends,
and teens who are failing in school, are the youth most at risk for
becoming involved in dangerous behaviors, such as smoking,
drinking, or carrying or using weapons.
‘Teens who hang out
unsupervised with
friends, and teens who
are failing in school, are
the youth most at risk for
becoming involved in
dangerous behaviors’

source, look on page 15

and what is the result? a another generation of kids that will cost the country this:

The U.S. federal government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second.

Source, their source was the office of National Drug Control

Rhino, I know there is a smiley at the end of your statement but there is always truth to sarcasm.

I completely agree with this statement:

Then fully fund things that will *decrease* the cost to society, like pre-school in the hopes of a better educated (and less incarcerated) society. Fund after-school activities so that kids aren't doing drugs or getting into trouble. Fund community college for all because it's CHEAPER to send someone to college for a year than it is to send them to jail.

Drugs and crime are sucking the resources from the fed. gov., I can't even imagine how much more drug related crimes cost the fed. gov. We can't keep ignoring solutions because they are warm and fuzzy and sound like they were coming from a bunch of hippies. After school programs work, I have seen it first hand, the statistics show it, so why do they keep getting cut? To save money? In the end we spend so much more as a result of not having them..........

 

[BostonBullit]

Hmmmm, ok, first thing, cut the military spending in half. Do we really need to spend more than the next 20 countries combined? Do we really need specific items such as the F22 stealth fighter when the F15s, F16s and F18s that we have already can take on any and all other planes in the sky? Do we need pet projects like the Osprey which has crashed again and again and has proven to be an absolute waste of time and money, and yet since it's being built in some powerful congressman's district it keeps getting funding? Do we really need 40,000 troups in S. Korea or 30,000 in Germany? Do we really need a "missile defense shield" when 19 men with box cutters killed more people than Pearl Harbor and nuclear deterrence has worked for 60 years? Do we really need hand-held nukes when daisy-cutters do the job just fine?

Then fully fund things that will *decrease* the cost to society, like pre-school in the hopes of a better educated (and less incarcerated) society. Fund after-school activities so that kids aren't doing drugs or getting into trouble. Fund community college for all because it's CHEAPER to send someone to college for a year than it is to send them to jail.

Sound good?

edit: troop numbers are estimates, am too lazy to look them up

I agree that there is a lot of defense spending that we can do without, and that it's mainly the result of some congressman cowtowing to a big corp in his district. I think we should cut those programs as well. But I don't think we should then dump that money into "social programs" in the hopes of curing America's Ills. funding universal pre-school to keep people out of prison? really? do you really think putting kids in school a year earlier is going to help in any significant way? The reason all this **** happens isn't that the kids have nothing to do after school, it's that there's no one watching what the ARE doing. Until parents get off their asses and stop blaming The Man for their kids failures nothing will get better, no matter how many social programs the government starts up. "my kid wouldn't be knocked up at 14 if the government had gave her a nice after school place to play" yea, it's the governments fault your daughter decided to have sex. where were you while this was going on?

People need to stop expecting the government to raise their kids, and the government needs to stop taking the money I sit in this ****ty box every day to earn to raise other peoples kids.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Fuzzy and cute.....lets look at the numbers....after school programs are being cut everyday for kids..

The after-school hours also are the most common time for
teens to become pregnant,7 and being unsupervised after school
puts kids at greater risk of truancy, receiving poor grades, mental
depression, and substance abuse.8 In fact, according to a
University of Southern California study, being unsupervised after
school doubles the risk that an eighth grader will smoke, drink, or
abuse drugs.9
A national survey of 90,000 seventh to twelfth graders released
in 2000 found that teens who hang out unsupervised with friends,
and teens who are failing in school, are the youth most at risk for
becoming involved in dangerous behaviors, such as smoking,
drinking, or carrying or using weapons.
‘Teens who hang out
unsupervised with
friends, and teens who
are failing in school, are
the youth most at risk for
becoming involved in
dangerous behaviors’
source, look on page 15
and what is the result? a another generation of kids that will cost the country this:
The U.S. federal government spent $19.179 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second.
Source, their source was the office of National Drug Control

Rhino, I know there is a smiley at the end of your statement but there is always truth to sarcasm.

I completely agree with this statement:

Drugs and crime are sucking the resources from the fed. gov., I can't even imagine how much more drug related crimes cost the fed. gov. We can't keep ignoring solutions because they are warm and fuzzy and sound like they were coming from a bunch of hippies. After school programs work, I have seen it first hand, the statistics show it, so why do they keep getting cut? To save money? In the end we spend so much more as a result of not having them..........

You and Bostonbullit are on opposing sides but I do aggree with part of both of your posts.

1) kids (in general) these days, are in trouble.

2) parents (in general), don't care to raise their kids.

After schools are not a fix to the problem...they are a short stop band aid. Given a couple options of cuts to programs I would choose after school activities before cutting teachers...for an example. If you support funding after school activities above paying teachers you have one huge hill to climb and I fear deaf ears once you get there. Where should we cut funding to pay for afterschool activities...also commonly known as babysitting?

Parents don't know their kids and that is nothing new, but you can't argue that parenting has changed for the worst over the last half a centry. Parents can't/won't raise their kids....they don't provide that supervision that kids complianed about in the past. It used to be you didn't want your parents called because you are acting up...you would get in trouble. Now they want their parents called so good old mom/dad can scream at the principal and have the parents deny their baby would never so such a thing.

Both are big problems but I think if parents could/would take charge and be a part of raising their children as oppposed to expecting the schools and teachers to do it all I think the need for after school activities would diminish because the parents would have them involved in something whether it me playing basketball, chopping wood, playing soccer or weeding the garden.

I fear neither are going to happen anytime soon....if ever. When personal responsibility and excess money are not to be found.

Rhino

 

[Lexx D]

Parents don't know their kids and that is nothing new, but you can't argue that parenting has changed for the worst over the last half a centry. Parents can't/won't raise their kids....they don't provide that supervision that kids complianed about in the past. It used to be you didn't want your parents called because you are acting up...you would get in trouble. Now they want their parents called so good old mom/dad can scream at the principal and have the parents deny their baby would never so such a thing.


Rhino

except that one of the reasons kids are not being taken care of is the fact that more households are single, and more households need two incomes to support and cloth kids.
Guess we're in a bind now, A single mother can't watch her kid 24/7 because she needs to work, after school programs get cut and she needs to pay for a sitter, all of a sudden she has to work more to pay for the sitter and still doesn't get to spend any time with her daughter. Ahhh but then GW gives her a whopping $400 to go buy new shoes and jumpstart our nations economy.

 

[RhinofromWA]

except that one of the reasons kids are not being taken care of is the fact that more households are single, and more households need two incomes to support and cloth kids.
Guess we're in a bind now, A single mother can't watch her kid 24/7 because she needs to work, after school programs get cut and she needs to pay for a sitter, all of a sudden she has to work more to pay for the sitter and still doesn't get to spend any time with her daughter. Ahhh but then GW gives her a whopping $400 to go buy new shoes and jumpstart our nations economy.

What is the major theme in your post? neaky:

Single parent families

It is not the easiest way to go about things, BUT involvement in the childs upbringing is often put on the back burner because the bills need to be paid. I reality it should be the #1 priority no matter what. What good is clothing a child when you neglect to raise them? Being involved in a childs life doesn't require money just interest and a "little time" and as a SINGLE parent that time is that much more important because you are now doing the duty of two parents. There are many reasons why parent become single parents....I don't care why....I care about the damn kids they neglect.

Beign a single parent doesn't make parenting any less important....it just makes it that much harder. And being a single parent is no reason to not raise your kids....it makes it a #1 priority. It does not pass the responsiblity of raising the nations children to states. More of the personal responsibilty thing we are lacking as a country I guess.

Listen to me preach... but you don't have to be a parent to see the stuff going down these days.

 

[Lexx D]

What is the major theme in your post? neaky:

Single parent families

What about more need for two incomes didn't you understand. the single parent thing was an EXAMPLE!

Beign a single parent doesn't make parenting any less important....it just makes it that much harder. And being a single parent is no reason to not raise your kids....it makes it a #1 priority. It does not pass the responsiblity of raising the nations children to states. More of the personal responsibilty thing we are lacking as a country I guess.

Listen to me preach... but you don't have to be a parent to see the stuff going down these days.

I agree but that's why after school programs and such help parents out. You can't just say that they don't try! Sure some don't and others do that in no way makes cutting programs ok since there are people who need them.

 

[RhinofromWA]

What about more need for two incomes didn't you understand. the single parent thing was an EXAMPLE!

I agree but that's why after school programs and such help parents out. You can't just say that they don't try! Sure some don't and others do that in no way makes cutting programs ok since there are people who need them.

Uh single parents (not always mothers) are single income. It isn't necessarily the double income needed....it is that when one is bringing $$$ the other is taking care of the child providing attention and if possible making money on the side. Often 2 incomes often get shadowed by the cost of both parents working. So one might be working so the child can have someone else watch them....that is much worst than a involved parent.

spending more money (or making it) does not fix the problem.....

I am not saying they don't try...I am saying they it isn't an option. they need to be part of their kids lives. No amount of government funded baby sitting (Which is what we are talking about) is an adaquate replacement faor an involved parent.

Kids need parents(or a parent) that is involved. Babysitting is a bandaid....and a shift of responsibility.

Not saying there shouldn't be Boys and girls clubs....which there are....often in the city settings we are concerned about. I have seen the after school activities that are provided in my school district....well atleast 10yrs ago when I was attending HS in the greater Seattle area. Those kids are at risk....they are being baby sat and the parents are no where to be found.

 

[narlus]

Those kids are at risk....they are being baby sat and the parents are no where to be found.

they can probably be found at work.

rhino, if two parents are working regular 8-5 hours, and school gets out at 2, what's yr solution?

 

[Chutney]

they can probably be found at work.

rhino, if two parents are working regular 8-5 hours, and school gets out at 2, what's yr solution?

Amen to that.

No matter how you figure it, without afterschool programs the kid is either left alone or they have to hire someone to watch the kid. A conservative estimate for price is probably 8-10 an hour for a high school student (I made $9/hour 4 years ago) or more for a real nanny. Thats $24 - $30 a day and $120 - $150 a week. Thats a lot of money to be spending, and a lot of young/single parents simply cant afford that.

I respect what Rhino is saying about there being no substitute for good parenting, but its not as easy as all that. One of my Co-workers has two kids in elementary school, and he and his wife dont make enough to afford a good sitter. To make ends meet, he works from 4 to 1 every day. His wife then works from 2 to 10 at night. I cant imagine how hard this is for them. Imagine not seeing your wife at all in the week. In addition it is hard for the rest of us at work. The work we do requires cooperation (Im sure most does, actually) and not having him here during normal hours is difficult. We are always rushing to meet deadlines, and he is the main paper writter here (obviously Im not - though this is turning into a inanely long post. ). Pretty hard for him to get the paper written when we cant get the data too him.

So, if the government (and us as the voters) would just poney up and pay a little more taxes, people like my coworker would have a lot less hectic lives. He would be able to see his wife in the evening, eat dinner with her, and have the whole family together. In addition it seems to me that they would be able to raise the kids better since they could have both parents home at the same time.

blah - not too good at the whole writting thing - now its back to my geekwad number-crunching. Hope something makes some sense in there.

 

[RhinofromWA]

they can probably be found at work.

rhino, if two parents are working regular 8-5 hours, and school gets out at 2, what's yr solution?

One works 5-2

One doesn't work (move to where it is cheaper.....etc)

No afterschool program is a good substitute for an involved parent.

I would be all for paying for an afterschool program that did something more than baby sat and the parent of the children in attendence were involved in their childrens life.

Parents should come first before diapering a 14yo. Parenting is the epidemic in this country ...the result is the children you have troubled.

Spending money on afterschool programs is money lost.

 

[Lexx D]

One works 5-2

One doesn't work (move to where it is cheaper.....etc)

No afterschool program is a good substitute for an involved parent.

I would be all for paying for an afterschool program that did something more than baby sat and the parent of the children in attendence were involved in their childrens life.

Parents should come first before diapering a 14yo. Parenting is the epidemic in this country ...the result is the children you have troubled.

Spending money on afterschool programs is money lost.

The answers are so simple. You should run for office, the world would be a better place. Parents get to spend as much time as they want with the kids, taxes are lower. What a wonderful picture Rhino has painted for us. You have my vote

 

[Chutney]

One works 5-2

One doesn't work (move to where it is cheaper.....etc)

No afterschool program is a good substitute for an involved parent.

I would be all for paying for an afterschool program that did something more than baby sat and the parent of the children in attendence were involved in their childrens life.

Parents should come first before diapering a 14yo. Parenting is the epidemic in this country ...the result is the children you have troubled.

Spending money on afterschool programs is money lost.

It really is not that simple. A family that is already pressed for cash can often not control their hours, and often cant afford the time (time away from being a good parent, no?) and money necessary to pick up and move to a new location. Im lucky enough to have a very flexible job where I could come in 5-2, but many arent so lucky. Most of the people I know have jobs that pin them at work 8-5. No flexibility at all.

IMO, more money for after school programs would allow for more diverse opportunities for the kids such as Hiking, Music programs, sports, public service, etc.... My experiences with afterschool programs involved Soccer, and soccer as well as the generic YMCA "babysitting". My experiences with the YMCA are mixed. Sometimes they just sit and watched us play, but other times they encouraged us to do different things, and also helped with homework. Even thie "babysitting" I think that I was better off then going home and watching TV.

What would you do with your kids in the afternoon?(or what do you do if you do have kids?) Define for me what your idea of "good parenting" is.

No accusations, just curious.

 

[Lexx D]

What would you do with your kids in the afternoon?(or what do you do if you do have kids?) Define what "good parenting is?

No accusations, just curious.

You'll get the same answer, most likely out of a parenting for dummies book or something. "John needs attention and love but daddy has to work nights and can't be there for john" simple answer dad needs a new job. :nuts:

 

[RhinofromWA]

It really is not that simple. A family that is already pressed for cash can often not control their hours, and often cant afford the time (time away from being a good parent, no?) and money necessary to pick up and move to a new location. Im lucky enough to have a very flexible job where I could come in 5-2, but many arent so lucky. Most of the people I know have jobs that pin them at work 8-5. No flexibility at all.

Then focus of there lives really needs to be restructured....right? It is all fine and dandy they are in bad straights. Are they doing everything they need to be doing...often enough not.
It is really that simple. If I can't afford a house in Seattle (I can't) I look elsewhere so when I do get a house I can afford it and still function. If your life does not allow time to focus on your child (#1 responsiblity of a parent) than BIG things need to change. The focus needs to change....it is that simple. Execution is not going to be easy but it is the answer.

IMO, more money for after school programs would allow for more diverse opportunities for the kids such as Hiking, Music programs, sports, public service, etc.... My experiences with afterschool programs involved Soccer, and soccer as well as the generic YMCA "babysitting". My experiences with the YMCA are mixed. Sometimes they just sit and watched us play, but other times they encouraged us to do different things, and also helped with homework. Even thie "babysitting" I think that I was better off then going home and watching TV.

None of that comes close to an involved parents effect on their childs life. It is passing the responsibility and cost of rasiing a child to the government.

What would you do with your kids in the afternoon?(or what do you do if you do have kids?) Define for me what your idea of "good parenting" is.

No accusations, just curious.

No, that is a fair question. I was lucky enough to be in a family where my mother was at home early on while growing up and my father worked....later on when my brother and I were older my mother worked part time to entertain herself and give her something else to do that she wanted and she would be there when we got home. Often the neglect is not measured in $$$ but hours or attention. That is parenting....not buying Nikes and (god I am lame what do kids where these days : ) Ambercrombie....but interaction and being a part of kids lives.

If a single parent works 9-5 they when they get home they have a few chores and a big one was to nurture the child. Life is insanely hectic...but children are often neglected by single parents (Male or Female). Problem is lack of interest.

Being involved in the childrens school....helping them with homework....getting them involved with sports (accomidations can be made with other parents if needed) but not just to pay to have someone keep your child busy until you get home. The parent is responsible to make sure that child is not neglected as it is raised.

Time is more imprtant that $$$ when it comes to kids. Desire to be a part of your childs life seems desperately vacant these days.

Tell me how afterschool activities will fixe the problem of parents not being involved in their childrens life? Short answer: They don't...they are trying to minimize the problem (of lack of parenting) by paying someone else to do it...that more often than not will not be able to do enough.

Afterschool programs are not the answer they are a bandaid. A bandaid needed by the children because their families have their priorities mixed up.

 

[RhinofromWA]

The answers are so simple. You should run for office, the world would be a better place. Parents get to spend as much time as they want with the kids, taxes are lower. What a wonderful picture Rhino has painted for us. You have my vote

Alright smart guy, give me the answer....

How does spending $$$ on after school programs fix the problem? Not the problem of unsupervised kids...but the problem of parental neglect of wich they are suffering?

Why should people bring kids into this world they can't devote the attention they deserve? Seemed rather back asswards. Why must we ignore the problem, and try and fix the resulting product (troubled children).

It is like changing the bandage on a gaping wound that will not stop bleeding....ignoreing the reason why the pads are filling with blood.

Just looking for your anwers.

 

[RhinofromWA]

The answers are so simple. You should run for office, the world would be a better place. Parents get to spend as much time as they want with the kids, taxes are lower. What a wonderful picture Rhino has painted for us. You have my vote

And since you imply that parenting is not the responsibility of the parent rather the goverment than

Parenting is not the answer...according to you. Though most trouble children don't have that...

Next best thing is to have a government sponsered mass-teenage babysitting events daily.

Again programs are to often used as a parental substitute/babysitter than an activity program. You now have entertained neglected children. Way to go

 

[Silver]

You'll get the same answer, most likely out of a parenting for dummies book or something. "John needs attention and love but daddy has to work nights and can't be there for john" simple answer dad needs a new job. :nuts:

Actually, the simple answer is that maybe we should have been teaching dad about birth control when he was younger, and maybe he could have put off having John for a while until he could afford it.

But, we can't do that, because it's sinful, and teenagers may have sex if we tell them it exists before they marry...

 

[narlus]

rhino, come back to us when you've got some real life parenting experience.

i'm fortunate enough to make enough $ to have my wife stay at home w/ the kids. but i'm in the minority by far. and most employers don't give a damn about flex time.

 

[Lexx D]

And since you imply that parenting is not the responsibility of the parent rather the goverment than

Parenting is not the answer...according to you. Though most trouble children don't have that...

Next best thing is to have a government sponsered mass-teenage babysitting events daily.

Again programs are to often used as a parental substitute/babysitter than an activity program. You now have entertained neglected children. Way to go

I'm not saying in anyway that raising a child is the Gov. responsability, that's a conclusion you have jumped to. I'm saying the answer to this issue isn't as easy as "bad parenting" I don't have kids, i can barely take care of myself. but i know how difficult it can be financially. My point is that there is no easy answer unlike you who seems to think it's a simple solution solution like work 5-2? Tell me me Mr. simple solution who's putting your child on the bus at 5:00? And where is this magical job that i can choose my own hours? Come visit reality sometime it's different than the shangrala you've painted a picture of.

 

[genpowell71]

If you neglect your kids, you need to be shot, beheaded (Iraqi style), and dipped in sulfuric acid. When you bring a child into this world, it's your responsibility to ensure that he/she grows up as best as he/she can. Telling someone that I cant raise my kid because I'm addicted to crack, or because you cant get a job because you didnt graduate from school. Those are choices YOU make. My kids have what they need and they dont want for anything. I give them a good life because I want to. I dont make excuses for why I'm a lousy parent. And I dont try everything in the book to get and keep welfare

 

[fluff]

If you neglect your kids, you need to be shot, beheaded (Iraqi style), and dipped in sulfuric acid. When you bring a child into this world, it's your responsibility to ensure that he/she grows up as best as he/she can. Telling someone that I cant raise my kid because I'm addicted to crack, or because you cant get a job because you didnt graduate from school. Those are choices YOU make. My kids have what they need and they dont want for anything. I give them a good life because I want to. I dont make excuses for why I'm a lousy parent. And I dont try everything in the book to get and keep welfare

I'm pleased for you and your kids but you clearly haven't got a clue what some others here are talking about. Not everyone is as fortunate as you are, there could be many reasons beyond someone's control where they have to make some impossible choices and if the government does nothing to help them they are screwed.

 

[LordOpie]

I'm pleased for you and your kids but you clearly haven't got a clue what some others here are talking about. Not everyone is as fortunate as you are, there could be many reasons beyond someone's control where they have to make some impossible choices and if the government does nothing to help them they are screwed.

 

[MTB_Rob_NC]

OK so I clicked on this because I never saw it originally. Did anyone actually answer your original ?

I can certainly explain the theory, but as an opinion goes.... Well everyone is entitled to them

 

[Lexx D]

If you neglect your kids, you need to be shot, beheaded (Iraqi style), and dipped in sulfuric acid. When you bring a child into this world, it's your responsibility to ensure that he/she grows up as best as he/she can. Telling someone that I cant raise my kid because I'm addicted to crack, or because you cant get a job because you didnt graduate from school. Those are choices YOU make. My kids have what they need and they dont want for anything. I give them a good life because I want to. I dont make excuses for why I'm a lousy parent. And I dont try everything in the book to get and keep welfare

it's good to know you're not ignorant

 

[RhinofromWA]

rhino, come back to us when you've got some real life parenting experience.

i'm fortunate enough to make enough $ to have my wife stay at home w/ the kids. but i'm in the minority by far. and most employers don't give a damn about flex time.

It is not flex time....and maybe I wasn't clear. A two income household would have one parent workingl 5-2 or 7-2 The point being is, there is someone home there for the kids.

Here is an idea.....if one job does not work into your schedule you get another job that does.....or you move to a place where you don't need 2 incomes. When it comes time to raise a family...I can't see staying in the Seattle area. I would probably relocate...to where one income could reasonably support a family.

Blow your real life experience BS out your arse. I was raised by two parents and my mother worked part time as we grew up (stay at home when we were young and part time when we were older).... My friends growing up had other arrangements. I am now just over ten years out of HS and my many of my friends have married, divorced, became single parents with no real way of supporting them, etc. I think my parents would have to object to your enabling of neglective parents.

I find it humbling that you can assume I have no idea what I am talking about because I have not sprouted one of my own. I know I am not financially or mentally ready to raise a child. When I am ready to accept the responsibilty of parenting then the reality of a child should be considered.

Parental involvement....no matter what people say, is not impossible. It shouldn't be an option! They can find a way. That is like me saying I have no time to do something...if you really want to do it, you find a way (time) to do it.

On the up side up to you for being able to offer your kids that attention. That is a good thing.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I'm not saying in anyway that raising a child is the Gov. responsability, that's a conclusion you have jumped to. I'm saying the answer to this issue isn't as easy as "bad parenting" I don't have kids, i can barely take care of myself.

I am in the same boat.

but i know how difficult it can be financially. My point is that there is no easy answer unlike you who seems to think it's a simple solution solution like work 5-2? Tell me me Mr. simple solution who's putting your child on the bus at 5:00? And where is this magical job that i can choose my own hours? Come visit reality sometime it's different than the shangrala you've painted a picture of.

I must not have been clear....in a two income house you don't need both parents working 5-2....just one. Maybe 7-2 and be part time for income yet not neglect their child is the answer. You know there are jobs out there...and if the situation presents it self you can look for them.

You are right all is lost! Everyone has no other option but to be latched to a desk from 9-5. the poor kids that are without parents... There is nothing that can be done for them....maybe if we distract them until the parents get home....maybe they won't know they are being neglected and turn out alright... *dripping with sarcasm*

Afterschool programs do not fix or even address the problem of the parents not being there for thier kids (the whole reason for the programs in teh first place. It simply accepts that parents can't try more, and do better, and there is no hope for the parents to accept responsibility for their offspring. I am confused at how you can discount parenting as not being the bigger problem, and be more concerned with what to do with young Skippy from 2-5pm.

 

[RhinofromWA]

I'm pleased for you and your kids but you clearly haven't got a clue what some others here are talking about. Not everyone is as fortunate as you are, there could be many reasons beyond someone's control where they have to make some impossible choices and if the government does nothing to help them they are screwed.

You know there are a hell of a lot of people who are in the same unfortunate boat that are still involved in their childs life and raise them devoting time and love to them that they need.

Of course there are people in bad situations. But there are tons of people that could if they cared to organize and try be there for their kids. An involved parent could use an afterschool activity program and still be a good parent but they seem to be the minority.

No government program is even a poor substitute to an involved and careing parent.