Time to rebuild the structure that allowed for mom's to raise their kid's at home again ?

[beagle9]

.....The young married couples I speak to say that the woman has to work to keep the families head above water now....

I was talking to a young coworker who was complaining about his pay. It turned out his wife was a vet and, even though they lived on land given by his father-in-law, he also had a new truck, ATVs and a deer lease. There's a financially wise thing about "living within one's means".

As has been noted on other threads, even our "poor" often have a roof over their head, indoor plumbing and a television set. Usually a car too. In short families keeping their "head above water" is relative to how much crap they are carrying with them. If they had less stuff, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for them to swim.

. So your excuse is to use the wrecklace actions of a few in order to justify ignoring a huge problem in the nation ?? Then you refuse to address the real problems of promoting family and family values again by way of your cherry picking ? It's an old tactic, but one that is seen through out now. What it comes down to, is that we are dealing with institutionalized greed, the dollar not being worth anything much anymore (cost of living way to high), and if anyone seeks to challenge the greed and immoralism that has created it all, then there is enough cherry picking to put down the conversation in which the conversation should be used to fix the problems, and not to hide the problems by way of this cherry picking used.

 

[beagle9]

.....The young married couples I speak to say that the woman has to work to keep the families head above water now....

I was talking to a young coworker who was complaining about his pay. It turned out his wife was a vet and, even though they lived on land given by his father-in-law, he also had a new truck, ATVs and a deer lease. There's a financially wise thing about "living within one's means".

As has been noted on other threads, even our "poor" often have a roof over their head, indoor plumbing and a television set. Usually a car too. In short families keeping their "head above water" is relative to how much crap they are carrying with them. If they had less stuff, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for them to swim.

That's exactly it. When parents (or people who plan on having children) buy a house, what kind of house do they usually buy? Usually it's the nicest house in the safest neighbor hood their combined paychecks could barely afford.

If things go right, they may get pay increases, but they also get property tax and house insurance increases to help offset those gains.

In some instances, the mother has to work, but in most cases, they choose it as an option.

. What stats are you using or are you just looking over the fences in your neighborhood, and trying to draw your own conclusions by being a nosy busy body ? The nation is crying out in huge ways now, and the results of the last 40 years have come to a head, but you ignore all this for your cherry picking Ray ?

 

[Coyote]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Before Reagan, a single income held families together in most cases. What happened?

. The over reaching government/internal revenue service happened. First the women decided to help the husband make a little extra money to pay off some bills, build some savings, take a vacation, keep the kids stay looking sharp for school, and pay for the school of choice etc. Then the government gets wind that the American family is getting ahead in these ways, so up goes the taxes, cost of living, and everything that would consume the income to the point that it pushed the woman to work longer and longer to help out the family. After a while the system got to the point that it takes two full time incomes to even think about supporting a family anymore, and when this happened it is when the wolf (the leftist agenda) began to see the kids being separated more and more from the mama goat's (becoming vulnerable), and this is when it moved upon them in the public school systems, and in the college's. We are seeing the results of it all being played out on the nations stage right now as we speak.

its not a government conspiracy you dumbass. why dont you talk about the women who were widowed or the women whose husbands would leave them and couldn't afford to take care of themselves much less their kids.

. With the combination of Hollywood brainwashing the vulnerable kids & the government being controlled by a leftist agenda, we have suffered greatly because neither were forces of good for the American family, family values or the family structure over time.

These things have weakened America greatly, but you leftist know this, and it was part of the leftist agenda in which the left is now thinking that it is being attacked for. Why else are we seeing what we are seeing in it all now ?

It was the left (particularly women's rights groups) that pushed for the single-parent family. They also promoted women working in professions, kids, husband or not.

It worked very well for the left. Single-parent homes are directly related to poverty, so that keeps them on the public dole which Democrats love. Married professional who do stay together make a great combined income which is taxed at a higher rate. It's a win-win for the government.

So professionals have kids, drop them off at daycare centers, pick them up at the end of the workday. When the kids get old enough for school, the school becomes the new babysitter and the parents can continue to bring in good money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

.....The young married couples I speak to say that the woman has to work to keep the families head above water now....

I was talking to a young coworker who was complaining about his pay. It turned out his wife was a vet and, even though they lived on land given by his father-in-law, he also had a new truck, ATVs and a deer lease. There's a financially wise thing about "living within one's means".

As has been noted on other threads, even our "poor" often have a roof over their head, indoor plumbing and a television set. Usually a car too. In short families keeping their "head above water" is relative to how much crap they are carrying with them. If they had less stuff, maybe it wouldn't be so hard for them to swim.

That's exactly it. When parents (or people who plan on having children) buy a house, what kind of house do they usually buy? Usually it's the nicest house in the safest neighbor hood their combined paychecks could barely afford.

If things go right, they may get pay increases, but they also get property tax and house insurance increases to help offset those gains.

In some instances, the mother has to work, but in most cases, they choose it as an option.

. What stats are you using or are you just looking over the fences in your neighborhood, and trying to draw your own conclusions by being a nosy busy body ? The nation is crying out in huge ways now, and the results of the last 40 years have come to a head, but you ignore all this for your cherry picking Ray ?

It's everybody I know be it friends or family. It's the normal progression of our modern society.

I only know of two people (friends) who had stay-at-home wives. One works two full-time jobs and has been the last 30 years. The other friend who is the brother of the friend I just mentioned did the same thing. They worked their asses off and don't have very big homes, but they raised their children successfully.

For everybody else, life is material. We have more things to buy today. We all want our material articles that make our lives comfortable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

 

[beagle9]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

 

[Coyote]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

You're talking about the government paying for the female of the family to stay home and raise children?

Downside:
women give up their career - assuming 2 children per family, several years apart at least, 20 years out of the workforce raising and - "home schooling".

SHE is the one who HAS TO give up her job.

Homeschooling is not always the best way to educate kids. In fact, homeschooling is all over the board in terms of success.

$9,000 a year does not replace a career earning $100,000 a year.

You're talking about taxpapers paying for it in addition to paying for schooling for kids in public schools and private schools.

Companies like SAS chose to do it and it's benefited greatly. Why not inact legislation that makes those choices easier and more profitable for companies to do?

 

[Coyote]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

The thing with retirement though, is people are living longer and healthier - far longer then they did when SS was first set up. Pensions and SS were never meant to sustain people for that long. Raising the retirement age is something I think is a good idea with a few exceptions - there are some careers that are so hard on a person, they are physically incapable of continuing.

 

[beagle9]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

The thing with retirement though, is people are living longer and healthier - far longer then they did when SS was first set up. Pensions and SS were never meant to sustain people for that long. Raising the retirement age is something I think is a good idea with a few exceptions - there are some careers that are so hard on a person, they are physically incapable of continuing.

. Glad you recognize that many (all depending on their careers) are the biggest losers in it all. Now how has that been a just and righteous system to promote ? As far as people living longer and more healthy (I don't believe it ). We have had cancer devastate these stats or theories over the years, not to mention heart attack, diabetes, and birth defects showing up in a fatal way down the road. The system or policy is flawed big time, and it needs to be on the agenda for reform with everything else if serious about making America great again. The government robbing the thing has been another serious problem talked about over the years, and that needs to be addressed also. Women would be voluntarily wanting to raise their kids, and be a traditional wife for the traditional family structure, and no dam Nazi feminist should speak for these women who want this, because that is what is happening these days, and it's wrong.

 

[beagle9]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

You're talking about the government paying for the female of the family to stay home and raise children?

Downside:
women give up their career - assuming 2 children per family, several years apart at least, 20 years out of the workforce raising and - "home schooling".

SHE is the one who HAS TO give up her job.

Homeschooling is not always the best way to educate kids. In fact, homeschooling is all over the board in terms of success.

$9,000 a year does not replace a career earning $100,000 a year.

You're talking about taxpapers paying for it in addition to paying for schooling for kids in public schools and private schools.

Companies like SAS chose to do it and it's benefited greatly. Why not inact legislation that makes those choices easier and more profitable for companies to do?

. Need a policy that benefits all, and not written based upon a few exceptions that might work in some cases like SAS, but doesn't work for anyone else that it can't work for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

The thing with retirement though, is people are living longer and healthier - far longer then they did when SS was first set up. Pensions and SS were never meant to sustain people for that long. Raising the retirement age is something I think is a good idea with a few exceptions - there are some careers that are so hard on a person, they are physically incapable of continuing.

So what's the solution, only make people in certain careers applicable for later retirement?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If we want these social programs, we have to fund them. If we want to retire at the age of 55, then we need to double our employee contributions to Social Security during our working years.

 

[beagle9]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

The thing with retirement though, is people are living longer and healthier - far longer then they did when SS was first set up. Pensions and SS were never meant to sustain people for that long. Raising the retirement age is something I think is a good idea with a few exceptions - there are some careers that are so hard on a person, they are physically incapable of continuing.

So what's the solution, only make people in certain careers applicable for later retirement?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If we want these social programs, we have to fund them. If we want to retire at the age of 55, then we need to double our employee contributions to Social Security during our working years.

. Many would be willing to double their contributions for such a thing, just as long as it isn't robbed. The other thing is why haven't the people been involved about what they want as a program or was it all just a dam huge scam to begin with ? How come the issue isn't brought before a committee representing the people, and an open discussion begin, and the government do it's job for the people as it should be ?? Why are the people kept out of the issue, and only given the options that they are given ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

You're talking about the government paying for the female of the family to stay home and raise children?

Downside:
women give up their career - assuming 2 children per family, several years apart at least, 20 years out of the workforce raising and - "home schooling".

SHE is the one who HAS TO give up her job.

Homeschooling is not always the best way to educate kids. In fact, homeschooling is all over the board in terms of success.

$9,000 a year does not replace a career earning $100,000 a year.

You're talking about taxpapers paying for it in addition to paying for schooling for kids in public schools and private schools.

Companies like SAS chose to do it and it's benefited greatly. Why not inact legislation that makes those choices easier and more profitable for companies to do?

I think most women that can't afford to leave work to raise kids are not six figure income earners. They are probably in the 40K a year range. Taking in four students along with her own children would get her close to that missing income.

Where would the money come from? Take it out of public education. Less students means less classes, less teachers, much less administration, and smaller school buildings.

Before we do anything to promote companies providing daycare, we should first look for ways to make it better for them to provide health insurance to their employees once again. Nobody has to have children; it's optional. Everybody has to get healthcare at some point in their lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

. Well your definition of the village I accept, but the leftist idea of the definition of a village I don't accept. You're recollection of the past is what most had, and it was great, but somehow it was destroyed, and we all must learn why that happened, and we should work together to fix it... Making retirement a better deal in order to help the lower rungs do better about climbing the ladders of success could also help. The idea that people are having to work until they fall into the grave is killing the very community in which you described. Retirement in America has become a huge rip off where as millions of average working class citizens paid into social security all their working lives, only to get screwed over in the end. Retirement should be optional at 55 years old, and not at 65 years old where it is hoped that the person dies before drawing or doesn't draw for any length of time before dying after 65 years old. Talk about a screw job it all is, and it is causing our youth on the beginner end to still be living in their mommy's basement at 26 or beyond, putting off marriage and a family, and ending up mad as hell themselves about it all. It's partly why we are seeing anarchy in the streets on a daily basis now. The people have been duped, and they are fed up with it all. If we are going to get serious about making America great again, then let's do the things that reinstates the very fabric and values that made America great again. Strengthen the dollar, create great opportunities in jobs, reform the retirement system, healthcare system, and bring down the cost of living in America to facilitate it all. Are we serious now or just blowing smoke ?

The thing with retirement though, is people are living longer and healthier - far longer then they did when SS was first set up. Pensions and SS were never meant to sustain people for that long. Raising the retirement age is something I think is a good idea with a few exceptions - there are some careers that are so hard on a person, they are physically incapable of continuing.

So what's the solution, only make people in certain careers applicable for later retirement?

I've said it once and I'll say it again. If we want these social programs, we have to fund them. If we want to retire at the age of 55, then we need to double our employee contributions to Social Security during our working years.

. Many would be willing to double their contributions for such a thing, just as long as it isn't robbed. The other thing is why haven't the people been involved about what they want as a program or was it all just a dam huge scam to begin with ? How come the issue isn't brought before a committee representing the people, and an open discussion begin, and the government do it's job for the people as it should be ?? Why are the people kept out of the issue, and only given the options that they are given ?

If government kept increasing taxes for things like SS and Medicare, the public would revolt and probably want to do away with those programs. That's what the politicians are really afraid of.

So they keep letting these programs get further and further in the hole, and trying to figure out ways to keep their promisee to the people. You can stall it, but you can't avoid the inevitable.

That's why they are proposing an age limitation increase on collecting SS. Medical and Medicaid typically only pay about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Then hospitals and doctors have to increase their fees on everybody to make up for the loss, and then our health insurance has to take huge premium increases.

 

[Coyote]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

You're talking about the government paying for the female of the family to stay home and raise children?

Downside:
women give up their career - assuming 2 children per family, several years apart at least, 20 years out of the workforce raising and - "home schooling".

SHE is the one who HAS TO give up her job.

Homeschooling is not always the best way to educate kids. In fact, homeschooling is all over the board in terms of success.

$9,000 a year does not replace a career earning $100,000 a year.

You're talking about taxpapers paying for it in addition to paying for schooling for kids in public schools and private schools.

Companies like SAS chose to do it and it's benefited greatly. Why not inact legislation that makes those choices easier and more profitable for companies to do?

I think most women that can't afford to leave work to raise kids are not six figure income earners. They are probably in the 40K a year range. Taking in four students along with her own children would get her close to that missing income.

Where would the money come from? Take it out of public education. Less students means less classes, less teachers, much less administration, and smaller school buildings.

Before we do anything to promote companies providing daycare, we should first look for ways to make it better for them to provide health insurance to their employees once again. Nobody has to have children; it's optional. Everybody has to get healthcare at some point in their lives.

There is something else to consider. What does she do after 20 or more years out of the work force? Out of her career? This was a reality for many women.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Before Reagan, a single income held families together in most cases. What happened?

Actually the single family household was having trouble making ends meet well before Reagan. In the 60s and 70s we see women entering the workforce more and more and as we know, that shifts the supply/demand curve. More workers vying for the same jobs slows wage growth and that is a large part of the reason for the stagnation of pay for the last 40-50 years.

. OK, so what is the solution for the kids being brainwashed and raised outside of the family these days ? How does it all get fixed ? How do we bring back choice in which the left and right has since destroyed with the strong arm of government ?

In Japan...a place where we all agree raises educated and civic minded children...the school ( and therefore the government ) plays a major role in child rearing.

The idea that our kids are brainwashed is fucking ridiculous. Figure some shit out, will ya?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

We need a FAMILY FRIENDLY structure. Not just a structure that allows women to stay at home to raise kids.

That means we need to encourage policies that allow workplace flexibility for both mothers and fathers, so neither has to make a choice between children and career. Other additional ideas would be a cooperative day care AT the workplace, so parents are not so seperated from kids. These are doable - companies, like SAS do it and have as a bonus very dedicated employees with low turnover. Of course, SAS is not a public company.

The other thing..."it takes a village to raise a kid"...no, it's not "leftist indoctrination" it's a reality. We, humans, are communal social animals who evolved with an extended system of family and community to help with child raising. When I grew up, most mother's did not work. Our community, was a mix of young families, older families, and seniors. There were people around all the time, everyone knew who you were, and kept an eye on things. There was an older couple a few doors down we could go to and talk, there was neighbor with a dog who let us play with the dog. There was community involvement. That's what "it takes a village" means. Raising kids is not meant to be a family in isolation but a family within a community.

What you are talking about is (once again) placing the burden of raising kids on the employer. The employer didn't open up a business so you can work and keep an eye on your kids.

I presented this idea in several other topics, so I'll introduce it again:

The solution to this problem is to provide the female of the family with income while staying at home to raise her children. How do we do that? We pay them.

Mothers can home school, but again, she has to give up her job in order to do that. I believe the average cost to educate children in America today is something like 13K per year per student. So why not let the home school mother educate other kids in the neighborhood?

If we pay that parent 9K per student she takes in, she can educate them while at the same time educating her own children and still maintaining a secondary family income. The taxpayers save 4K per student every year, and everybody wins..........well except the teachers unions which is why we will never have a system like that.

You're talking about the government paying for the female of the family to stay home and raise children?

Downside:
women give up their career - assuming 2 children per family, several years apart at least, 20 years out of the workforce raising and - "home schooling".

SHE is the one who HAS TO give up her job.

Homeschooling is not always the best way to educate kids. In fact, homeschooling is all over the board in terms of success.

$9,000 a year does not replace a career earning $100,000 a year.

You're talking about taxpapers paying for it in addition to paying for schooling for kids in public schools and private schools.

Companies like SAS chose to do it and it's benefited greatly. Why not inact legislation that makes those choices easier and more profitable for companies to do?

I think most women that can't afford to leave work to raise kids are not six figure income earners. They are probably in the 40K a year range. Taking in four students along with her own children would get her close to that missing income.

Where would the money come from? Take it out of public education. Less students means less classes, less teachers, much less administration, and smaller school buildings.

Before we do anything to promote companies providing daycare, we should first look for ways to make it better for them to provide health insurance to their employees once again. Nobody has to have children; it's optional. Everybody has to get healthcare at some point in their lives.

There is something else to consider. What does she do after 20 or more years out of the work force? Out of her career? This was a reality for many women.

We all make choices in life, but we can't expect society or government to rectify the negative aspects of those decisions.

If you don't go to college, learn a career, or learn a trade, you will probably end up working for lower wages.

If you spend every dime you have, not save for retirement, you will struggle trying to live off of Social Security.

If you use illegal recreational narcotics, you may end up getting hooked, arrested and jailed, losing your job, and may even lose your life.

If you commit a felony, you lose your right to vote in most states, may not be able to find a job or an apartment.

If you have children, it will cost you a lot of money, you may have to sacrifice your career.

If you decide to stay single, have no children, you keep much more of your money, but die a lonely person with nobody around.

In each and every case I posted, they are all individual choices. There are plenty of all bad choices, but very few all good choices with no ramifications.

 

[bodecea]

Should we as a nation work harder to support the mother's who want to stay at home in order to raise their kid's again ? I am seeing children shuffled off to this place and/or to that place (or) they are being handed off to this person or that person while the dad goes off to his full time job, and the mother tries to balance going to school for her wanted career choice, and then she tries to work a full time job, and then comes home for a few hours to try and be the mom for her children ?

The kids are losing big time in these situations I feel, but the parents can't seem to get out of the situation no matter what they try or don't try these days.. It is affecting millions of up and coming American families & their children now.

The children sadly in many of the cases could be set up for abuse, brainwashing, and other bad situations as a result of it all. It is exactly why we had commentators like what we have seen on MSNBC when it was suggested that America's kids are no longer to be raised by the parents, but instead they are to be raised by the government or leftist run systems in which they were claiming as being a good thing. They even made statements like your kids are no longer your kids anymore, and that they belong to the community to be raised now. Then you had Hillary saying it takes a village to raise these kids now, and that was just more code talk that the kids will now be brainwashed as the agenda of the globalist left.

In order to truly make America great again, I say restore the ability for mom's to choose to stay at home if they want to with their children or to work if they want to, but not have it where they absolutely have to. If the working mom works part time, then she should have it to where her full income is a huge help to her family, and not an income that is keeping their heads just above water. If going to make America strong and great again, we need to fix this problem big time in this country. The kids are absolutely worth it.

"Allows"? or "Forces"?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Before Reagan, a single income held families together in most cases. What happened?

Actually the single family household was having trouble making ends meet well before Reagan. In the 60s and 70s we see women entering the workforce more and more and as we know, that shifts the supply/demand curve. More workers vying for the same jobs slows wage growth and that is a large part of the reason for the stagnation of pay for the last 40-50 years.

. OK, so what is the solution for the kids being brainwashed and raised outside of the family these days ? How does it all get fixed ? How do we bring back choice in which the left and right has since destroyed with the strong arm of government ?

In Japan...a place where we all agree raises educated and civic minded children...the school ( and therefore the government ) plays a major role in child rearing.

The idea that our kids are brainwashed is fucking ridiculous. Figure some shit out, will ya?

Dallas High School Teacher Posts Video "Shooting" Trump With Squirt Gun In Classroom

Middle School Teacher Equates Student's Trump Shirt To A Swastika

'Trump and Hitler Are One in the Same': High School Teacher Draws the President As Nazi Leader