"President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have both called for increasing government's financial support of paid child care, but it is not at all clear that increased use of child care would produce better results for children."

That's the best indication that it's a horrible choice. Orwell's Big Brother wouldn't say anything differently. Your job is to bear fruit for the state.

Commercial childcare services, make no mistake, are merely part-time orphanages which teach your kids by showing them that you think your kids aren't worth your time.

President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have both called for increasing government's financial support of paid child care, but it is not at all clear that increased use of child care would produce better results for children.

'Tis a feature not a bug, because it would produce better results for the Democratic Party. The Washington-based governing class acquires a constituency as the mothers become hooked on the payment stream, and the kids fail their way down into the dependency culture of the permanent, Democrat-voting underclass. Importing primitive third-worlders is good, but it's even better for the Governing Class when they can grow their own.

I appreciate childless Amy's attention to this topic, because childless I will never GAF.

As with ten thousand topics which bring Lefty-Americans to a condition of snippity, armfolded impatience, I've noticed that the snippers aren't begging for an opportunity to spend more of their own money to solve more of their own problems. So we might presume the issue ("day care") isn't economic... It must be some sort of policy issue for which every American must foot the bill, right?

Right?

No. The most typical leftist impulse isn't kindness, or decency, or the development of the culture viewed whole: The most typical leftist impulse is to make other people pay for stuff.

And when they're at their most preciously 'generous,' they're trying to get into Heaven on someone else's dime.

But the beauty is that they go at it from both sides Crid. With insane regulations they drive up the cost and then with other people's money they subsidize it. They are trying to get into heaven fixing problems with someone else's money that they created.

Commercial childcare services...are merely part-time orphanages

Well, that's a bit harsh. A good child-care center can be useful. As with anything, there are pitfalls:

- There are crappy child care centers.

- There are parents who put their kids in child care for 10+ hours a day. That really is a part-time orphanage.

However, for a limited amount of time, a good child-care can be a useful thing. It gives parents some child-free time, in which can go be adults.

Good child care centers will expose the kids to activities that you might never do. Live in a city - but the child care takes excursions to the nearby forest? Not musical, but the child care has a guitar or a piano?

Lastly, often over-used, but socialization can be important for kids who otherwise might not encounter many other kids their age.

President Barack Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have both called for increasing government's financial support of paid child care.

All of which doesn't change one basic fact: The government has zero business subsidizing anyone's childcare. My money is not your money.

There's no good answer on this one as a large number of young ones keep popping out babies as soon as they can married or not.

I remember a Marine base commander forbidding his 19 year old Marines from marrying due to the problems that the 19 year old wives had adjusting to life w/o her husband on a base away from her family. He "retired" before the ink was dry on the order.

I do think that a 2 year military-like required civic service after High School (w/U.S. provided condoms) MIGHT have far-reaching benefits.

If you could then REQUIRE (I know I know sigh) that both parties have a marketable skill before they could get married or receive any gov't bennies PERHAPS some would benefit.

I'm a horrible person I know but sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes the bear eats you while you cycle.

My money is not your money.

You misunderstand. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine, too.

It's right there in the Constitution. Well, I'm sure its in a penumbra, or an emanation that the Supremes relay on when they decide to make shit up.

Besides, you didn't build that.

The same government that wants to spend your money on other people's problems is the one that, as Ben said, created the problem.

One must be certified by the government to run a childcare concentration camp. Certification raises the price of the care provider. The government has said you cannot simply pay someone down the street a few dollars to watch your kid and make him a sandwich while you go to work. No, the person watching your kid must meet government standards, not your inadequate standards.

Solving your own problems will never be acceptable to those who would wield power over others. You must be beholden to them.

Paying someone-who has less education, skills, and investment in your kids outcome than you-less money than you make, to raise your kid. What could go wrong??

Paying someone-who has less education, skills, and investment in your kids outcome than you-less money than you make, to raise your kid. What could go wrong?? ~ momof4 at July 1, 2016 7:15 AM

Yes, having someone raise your kid who has less education than you do is a recipe for disaster - 'cause your less-educated-than-you-are-now parents permanently scarred you, right? You wouldn't want grandpa and grandma dumbing your kid down now, would you?

Sarcasm aside (your statement is far too broad for what you're trying to say), you do raise a good point. We tend to be lax when it comes to the environment in which our children spend their days, balancing cost with convenience. With professional daycare, we blindly rely on that government certification to mean that the child will be watched by a caring, intelligent, educating professional and not a repurposed mall food court worker with a piece of government paper.

On the flip side, why is it that every parent I meet who homeschools their kid(s) have only a high school diploma and can barely express a coherent thought, verbally or in writing? I know that can't be the case with every homeschooling parent since homeschooled kids keep winning spelling bees.

Like millions of other parents, she believes it is the best option for her family in balancing different considerations such as cost, convenience, and the desire to support a work life as well as ensure the well-being of her children.

Trnslation: my DESIRE to have adult interaction and praise for work that ultimately means nothing is just as important and my child's NEEDS

But don't you all understand what we need is scientists to lead the way based on dispassionate evidence based decision making. At least that is what Neal Degrasse Tyson thinks:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437324/neil-degrasse-tysons-rationality-pipe-dream

This story dovetails nicely with the National Review article about Rationalia.

The reasons for this are several, and are understandable. Many reporters may be reluctant to highlight such studies because of the politically charged nature of the issue. Some may worry that acknowledging any downsides to daycare would impede the cause of women's equality, by inviting people to conclude that children would be better off if mothers dropped out of the workforce. And many journalists send their kids to daycare, and therefore may be predisposed to overlook negative findings about a choice they have already made for their own children.

More likely because any reporting on negative results would be categorized as a "war on parents," which is about as real as the "war on Christmas."

This bias and lack of information does a serious disservice to parents, who need to know about the best research in order to make fully informed choices for their families

If there's one thing that's been drilled into my head about the daycare "dilemma," it's that there aren't a lot of choices. Most parents aren't weighing the pros and cons of staying home with the kids vs. sending them to Aunt Becky's vs. the virtues of six local, affordable daycares.

All of which doesn't change one basic fact: The government has zero business subsidizing anyone's childcare. My money is not your money.

O, that the same principle was applied to vouchers, aka private school welfare!

What I don't understand is those who, like Ross Douthat, push people to have more children while ignoring the fact that many people who choose NOT to have children are suffering financially - and he's not suggesting that the government should help any in that respect, including, of course, affordable daycare.

And why is it supposedly OK to put infants in daycare if you're a poor single mother - but not if you're a middle-class married mother who simply wants to keep up her marketable skills so she can support her husband and child, should her husband become disabled?

"A small but growing minority of fathers in the United States stay at home with their children: 2 million fathers, or 16% of stay-at-home parents, in 2012."

2 million is 16% of 12.5 million.

Out of something like 330 million people, there are only 12.5 million stay at home parents in the United States?

I guess that's so:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/04/08/after-decades-of-decline-a-rise-in-stay-at-home-mothers/

"A better policy would help parents in a broader way, providing financial help regardless of families' child-care choices."

No. A better policy would be not to subsidize parents in any way at all, including having public schools -- and instead tell parents who can't afford to pay the full cost of raising children themselves that they are unfit, and put their kids into foster care. This especially goes for welfare clients, who have children in order to live on the welfare check that now comes with them.

No. A better policy would be not to subsidize parents in any way at all, including having public schools -- and instead tell parents who can't afford to pay the full cost of raising children themselves that they are unfit

Good luck with that in a world where the freaking Libertarian candidate for president wants to give $3,500 Uncle Sugar vouchers to every person with a schoolkid.

Out of something like 330 million people, there are only 12.5 million stay at home parents in the United States?

Ken R at July 1, 2016 3:27 PM
___________________________________________

It's not that surprising, when you consider that "330 million" includes children, teens, former SAH parents who are now the parents of teens, empty-nesters, and elderly people. Plus single parents, who very seldom get to stay at home. Plus all the millennials who want children but don't have them yet. Plus the fact that about 1/5 of all women currently in their 40s have never given birth or adopted, IIRC. I'd guess that the number of childless men that age is about the same.

And, speaking of odd cases of SAH parents, here's something I posted in an old thread:

...a pet peeve of mine regarding the comic strip "Zits." Connie Duncan is a SAHM...to a now 16-year-old Jeremy.

And it's her decision. Fine. But there has never been a clear explanation for it, since she was originally supposed to be a child psychologist. Everyone knows that you can't let your skills rot over time if you ever hope to get paid for them again.

In other words, of all the women you know who are SAHMs right now, what percentage of them have NO kids younger than high school age? Probably less than 10%.

I, personally, see Connie's position as little more than the writers' way to give Jeremy an excuse to think of his mother as petty and stupid for asking him to do chores at any time. As in: "I'm a typical modern high school student who's already working 50 hours a week for no pay, and she expects me to do HOUSEWORK on top of that when she has nothing ELSE to do all day? I don't think so!"

(A friend thinks otherwise, even though he doesn't read the strip - that is, he thinks kids whose mothers stay home are less likely to have sex and become parents. Dunno.)

Maybe no one will see this, but...I just found this other thread at Bratfree.

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,408413

Title: "Dud begs MOO to get a job, MOO refuses."

The link inside, in the first post in the thread, goes to an article in The Guardian:

"A letter to … my wife, who won’t get a job while I work myself to death. The letter you (dads) always wanted to write."

(OK, so it's pretty clear that both of the two kids in the article are well over 10. But it's easy to imagine a dad with much younger kids writing this too, depending on the circumstances.)

Second half of article (but check out the Bratfree thread too):

...I don’t think I can do this for another 25 years. I often dream of leaving my firm for a less demanding position, with you making up any financial deficit with a job – even a modest one – of your own. I’ve asked, and sometimes pleaded, for years with you to get a job, any job. Many of my free hours are spent helping with the house and the kids, and I recognise that traditional gender roles are often oppressive, but that cuts both ways. I would feel less used and alone if you pitched in financially, even a little.

That’s not going to happen. It has become clear that you are OK with my working myself to death at a high-stress career that I increasingly hate, as long as you don’t have to return to the workforce.

You keep busy volunteering, exercising and pursuing a variety of hobbies. You socialise with similarly situated women who also choose to remain outside the paid workforce. You all complain about various financial pressures, but never once consider, at least audibly, that you could alleviate the stress on both your budgets and your burnt-out husbands by earning some money yourselves.

Our family is grateful for all that we enjoy and we know that we’re far more fortunate than millions who work far harder than I ever have, or will. And I know all too well that work can be unpleasant. But I don’t want you to work so I can buy a Jaguar or a holiday home. I want you to work so I can get a different position and we can still maintain a similar standard of living.

I want you to get a job so I don’t wake up in the middle of the night worrying that my career is the only one between us and financial ruin. I want you to work so our marriage can feel more like a partnership and I can feel less like your financial beast of burden. I want our daughter to see you in the workforce and I want her to pursue a career so she is never as dependent on a man as you are on me, no matter how much he loves her (and he will).

But mostly I want you to get a job because I want to feel loved.

(end)