Understanding the Issues: Education

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

No, both myself and my wife work. Our one-year old is in daycare.

When I said parenting, it's not a matter of parental oversight and constantly being home to keep them out of trouble. It's a matter of raising your kids right so that by the time they get to be teenagers, they're capable of making the right decisions in compromising situations. Raising them right means more than just bringing them up with good moral compasses, it means making sure they're kept busy with activities throughout childhood so they build a network of friends in multiple activities, making it more likely they'll continue to participate in school athletics, music, dance, school newspaper, science club, anything to keep them busy in their teenage years. Idle hands...

Ideally every family would have the stay at home parent to provide even more support. But I know it's still possible to keep kids on the right track with two working parents.

Then maybe I'm misunderstanding after-school care - I thought it referred to pre-high school kids. That is, kids whom it is illegal to leave unsupervised (in most states). Is it primarily for kids 14 and over?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Then maybe I'm misunderstanding after-school care - I thought it referred to pre-high school kids. That is, kids whom it is illegal to leave unsupervised (in most states). Is it primarily for kids 14 and over?

Good question. I assumed it was for high-school aged kids, similar to programs run by PAL and YMCA, designed to keep them out of trouble.

If it's for little kids, and both parents work, I'm not sure why parents would need funding for after-care? Seems like two working parents can handle the cost of those programs, they're only a couple hundred a month.

Which of course brings up a whole other issue... single parents. That's a group that needs the after-care help. But I've got a personal moral issue with lending support to single parents when most of them are single parents as a result of their own misjudgments. Of course their kids can't help being born into a shitty situation, so in that sense I can see the logic in helping them. But still, it doesn't taste good because their parents (most, not all) should have to struggle.

(sorry for the opinionated opinion)

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Good question. I assumed it was for high-school aged kids, similar to programs run by PAL and YMCA, designed to keep them out of trouble.

If it's for little kids, and both parents work, I'm not sure why parents would need funding for after-care? Seems like two working parents can handle the cost of those programs, they're only a couple hundred a month.

Which of course brings up a whole other issue... single parents. That's a group that needs the after-care help. But I've got a personal moral issue with lending support to single parents when most of them are single parents as a result of their own misjudgments. Of course their kids can't help being born into a shitty situation, so in that sense I can see the logic in helping them. But still, it doesn't taste good because their parents (most, not all) should have to struggle.

(sorry for the opinionated opinion)

I couldn't disagree more on single-parents - who deserves help more than a full-time working mother or father? What does the reason why they are doing it alone matter? Now, if they aren't working full-time then, of course, I would agree. I think that criteria would weed out a lot of the bad apples. (one opinionated opinion deserves another, right?)

As for families with two parents, $200/kid (which is not the uniform cost, of course) can be prohibitive if you have a household income of $20k (which accounts for 20% of the US households). Now, I would agree it's a murky area if you have 8 kids. But for those with even 2 kids, there just isn't $4800/year for the care they need.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I couldn't disagree more on single-parents - who deserves help more than a full-time working mother or father? What does the reason why they are doing it alone matter? Now, if they aren't working full-time then, of course, I would agree. I think that criteria would weed out a lot of the bad apples. (one opinionated opinion deserves another, right?)

As for families with two parents, $200/kid (which is not the uniform cost, of course) can be prohibitive if you have a household income of $20k (which accounts for 20% of the US households). Now, I would agree it's a murky area if you have 8 kids. But for those with even 2 kids, there just isn't $4800/year for the care they need.

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

Wow I hope you make it through life and never make a bad decision. If my tax money went to someone to help them through a bad decision I would be happy. The sad thing is our tax money is mainly wasted on missles being used to kill other people.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Wow I hope you make it through life and never make a bad decision. If my tax money went to someone to help them through a bad decision I would be happy. The sad thing is our tax money is mainly wasted on missles being used to kill other people.

If I make my bed, I expect to lie in it. I don't want the government's help.

And those missiles are there to keep you safe, homey. It's not like the US government goes around killing innocent civilians all the damn time. Those missiles are designed to kill people who are TRYING TO KILL YOU. Yes YOU.

This hyperbole about the US government being evil and just out to kill people needs to stop. It's ridiculous and uneducated.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If I make my bed, I expect to lie in it. I don't want the government's help.

And those missiles are there to keep you safe, homey. It's not like the US government goes around killing innocent civilians all the damn time. Those missiles are designed to kill people who are TRYING TO KILL YOU. Yes YOU.

This hyperbole about the US government being evil and just out to kill people needs to stop. It's ridiculous and uneducated.

Ok I nominate you the person who goes down and tells the single parent and their hungary child they can't have food becuse they made a poor decision.

As far as missilies go it takes two to fight. America sticks their noses in far too much shit that is none of our business.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

And those missiles are there to keep you safe, homey. It's not like the US government goes around killing innocent civilians all the damn time. Those missiles are designed to kill people who are TRYING TO KILL YOU. Yes YOU.

This hyperbole about the US government being evil and just out to kill people needs to stop. It's ridiculous and uneducated.

Just to briefly expand on that.

It may be tempting to make the seemingly reasonable suggestion that "everyone" should disarm. But the deterrent effect of military power aside, the credibility of the disarmament depends directly on the transparency of the government. For that reason, I firmly believe that, yes, democratic governments have more of a "right" to possess nuclear weapons and even WMD than non-democratic ones. I didn't have a problem when, for example, India detonated nuclear weapons in 1998. On 12/13/01, there were armed gunmen about to storm into the capitol building in Delhi and open fire on a hall full of ministers leaving session. And although that attack was traced back across the border, India did not, and has not, taken military action. I don't know that history can truly show a war between two democratic nations (unless you count the Civil War I suppose). Totalitarian regimes, however, don't have any such mechanisms of restraint against the use of such weapons for aggressive purposes.

The problem with the projection of American power is that many believe it is always done only in economic self-interest, particularly now because we have the "Oil" President. And in the 1950's and '60s, it is true that the U.S. played a hand in toppling governments in order to install "our SOBs." That history, traditional imperialism, taints all discussions of U.S. use of force today. Another problem is that, unfortunately, many Americans believe foreign affairs began on 9/11/01 because few in the U.S. had cared
about anything international since 1991. So yes, we forget that the U.S. snubbed Kyoto and the ABM Agreement (and even reneged on its agreement with N. Korea, which has contributed to the crisis there today). There was this back of the hand disdain for any order imposed by anyone but ourselves. Sort of like the kid in the cafeteria that thinks he can butt in line anywhere he wants and even swipe a piece of bread off someone else's tray if he wants too. Then everything changed.

So we have this amnesia and in that amnesia we believe that the sun was shining, the birds were chirping, the kids were playing and then, all of a sudden, one fine day, "we were attacked." Unprovoked, unjustified, as if there had been no history before then. And because of that we operate under this philosophy of "good vs. evil." We brainwash ourelves with our own notion of "moral clarity," and in doing so don't actually think that there could be another way of looking at things. And that's all wrong. Because the U.S. can't behave irresponsibly like that. That's not the way a superpower behaves.

Like a dad, a superpower has to understand that what it does is just, if not more, important than what it says. If dad respects mom, then big brother will respect little brother and so forth. Dad doesn't need to prove he's dad; everyone knows that. But dad does need to set the tone for how everyone else in the family gets along. And the U.S. still has some growing up to do in that department.

But, like it or not, the U.S. IS the superpower of today's world. That is a fact. And because it can, it does project its power and its interest around the world. That being said, however, today's U.S. is a relatively benign superpower. It does not have traditional imperialistic territorial ambitions. It does certainly pursue its economic self-interest, but it's more profound than that. The U.S. has the lowest trade barriers (I believe) and is the dispenser of the most foreign aid, neither of which are in its immediate and direct economic self-interest. If all the U.S. wanted out of the Middle East was "oil," it could just as well have cozied up to a leader like Hussein. After all, wouldn't it have been simple certainty to invest in the one man at the switch of the spigot rather than to risk it to millions? And the U.S. is made up immigrants from all over the world, a diversity that slowly, but surely, is swaying its policies. It is the most representative country that there is.

But the U.S. does bother with these things. It bothers with defending free elections and open markets until tearing down the Iron Curtain. And it bothers with defending against genocide by a despot on trial in a docket in the Hague (the now deceased Milosevic). And it bothers now to run to the desert.

In 2000, the U.S. had a humorous and even embarrassing episode whereby it couldn't pick its own President. But for the month that that went on, the country functioned normally and not a drop of blood was shed.

In 2001, out of the clear blue sky, two airplanes took down two of our tallest buildings and 3,000 civilians with them. Not to mention an airplane that was taken down in Pennsylvania by passengers who plunged themselves to their own deaths when they realized the plane was trying to go to Washington. That same day, Congress assembled in the open air on the Capitol steps to sing a patriotic song.

As naive as this sounds, I really do believe all this "freedom" stuff. And I think the world has been and is better for it.

There’s some “Education” for you bitches!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

If I make my bed, I expect to lie in it. I don't want the government's help.

And those missiles are there to keep you safe, homey. It's not like the US government goes around killing innocent civilians all the damn time. Those missiles are designed to kill people who are TRYING TO KILL YOU. Yes YOU.

This hyperbole about the US government being evil and just out to kill people needs to stop. It's ridiculous and uneducated.

How comforting to those who have been killed and their families. But hey, your family is safe thanks to those missiles.

Please feel free to dismiss this post too.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

To add on to what he said each time we offer a new benfit to unwed mothers or fathers it just makes it that much easier for them to keep doing what they are doing. Its not like allot of them make this mistake once, they have several children with different dads and just keep combounding the problem knowing that big goverment will do just enough to keep them going.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

To add on to what he said each time we offer a new benfit to unwed mothers or fathers it just makes it that much easier for them to keep doing what they are doing. Its not like allot of them make this mistake once, they have several children with different dads and just keep combounding the problem knowing that big goverment will do just enough to keep them going.

I agree on principle what you're saying, but the hard-working, dual-income parents suffer now because we don't want the "bad decision makers" to receive the benefits of a well funded after school program. Not increasing the funding for the program will not decrease the amount of single parents and the amount of children they have. I don't think the benefit of keeping your kids enrolled in an after school program is a consideration for having more kids out of wedlock. Parents don't warn their teenage daughters that if they have unprotected sex then their kids will go to after school programs while they work. Bottom line is there are and always will be children that need some place to go after school that is safe while their parents are working.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

To me, it matters a lot.

If you had unprotected sex before marriage and ended up as a single parent, even though you're probably receiving child support, you got yourself into that mess. I don't think it should be my responsibility as a taxpayer, who was careful to use protection during sex in my single years, to bail you out. I'm here taking care of myself and acting responsible, and now I have to pay taxes to bail these people out who didn't? I'm all for helping people who are down on their luck; ie husband was laid off from a manufacturing job and decided to run out on the family, spouse killed in an auto accident leaving a single mom raising 3 kids, etcetera. But that's only a small % of single parents, the majority are in that situation because of bad decision-making.

Now, the kids come first. So my distaste for the choices made by the parents shouldn't hold kids back. They can't help the situation they were born into. So in the end I relent; I have to say I agree with helping these kids with after-care programs.

But it doesn't taste good.

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

Most of those people grew up in a household where they learned how to work the system and get every penny they can from the goverment. So it gos both ways. here is a whole culture of people in the system having children that get in the system who have children in the system etc..... and until we break those cycles the system will remain broken so adding on to the system is really not helping at all. The federal goverment has spent how many billions of dollars fighting poverty and it has done nothing. So my conclusion is not to keep throwing money into a broken system.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There are often reasons for those people that make poor life decisions... chances are they grew up in an environment with little to no guidance and no solid role models in place to help form their decision making process in to one of a responsible person.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think it's important to consider that some people didn't have the same guidance and solid support system in place during their formative years.

That sounds an awful lot like saying:

Because kids grew up in a broken home, they should continue to be treated as children once they are 18 years old, because they never learned to be a responsible adult.

I don't buy it. By the time you hit 18, your free pass expires. You're expected to be responsible and make wise choices.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That sounds an awful lot like saying:

Because kids grew up in a broken home, they should continue to be treated as children once they are 18 years old, because they never learned to be a responsible adult.

I don't buy it. By the time you hit 18, your free pass expires. You're expected to be responsible and make wise choices.

No I'm not saying that at all, it's not the black and white issue you seem to be trying to make it. I don't think anyone deserves a free pass because of their past, but it's definitely a reason to keep in mind why some people make the decisions that they do. It's easy for someone from a solid background to sit here and say the things that you are saying.

Of course someone can be expected to make wise choices, but when you've never been shown the way to make wise choices, it kind of complicates things a bit.