Started By
Message

re: Vance's solution to the rising cost of child care...

Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:19 pm to
Posted by FLTech
he/won
Member since Sep 2017
28217 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:19 pm to
That’s not daycare dude.. that’s hiring the teenager down the street to watch your kid for a few hours
Posted by Riverside
Member since Jul 2022
10716 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:19 pm to
Well, because as a basic point of biology, males do not have periods, only females do. So why are the schools required to place these products in all of the restrooms when only one sex would have any need for them?
Posted by rwestmore7
Member since Nov 2007
1004 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:20 pm to
Um, I'm pretty sure the check I wrote every week to the daycare says otherwise.
Posted by Thecoz
Member since Dec 2018
3965 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:20 pm to
“daycare worker who loves to work with kids has to take 6 years of school to earn some stupid degree that has nothing to do with daycare or working with children”

Examples please..

A director typically needs a degree and some training .but usually just a few of these or the owner.. and for large professional places with over 100 kids..

Smaller places require less …
Posted by Jwho77
cyperspace
Member since Sep 2003
84309 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:21 pm to
Tweet today by JD Vance:

quote:

1) Many don't fully appreciate how federal (and state) policy penalizes particular family models--particularly in-home care and kinship care--over others. That's true of the Child Care Development Block Grant and the Dependent Care Tax Credit, though in different ways for each. So yes, parents or grandparents might not be able to help, but they might *want* to, and for those families federal policy should not be forcing one particular family model. We should try to encourage whatever is best for each individual family. Right now we don't: we try to force or at least subsidize one model on every family in this country. And if you open up kinship and other options for families, you will relieve some pressure on the daycare system in this country.

2) If you subsidize something but don't increase the supply of it, you're going to raise prices without getting an increase in quality. This is what's so broken about Kamala Harris's approach to child care. You can't just write a check if there aren't additional providers. So while I obviously support health and safety regulations, there are some absurd regulations out there that restrict the supply of child care providers--from kinship providers to local churches. Just because the interests of the market are not always aligned with families--I agree and have said so myself!--doesn't mean that all government regulations make sense.

3) Finally, we have to consider the broken educational pathways that exist for a whole host of professions. A consistent thing I've heard is that there is great demand for a lot of jobs, but a totally broken pathway for young people to get into those jobs. It's true of plumbers and advanced manufacturing, but it's also true of child care providers.

4) I'm sorry if you think I believe children are a means to an end. I can assure you I don't, though I do believe that children are not just incredible little creatures in their own right: they are also transformative for the people who care for them.


LINK
This post was edited on 9/5/24 at 12:24 pm
Posted by DeathValley85
Member since May 2011
19280 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Second part was just as ignorant of what the reality is also. I saw both parts


Just be honest with yourself and admit you don’t like his answer because he’s a conservative. That’s the only reason.

Your brain is broken
Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
25893 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:21 pm to
quote:

Where is this happening? After putting several kids through daycare, none of their teachers or even the owners of the facility had that kind of education. If I'm being honest, they might have all graduated high school.


Director qualifications

Must be at least 21 years of age

Must have documentation of at least one of the following:

A bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited college/university with at least six credit hours of child development or early childhood education and one year of supervised childcare experience in a licensed center or comparable setting

A Child Development Associate (CDA) credential, which includes practicum and one year experience in a licensed center
An associate’s degree in child development or a closely related area and one year of supervised childcare experience in a licensed center or a comparable setting

One year of experience as a director or staff in a licensed child care center plus 12 credit hours in child care, child development, or early childhood education. Fifteen “clock hours” may be substituted for each three credit hours

A diploma from a vocational childcare training program approved by the Board of Regents or equivalent plus one year of supervised childcare experience in a licensed childcare center or comparable setting
The National Administrator Credential as awarded by the National Child Care Association, and one year experience in a licensed childcare center or comparable setting

A certificate of completion from the International Correspondence School and one year of experience in a licensed childcare center or comparable setting

A certificate of completion from the Professional Career Development Institute and one year of experience in a licensed childcare center or comparable setting
Posted by rwestmore7
Member since Nov 2007
1004 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:22 pm to
I'm going to say it slowly for you this time....

schools
are
not
required
by
that
law
to
place
those
products
in
all
bathrooms...

And every school district in MN agrees with me because it isn't happening. The only people that agree with you are people that are trying to push a political talking point.
Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
25893 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:22 pm to
quote:


I guess every school district is breaking the law. So triggered.


I am not the one saying it isn't law. So stupid.
Posted by AcadieAnne
Space Force Cadet 1st Class
Member since May 2019
1833 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:24 pm to
quote:

Most of the people complaining about childcare costs can and do afford it. They just think it’s “too much” or “out of hand”.


Ok, cool. Parents who could afford to do otherwise and choose not to are just complainers. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the families that legitimately can't afford childcare or to have a stay at home parent.

quote:

Solve what?


Solve the problem of some parents being unable to afford childcare or survive on one income.
Posted by Thecoz
Member since Dec 2018
3965 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:25 pm to
Never mind … sorry
This post was edited on 9/5/24 at 12:27 pm
Posted by Snipe
Member since Nov 2015
16709 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:27 pm to
quote:

It's laughable just how out of touch this guy is with reality



Well how about if you can't' afford kids and to take care of them you stop having them..

An no I don't mean aborting more of them I mean keep your junk in your pants and/or keep your legs closed.

Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
63034 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:29 pm to
quote:

No he tried to say that but talked in circles because he is an idiot and I'm sorry but the people at my childs daycare had no training, so don't act like there is so much red tape that people can't work at a damn daycare. His and your heads are in the sand to what is really happening in child care. Luckily for me I just finished paying, but it is out of hand.


How much should it cost to have someone caring for your child.
Posted by DaveyJones12
Member since Dec 2022
358 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:29 pm to
quote:

policy penalizes particular family models--particularly in-home care and kinship care--over others


All of that is just a long winded way of saying "get people to take care of your kids for free."

He's either an idiot that thinks we're all too stupid to ask our family for help first, or being intentionally obtuse because he thinks spewing a lot of BS will make people think he has actual solutions.

The correct answer to this question:
1. subsidize/create training programs for child caretakers so that there is an appropriate supply of caretakers

2. provide (or increase, because this is already done) demand-side subsidies for childcare commodities like formula, diapers, etc.

you want more babies? make it cheaper to have babies. I'd have 5 instead of 2 if each one didn't cost $300k a pop.
Posted by Dawgfanman
Member since Jun 2015
26316 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:30 pm to
quote:

Ok, cool. Parents who could afford to do otherwise and choose not to are just complainers. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the families that legitimately can't afford childcare or to have a stay at home parent.

What are they doing with their children today? I have no doubt these people exist, I just think the number is exceedingly small. When most people claim they “can’t afford it” and are already paying for it, they mean they’d like more disposable income. We already subsidize the lives of people in poverty (and many way above it).

quote:

Solve the problem of some parents being unable to afford childcare or survive on one income.

How many people we talking about here? Are lots of kids age 5 and under just left on street corners while parents work?
Posted by SquatchDawg
Cohutta Wilderness
Member since Sep 2012
20088 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:34 pm to
Why the hell should the Federal Govt get involved with child care? This is a redirect for Dem media to jump on since Kamala wants to pay for it. Why provide a financial incentive to ship your kids off?

How about a tax deduction for a non working spouse to create incentives for a parent to stay home and watch the kids until a certain age?

Oh wait…that won’t work because the demographic they’re targeting don’t pay taxes…..or are single parents.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
128778 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:36 pm to
quote:

How about a tax deduction for a non working spouse to create incentives for a parent to stay home and watch the kids until a certain age?


The government’s problem is that parents who stay home don’t pay more taxes. It’s costing Washington state billions of dollars a year. So government tries to figure out how to keep people working so there’s more tax dollars.

The government doesn’t give one shite about any of us. So when they propose a “solution” know that it’s a solution for them. Not for us.
Posted by Thecoz
Member since Dec 2018
3965 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:37 pm to


. they recently had a news story about lack of staff and facilities here in Houston .. the problem is a shortage of adults willing to take care of other people kids for minimum wage..
Not cost of training .. certification ..
And this is impact all organization.. groups with over 100 kids ( require more certification.. insurance)… to the ones under 25kids) .. when you go under six kids and can usually be a person and their home with a easy certification and certified safe house. ..


Posted by Turnblad85
Member since Sep 2022
5547 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:37 pm to
I'm guessing the OP's solution is for more gov handouts or to extend school hours to 5pm. More time for indoctrination anyway.
Posted by BugAC
St. George
Member since Oct 2007
57856 posts
Posted on 9/5/24 at 12:38 pm to
quote:

It's laughable just how out of touch this guy is with reality


Says the guy voting for the whore with no kids of her own. Or the marxist who wants to mutilate your child's genitals.

Jump to page
Page First 10 11 12 13 14 ... 25
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 12 of 25Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram