Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "kilikini" > wrote:
>
>> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>
>>> The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child,
>>> and are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage
>>> jobs available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford
>>> childcare even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing,
>>> what the hell are you supposed to do?
>>
>> Personally, I think the government should provide free child care in
>> cases like this. Ultimately, it would probably be a cheaper
>> solution than welfare. There would be no excuse for parents to stay
>> at home unless they had a disability preventing them from working.
>> It would have to be a heavily monitored program, but this would mean
>> employment of child care workers, pre-school teachers, social
>> workers, psychologists - most of, if not all, would have to have a
>> college degree. Folks going to school would help the economy.
>> Providing jobs would stimulate the economy. Facilities would have
>> to be built, giving jobs back to unemployed construction workers.
>>
>> I don't know. It's something I've been thinking about for a few
>> years. I know so many single moms who had to stay at home and go on
>> welfare because they didn't have family around to watch the children
>> and they couldn't afford the $400 a week for child care. So, they
>> got HUD housing, food stamps, welfare and free medical and were able
>> to sustain themselves.
>>
>> Anyway, I'll continue lurking in this thread now. :~)
>>
>> kili
>
> All good thoughts kili. ;-) We already pay taxes for a school system
> that babysits kids over 5. <g>
> Why not younger?

That was kind of my thinking, Om. Why not?

kili