On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:49:56 -0400, 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

the problem is, that would cost money, at least upfront, and as you can see
here people are ****ing and moaning about the measly one percent of their
taxes that go toward it now. there would be mass strokes if it was
suggested that maybe we should spend *more* for these shiftless ****ers.

your pal,
blake