Should mothers be paid to raise their children?

[minto grubb]

There is a big argument going on in another thread about the question of "women- are they getting a fair deal on pay at work?"
But no one seems to be addressing another equally big question:-
"Are women geting a fair deal at home?"
You might say " well, women can choose to stay at home if they want, no one has to, it's their choice, why should taxpayers subsidise women who choose to have kids?"
It's a fair question, and I will try to give a n answer as to why I (a man, with no children, BTW) think we should take a look at the plight of mothers.
Let's say a teacher who's a woman chooses to have children, and steps out of teaching for, say, 5 years. When she returns to work, she loses 5 years seniority, and the difference that would bring to her salary, on her return to work.
having children has cost her. "Well", you may say, "too bad, a woman can't have a child and a career as well". This to me seems unfair, men have done it for centuries.
More importantly, a woman has effectively taken a pay cut, in order to have and help raise the citizens of tommorrow. the people who will gro up and run things when we retire, who will be the working, taxpaying citizens who will keep Society functioning.
And what does society give these women in return? Next to nothing. not even adequate creche facilities for mothers who have to balance work and childcare in a stuggle to make ends meet.
personally, I think this is appalling and the issue is long overdue to be addressed. The State should be prepared to give a woman the equivalnt of last years salary for every year she devotes to bringing up her child....
What does the DU think?

[blackcat77]

1. Having kids is optional

If a family chooses to have kids, they should be aware of the consequences.

[minto grubb]

10. The consequences to society are...

That many women are looking at what's in it for them ( at least in my country) and not having kids, or at least, leaving it late. it's called 'voting with their feet', I believe.
Consequently, we have an aging population, and who is gonna take over & look after us when we retire? To me, the answer is that we have to start valuing the contribution that mothers make to society.
Do we want women to have kids or not? If the answer is yes, we must make it worth their while.
What I hear women say, and what I se them doing, tells me that they do not feel societ values mothers, so women are ceasing to be mothers for better paid options.
Should we not be re examining our views and values around motherhood?

[pmbryant]

16. Do you really mean this??

Do we want women to have kids or not? If the answer is yes, we must make it worth their while.
What I hear women say, and what I se them doing, tells me that they do not feel societ values mothers, so women are ceasing to be mothers for better paid options.

I'm not sure you really meant this, but it almost sounds like you are advocating for women removing themselves from the workforce in order to raise society's children.

This sounds like an idea right out of the regressive 1950s and earlier, when 'women's place' was in the home, and public life was reserved for men only.

Forgive me if I say that I do not like this suggestion one bit.

--Peter

[minto grubb]

28. Ok, point taken...

no, I don't think that "A woman's place is in the home". i just feel that women always have had a rotten deal from society. I think that in some ways they still do, and I am trying to highlight this and explore ways of improving things.
I do not claim that this will solve everything, but I hope it makes people re examine women's role in society and the value that we give to women and what women do.

[Liberal Veteran]

35. Men have gotten a fairly rotten deal too....

Up until recently, men were expected to go out and work their asses off to put food on the table, a shelter over their family's head, and clothes on the back of their wives and children and if they had to work 100 hours a week to do that and die at the ripe old age of 50, so be it. And if you didn't fulfill those duties, you were called a bum.

[minto grubb]

46. True..

Fair deals for men, too. I want a world that is fair for every one. One in which currency speculators pay the 'Tobin Tax' ( google it if you are not sure what it means). A world where no child dies of a vaccine preventable disease, or goes to bed hungry; a world where women can get through the glass ceiling at work, a world where most women think that the overwhelming majority of men are respectful and nice to them... but right now, lets focus on this little question, please.

[private_ryan]

50. listen there stealth freeper :)

that still doesn't matter. They went to work 16 hour shifts in the mines, farms or factories literally killing themselves but they did it because they wanted to keep their wives stupid and in the dark. You see.....it was done by design.

Oh, and you're still a bum if you're able (not on a wheelchair) and can't put food in the table. Yes, the same bad society that expects women not to pass gas, put makeup on, be feminine and other "sexist things", generally expects us (men) to work our asses off and be main breadwinners. Lately you need everyone to work because of sky-high prices and all the crap "we need to have", but at the end the man is still expected to somehow make it happen. Personally, I'm happy to do it (no matter how hard it is) and don't think twice about it, I just hope I'm in good health for it.

And, if my future wife stays at home and raise kids (personally I hoep she doesn't stay at home), she will do the house work and have my dinner ready when I come home. Whether the DU elite thinks that this is polically incorrect or sexist matters /will matter very little.

[minto grubb]

105. I just hope...

That if she comes home from work and finds that you got in first, that you have got dinner on for her, thats all. The fact is that women these days are just not prepared to put in time on the job for a mere pittance and then come home and start to work for nuthin'.
For the record, both my wife and I work full time, we work shifts, and we both share the cooking and the laundry and shoppingand all the guff that keeps the home on an even keel.
This does not mean that I, as a man , am wonderful. It just means I am fair. Sadly, society isn't and I post on DU to address these issues and argue for change.

[Darth_Kitten]

119. Why should I care if you will treat your wife that way?

It's been said that one of the main reasons women are suffering from heart disease earlier in life, and more often is that they are just so worn out from working all day and then doing all the work their husbands just won't do.

Go ahead, private, make your wife slave over you. I'm sure she will be so devoted to you and never mind about we have to say, it's just HER life anyways. :eyes: Does she have a say in her own life by the way?

Oh, and women have been working 16 hour days, etc, for centuries, they just haven't been respected is all. Women didn't actually do nothing whilst men were working.

[Dissenting_Prole]

81. Who's going to look after us...waaahh

minto grubb wrote:
"Consequently, we have an aging population, and who is gonna take over & look after us when we retire?"

This would be a fairly lame excuse for over-populating the planet.

[minto grubb]

106. A few facts...

The earth can sustain a population of 12 billion. Current pop. is only 6 Billion ( Unesco supplied the figures thu' FAO).
The birthrate of Western Democracies is in decline ( see other posts in this thread) Women just dont wana have kids for Society if Society doesn't value them.
We do not have an overpopulated planet, and we are getting into a demographic crisis.
Unless we give women more respect ( and more cash) we are gonna be in big trouble. Remember where you heard it first.

[REP]

114. Ever Consider That They Just Don't Want Children?

I'm one of those terrible, awful women who don't have children because I'd rather chew off my arm. I'm not the only woman who is deeply grateful for the many choices in life available to women now, including not reproducing if that is our choice. Think of a very large number, then multiply it by one hundred - the resulting number is not enough money to persuade me or a great number of women to give birth and raise children.

I didn't check your profile, but I'm guessing you're posting from Australia, where the lack of (white) births is causing quite a fuss. No need. If the locals won't pop out enough babies, allow more immigrants in to make up for the shortfall.

George Bernard Shaw wrote a thoughtful piece about state-paid motherhood (and polyandry) in the preface to Getting Married. While I agree with some of his ideas. which were in the best interests of women in children, which would in turn benefit society, I doubt he'd like the idea of paying women to breed so there'd be enough people to wipe elderly asses in nursing homes.

I dont believe there are not enough people or that any problem can be solved with more births. I do believe women still get the crappy end of the stick and employers need to do more to accomodate those who wish to reproduce, though not to the extent of caring for babies in the office. I also think that reproduction is a personal choice and involves compromises and sacrifices, and those should be shouldered by those who made the choice, rather than pushing the responsibility onto those ho made different choices. As it is, I already pay and pay for other peoples' children without receiving any equivalent benefit. Benefits that only benefit some are resented by those who could use some help but instead must pay for the convenience of others.

[ChemEng]

134. As a stay-at-home father, will I also get paid

for taking care of the kids?

[HEyHEY]

2. Just fix the problems with equality in the work force

I know in Canada you used to get a family allowance from the government. Think it was $50 a month or something. Either way I don't think they should be paid to raise them, just make it a little easier for them to do so.

[Character Assassin]

3. In a word: no. Can't afford children? Don't have them.

Glad I could clear that up.

[HEyHEY]

4. uh oh, get your flak jacker on CA

INCOMING!!!! :tinfoilhat:

[KFC]

18. Thank you

Straight answer to a silly premise.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Can't really go for that.

There are limits to what I will support as far as subsidizing other people's procreative choices in life and that crosses it.

And isn't it a bit misandrous to assume that the woman will always be the one to stay at home?

[minto grubb]

misandrous?

No, in my country, a man only has to say that his wife has died and he gets state benifit (if its true, of course.) Yet women are supposed to work, and bring up the next generation of working taxpayers. All for nothing. Bit unfair, don't you think? And no- I am aware of a lot of fathers who want more time of with their kids but the system won't let 'em.
Lets fry one fish at a time, folks. The feeling so far seems to be that most of you want to grow up, retire and find that there is no one working in your place, no one to run the nursing home or anything else. Well, maybe you do want all that stuff laid on, but you don't want to pay for it. Women have ben supporting society for centuries with thier unpaid labour, done in the home. isn't it time we acknowledged that and strted giving them thier due?

[LARED]

6. I think I want

someone to pay me time and a half for every weekend hour I spent raising my kids.

BTW, I've yet to met a mother that would agree having children has cost her.

[Demeter]

42. You see them all the time, buddy

They are the single parents, like me, who found out that the father of the children had no problem bugging out when being daddy looked like work, or kept them from buying a boat, or whatever.

[DUreader]

7. Not if we want to continue expanding the prison population

If parents could afford to stay home, what would we do

with all those empty prison cells and where would the 'corrections' workers go?

[Southpaw Bookworm]

8. No and yes

I don't think the U.S. is ready for a system like northern Europe's, where PARENTS receive paid parental leave, child care subsidies, etc.

However, I do think that the country does need to assign some sort of income value to any sort of caregiving, whether you're dealing with a mother with Alzheimer's or raising a child, to deal with the Social Security penalization. Also, I think it would help codify that caregiving is hard fucking work that deserves to be recognized financially.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. The US doesn't have a parenting allowance??

I'm in Australia, and here I get a fortnightly parenting allowance. I got twelve weeks paid leave when I had my baby, plus the government subsidises child-care and now pays a thing called a 'baby-bonus' to parents of newborns. All this doesn't seem the slightest bit unreasonable to me, so why isn't the US ready for any of it?


Violet...

[Pithlet]

91. Sigh.. Another post

that makes me jealous. We get no paid leave at all unless we're lucky enough to work for a company that offers one. And companies over a certain size only have to give us 6 weeks (8 if C-section, I think) and still guarantee us a job when we go back.

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. What are some positive steps children can take if they discover

that their parents acted unwisely, from a financial standpoint, in having them?

[Kanary]

102. You're asking good questions

I'm not sure that most people are able to actually think in different terms. Most everyone gets stuck in the same mental tracks.

We (USians) keep touting "The Family", and saying how much we value kids. Fine words, but our actions show otherwise.

Keep asking the questions.

Maybe someday people will actually be able to think their way through them.

Kanary

[Liberal Veteran]

11. Wouldn't it just be better to fix things so that a single income household

...could actually support raising kids instead of subsidizing procreative choices?

[maggrwaggr]

49. exactly. That's the bottom line of this

You gotta make a ton of money these days to support a family. It's just insane. And if you don't, most of the spouse's 2nd income goes to child care! All that work and money spent so someone else raises your kid?

It's fucked up.

[minto grubb]

53. well, thats one good suggestion...

Lets go fix it- any more ideas?

[private_ryan]

135. the one who stayed at home would be a "slave" according to some here

because (most likely ) she would have to clean the house, cook and take of the kids.

[pmbryant]

12. An emphatic 'No!'

You are implicitly assuming that the reason women are paid less at work is because they lose time raising kids. This is indeed the case in many cases, but if so, it is not a problem. This is a choice and choices come with consequences.

The real problem women face in the workplace is explicit discrimination. The pay gap is not explained simply by women taking more time off than men to be caregivers.

If women were paid on an equal footing with men, more men would be economically encouraged to be primary caregivers themselves. It then wouldn't necessarily be easier to sacrifice the woman's career than the man's. Choices as to who would take time off could then be made more freely, more independent of societal pressures.

I fully support offering tax credits for child care, etc, at a fixed rate for everybody (or at least for those in households below a certain income), but subsidies based on 'last years salary' are completely unfair, regressive, and an idea I would vociferously oppose.

--Peter

[minto grubb]

21. Womens pay

The real problem women face in the workplace is explicit discrimination. The pay gap is not explained simply by women taking more time off than men to be caregivers.
This is something I said on another thread, that was the reason I started it. However 'small' a contribution to society she makes in the work place , she gets a rate for it- not as muh as a man in many cases, but something at least for her effort.
And yet a mother , working to raise the next generation of workers and citizens gets nothing. poor show, if you asks me...

[SharonAnn]

56. And she gets Social Security credit, Retirement options such as

IRA, 401-K, job retirement (if still possible), and health care. So, if the man leaves - and many of them do, she's not up the creek and she can provide for herself and her children now and herself when she retires.

Without pay, she not only hurts herself today, she hurts herself even worse in the future.

Just the facts!

[Pithlet]

29. No

And pmbryant said it very succinctly. I couldn't have said it better than this.

The only thing I would propose is credit for social security for the amount of time spent out of the workforce. IIRC, France does something like this.

[minto grubb]

104. It would seem fom posts elsewhere...

That places like Australia, Britain and Canada offer better healthcare and Child benifits to thier citizens. Yet the most powerful nation on earth doesn't. Why? Is this fair on the citizens who make it the most powerful nation on earth? just asking...

[Skidmore]

112. It;'s not fair. Fundamentally, this nation is made up of people

who suffer from a massive case of "I got mines". Life begins and ends at our bellybuttons. As a people, we neglect our young, warehouse our elderly, and pretend we don't see the disabled even when looking at them. The well vaunted American values of independence and self-reliance contributes to an ethic which serves as a basis for social Darwinism. Why should any of us be expected give up a little of our creature comfort for the greater good of the whole? It's an ugly attitude, but until an ethic that embraces the other is incorporated into our culture, then children will be left behind, the elderly will not receive the respect due their years, and the disabled will be neglected--AND the role of caregivers will not be valued.

[SheilaT]

13. If men had to give up

as much to have kids, the species would die out in a generation or two.

Even women who don't have kids are penalized with lower pay and fewer opportunities for promotion -- the famous glass ceiling.

The idea that having children is purely optional does have merit. However, remembering that social security is a pay as you go scheme (the money you're putting in now is going directly to current beneficiaries) people who have children now are supplying future social security payments for all of us.

[HEyHEY]

15. Says who?

Just because men are the ones who actually have the kids doesn't mean we would somehow of neglect our duties if we did have them.

Obviously the answer to "says who" is "Me" :-)

[Yupster]

100. Why do you have to take a shot at men?

This had been an interesting thread I'm reading, and then all of a sudden -- Bam -- gratuitous shot at men.

And not bad men, or criminal men, or negligent men -- just all men.

Maybe it was a joke --- ha, ha.

[proud patriot]

14. A better question, should children be starved and homeless

if their parents are irresponsible ?

Which is more costly to the tax payers ?

I say we take care of families , get them
a hand up so they can be productive tax paying
citizens .

We need to strengthen the middle class in this
country .

Far more costly to our nations middle class is
is the handouts to special intrests (Oil, drug Co.,
etc.) as well as the Government Homeland security
contracts given to Tax (Cheaters) .

It is a shame when in this country the downtrodden
get the most contempt , instead of the "Robber Barrons"
of the 21st century .

[HEyHEY]

17. Downtrodden is one thing...but every person who has a kid?

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. Good point. Which children should not have food and shelter?

Which ones should not get medical treatment? Education?

[HEyHEY]

31. The ones who have parents that can afford it on their own

[proud patriot]

24. Well everyone who's child might be homeless or otherwise

not able to work while having a child at home needing care.

if this could help another join the workforce and
be productive and get off or never need complete
welfare dependance I say it would be a good thing.

Daycare is not that coslty in the long run .
It has been proven time and time again that
quality Childcare saves Money(tax$) for the life
of an individual ; Through:

Lower incarceration rates
Lower teen pregnacies (unwanted)
Higher High School Graduation Rates
Higher college completion

We as a society waste so much money trying for
quick fixes , that there is nothing left for the
most cost effiecent investment we as a society
could make . Quality Care For Our Children .

We waste too much anger and energy on their parents
when we should focuss on those most injured by the
iresponsible behavior . The kids ..

Yes I'm a completey Bias Former Child Care Professional.

[mopinko]

19. the least we could do

is give credit for social security. paying to raise kids is one thing, paying for the rest of your life is harsh. as a long time stay at home mom, i am in a box. i have almost no social security of my own. at 49 my chances of even getting a job are shit (even tho i went to college). so who asked me to? well, no one. but either we are all in this together or we're not. and i have not spent all these years caring just for my own kids. i am a chronic do-gooder, involved in a lot of good, lefty stuff. (including recently joining the nclb parent council) i have a suspicion that the union busting and other wage squeezing since reagan was really aimed at getting women like me back to work and out of trouble.
and what kind of world is it when everyone is in search of the almighty dollar, and doesn't care about the future? i don't think we should pay people to take care of their own kids, but we can either see all kids as everyone's future, and care accordingly, or keep on building prisons.

[Yupster]

101. You only need 40 quarters of social security employment

to qualify. That's only 10 years of work in your lifetime.

[Fescue4u]

20. paid by whom?

Sounds completely unaffordable to me.

Besides, I abhor the thought of turning women into professional child bearers.

[minto grubb]

25. Look at it this way...

Sounds completely unaffordable to me.
My country spent 3 billion POUNDS on the war in Iraq. (1$= £0.70.)
How much did the US spend on it? Was the war " affordable?"
Besides, I abhor the thought of turning women into professional child bearers.
but women are bearing children already. Other peoples kids run the schools, the hospitals, everything. don't we owe something to those who provide the next generation, whose taxes will keep it all ticking when we retire?

[Liberal Veteran]

26. The US doesn't even think people deserve health care....

...and you are talking about paying mothers to raise kids?

You got to be kidding me. We have 43 million people in our country without access to basic health care and about half the country opposes universal health care because somehow that would be "socialist".

Let's have a sense of realism here.

[minto grubb]

34. In Britain..

We do have health care. If you think you need it over there, and ask if people should have it (and i think the answer is 'yes'...) then we progressives have got to make the running - becuase Bush won't!
We are not as big , or as wealth as America , but we -have- Healthcare! For everyone!! Are you listening, Mr. Bush???

[private_ryan]

59. Are you listening, Mr. Bush???

First, he can't read. Second, even he could, DU would not be on his list.

[private_ryan]

55. you will have to adopt one family maybe

:). Everytime they have a kid, you owe them $30K. If you don't pay, they'll come after you like they do for child support.

[Fleshdancer]

22. I have no idea.

Even if Mothers were paid, they would be underpaid and without benefits just like current child care providers in this country.

Sure, I would love to get paid for doing the hardest, least valued job that we all owe our existence to but I don't see it happening here anytime soon.

For now I would rather focus on making sure my child and every child in this country has health care, a great (not mediocre) education, and safety. It's the very least the richest super power in history could offer to the Mothers of this nation.

[DuctapeFatwa]

27. Should children society doesn't want be euthanized?

That is the real question. If the parents are unable to care them, either because they are not good parents or because society does not consider that their labor is worth the cost of raising a child, and society prefers not to take responsibility for the children, how should the kids be disposed of?

[Liberal Veteran]

33. Would there be some kind of merit system involved?

Staying at home to raise your child doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do a good job of it.

If we are going to pay for people to raise children, perhaps we should institute a system to ensure that parent's are actually doing what they are being paid by the state to do.

[HEyHEY]

38. Yeah and of your kid gets straight A's or something - a raise!

;-) sadly my folks would have never gotten a raise :-(

[DuctapeFatwa]

41. Neither does having enough money to feed it guarantee that

There are plenty of lousy parents who are more than able to provide for their child's basic needs.

What I am asking about are the kids that society just does not want enough either to pay their parents enough to feed them, nor do they want to feed them themselves.

The numbers are growing, and will continue to grow. It's a fair question, how should these children be disposed of?

[private_ryan]

52. you'd have some families with 40 kids

work one year and give birth every year after that....until the retirement kicks in. Can't afford them, don't have them.

[KFC]

80. Exactly. It is a profoundly stupid idea.

Imagine the baby boom.

[minto grubb]

103. Right now, in many countries

Women are not having kids, and populations are falling to worrying levels.
Why should omen have kids if they are undervalued?
yes, I think there would be a baby boom... I also think we need one.
As for 40 kids... even in the victorian era, when kids could be an economic asset, when there was no contraception available, 8-10 was the norm. My Gran had 9. 40 would not be Physically possible. If you are gonna criticise, get real.

[private_ryan]

132. then don't have any kids if you think you're undervalued.

We'll allow immigrants in who have kids because think it's part of life. Even 8-10 is a lot since you want to be specific. The worst part, the people who would have those kids for money, should be paid not to have any.

[DuctapeFatwa]

133. The kids are already born. Who is responsible for disposing of them?

Talking about woulda coulda shoulda is fine, before the fact.

This is after the fact. Now the kids are here, the parents can't take care of them, you don't want to.

What should be done with them?

[OldEurope]

99. This is ridiculous. Here in Germany

one parent (mother or father) can stay at home for three years after the birth with return into job granted, and in this time they get up to 600 Euro a month ( according to the income of the family, rich ones won´t get anything ). Also the times you stay at home for the child gets added to your social security. These benefits exist here since at least 15 years, and I´ve never ever heard that any woman in this country gets more children because of these benefits. This is plain nonsense.

[HEyHEY]

37. People don't have kids for a paycheck

If you can't affors to raise your kids, yes there should be aid. But if you're making enough to support your family - support your family.

[minto grubb]

39. my dad married my mum

but left when I was born. He wanted a little girl. I do not think there is ever a case for ending the life of a child because its parents don't want it.
I may have been a burden on the state when i was a kid, but I grew up and paid taxes for the last 20 odd years, and continu to do so.
I think there are moral as well as economic issues to consider here, and I think the answer is no to euthenasia. but you may think I am biased.

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. Whether the parents want the child is irrelevant. Society doesn't want it

We know that society doesn't want it because the value of a day's work in a free market is decided by society, and this society has decided that a day's work is worth less than a day's worth of child needs.

The parent may want the child more than anything, but the parent only has as much money as society says her labor is worth.

[minto grubb]

48. But we are society

shouldn't we, the progressives, be the nation's, no- the World's Social Conscience? should we not argue that it is the child, and the child's rights that matter most?
I did not ask to be born. i don't care if society does not want me, I am here, and i think that those who cause me to be here should be responsible. if they will not fulfill their obligations, well, you are gonna lose a taxpayer, and a future who knows what if you terminate my existence. And what sort of people are you that you would actually kill a healthy child? Are you sure this is a progressive forum , or what???

[DuctapeFatwa]

54. Yes, we are society. That is my point. And societies make choices

This society has decided that the free market value of a day's work is not even worth the free market value of a day's survival for one person, much less any children that person may have.

So you have all these children that we, society have decided we don't want.

We don't want to pay their parents enough to take care of them, and we don't want to take care of them.

So what shall we do with them?

[minto grubb]

58. What do we do? my suggestion is...

We don't want to pay their parents enough to take care of them, and we don't want to take care of them.
So what shall we do with them?

my solution is we do what we did about the war in Iraq. A lot of us said " not in my name" and tried to chnge society into the shape we wanted it. Bread not bombs.
We still need to change the shape of society , if you ask me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. As long as most of the resources are in the hands of a few

you will not be successful. Those few are not interested in saving the children, or your life, or mine.

They are interested in maximizing profit. Not progress of the nation, or a better tomorrow, just more zeros on the bottom line.

If a greater number of zeros will be obtained by chopping up you, me, and anyone who makes less than a 6 figure income and grinding us into cattle feed, listen for the sound of a very noisy truck outside your window.

Unchecked greed is not in the best interest of most of the people who defend it.

[Liberal Veteran]

61. Small steps, friend.

As I said in an earlier post and implied to a large extent in it, our society as it stands right now doesn't even think people should be entitled to basic health care. We are literally cutting services to poor and underpriveleged in this society because of the mentality that we are NOT our brother's keeper. Our society is so royally fucked up that to even suggest we might have to pay more of our money to bomb another country into the stone age, which is obviously more important to the masses and leadership than feeding our people, is considered an abomination! We expect people to work 40-60 hours a week on a wage that is literally unlivable in most areas of this country with no benefits and then blame these same people for having the indecency to not save enough money to retire on Wal-Mart wages.

And someone wants to discuss paying women with taxpayer dollars to stay home and raise kids?

We have about 100 different societal problems that need fixed before even suggesting we need to tackle this particular one. And this particular problem is more symptomatic of other problems that really need to be fixed in our society than it is a problem in and of itself. It seems to me if did things like fix health care issues and living wage issues and our insane focus on materialism and outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries, that this issue would become a non-issue in a heartbeat.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. This particular problem is the bottom line of many

And nutritional requirements for children stubbornly refuse to decrease in small steps.

[minto grubb]

72. I think that here is another valid solution-italics added by me

We have about 100 different societal problems that need fixed before even suggesting we need to tackle this particular one. And this particular problem is more symptomatic of other problems that really need to be fixed in our society than it is a problem in and of itself. It seems to me if did things like fix health care issues and living wage issues and our insane focus on materialism and outsourcing good paying jobs to third world countries, that this issue would become a non-issue in a heartbeat.
Thanks for contributing.

[Demeter]

45. HOw about deadbeat dads?

Now there's a blight on society--why not advocate euthanizing them?

[minto grubb]

76. If someone had wanted to terminate mine

I would not have minded in the least.

[minto grubb]

70. Adoption. Next question , please...

[slackmaster]

30. How about penalizing them when they fail to raise responsible adults?

Makes just about as much sense.

[HEyHEY]

32. lol...ahhh

:-)

[minto grubb]

36. well...

At least people are thinking about it, and talking about it.
I don't care if my idea gets shot out of the water, or morphed and altered into something else, so long as peole think seriously about how much society owes to mothers and how litle respect, never mind cash they get.

[mopinko]

40. who would decide this?

if your kid is an artist, and makes no money? if your kid is mentally ill? how about a genetically caused mental illness? guess i won't be getting my fat check!!

[carols]

44. If the State starts paying mothers, they would be able to fire them too

Pay from any government agency would come with strings. Next thing you know they would have the equivalent of standardized tests for motherhood - all bought and paid for by some long lost Bush brother so they could make up the rules as they go along, (thereby disqualifying liberal mothers, gay parents, minority moms and anyone else they didn't like, or even taking there kids away and giving them to A+ GOP Nazis.)
Someone made a point earlier about the value of having a parent at home in reducing crime. The quality of life for everyone would certainly be better if child-rearing were a more valued task. But I think the thing is to redefine how we think about work, not motherhood. Why is working yourself to death considered such a badge of honor in this society? Why is having a lucrative career considered the pinnacle of achievement? And why do we allow money to define these values?
I can speak from experience - I am the mother of seven children and I now have a relatively decent career as the manager of a software testing department, so I have lived both lives. I think motherhood prepared me for management - not hampered my career growth.
Carol

[maggrwaggr]

47. nice post. I, too, wonder that

why having a career is considered such a wonderful thing?

It's all part of that "if you have money you're a better person" ethos in our soceity, which is, well, just plain wrong.

The biggest assholes I've ever met in my life had plenty of money. Any asshole with money can buy a nice car and nice clothes.

The most evil people I've ever known were lawyers.

My wife is staying at home to raise our kid right now, and I wouldn't want it any other way. She works her ASS off, way more than I do, and she gets no breaks to speak of. She works weekends and everything.

It's hard work and why, in our society, is it looked down upon?

[Liberal Veteran]

51. I think it is only looked down on by those with a "score" mentality...

...and the amount of money one makes a particular venture, whether it be raising children or running a company is how too many people keep "score".

[minto grubb]

68. This is why I started this...

It's hard work and why, in our society, is it looked down upon?
Why indeed? should not society be compensating your wife for all this hard worK? Think about it. Ask your congressman, and your president, come election time!

[Dissenting_Prole]

83. Where do I sign up for my compensation?

minto grubb wrote:
"Why indeed? should not society be compensating your wife for all this hard worK?"

Gardening is hard work. Bit it makes my neighbourhood better. So why shouldn't I get paid by the government to do it?

Because it's my hobby and I chose it. I don't expect anyone to bend over and kiss my butt just because I think I'm doing the world a big favour.

Parents. Geeesh.

[Pithlet]

84. Come back and talk

when your begonias are the economic base for the country. Otherwise, that analogy is apples and oranges.

[maggrwaggr]

93. sorry. That's my job.

I mean, if money grew on trees (and it seems to for Bush), yeah, sure, great.

But I sure don't expect "society" to pay our family so my wife can raise a kid. I mean, it's supposed to already by the job I do, right?

That's called an "economy".

[Muddleoftheroad]

97. It is a voluntary choice

No one makes you have a child. It is your choice. Why should we pay you for it?

[lpricanprynces]

57. They are already paid

People get to deduct $1,000.00 per kid on their taxes! That is payment enough, and I personally think that should be revoked.

Guess what people, having kids costs money, and usually one parent will have to give up a career or such just to have them. You know the consequences prior to multiplying, it's not some hidden fact.

Having kids is not a right, it's a choice. If you make that choice, good for you, but our govt. should not be forcing the childless to subsidize someone else's desire to multiply.

[Pithlet]

62. You know what?

Having children subsidizes the childless. We pay the burden of raising the people that will be running the economy that will take care of your old ass when you're in your dotage. The people that we're raising now will be the people you will be depending on to create a functioning society so you have the possibility of retiring and not living out of a dumpster in your old age. If there's any subsidizing going on, it's people with children subsidizing the retirement and future of people without.

And, before I get the typical flame that I'm being anti-childless, I'm not. Yes, having a child is a choice, and I'm not advocating that everyone has to, or that those who choose not to are making a bad or immoral choice. But I'm tired of hearing that choosing a child has no positive consequences for anyone other than the parent making that choice. And I'm tired of hearing that we're doing it on the backs of the childless.

[minto grubb]

66. I don't want to flame you

I want to thank you for putting over what I am trying to say.

[lpricanprynces]

71. Whom do children benefit?

I personally do not feel that someone else's kids benefit me. I do not believe social security will be around when I'm ready to retire, so I do not believe that someone else's kids will be working to pay for that. Besides, anyone who actually believes that social security is meant to be enough income to live off of is crazy. I believe that I am saving money on my own to pay for my care when I retire. I do not expect anyone else to pay for me.

I'm not stating that having kids is bad, but people should not expect tax credits just for having them. To me that is the same as welfare.

The fact still remains that the single childless of this country are the ones who are truly screwed by our tax code.

[Pithlet]

73. I'm not talking about social security

I'm talking about the basic economic foundation of the country. Without the next generation, there will be no economic foundation for the country, and all of your savings won't mean squat because without enough well educated members of the next generation, the economy will be in the shitter, and you'll be lucky if your grocery store has as much food as a Soviet era Moscow supermarket. Who do you think is going to provide the economic engine that is going to allow your savings and investments to grow large enough to retire off of anyway?

[minto grubb]

77. YAY!!! Go Pithlet!!!

Thank you for taking my argument further. Never thought about investments, my many thanks to you * High 5*

[Dissenting_Prole]

85. the next generation

Pithlet wrote;
"Without the next generation, there will be no economic foundation for the country"

Got news for you: The economy is already in the shitter. The current economic system is based on debt-based financing and fractional reserve banking, not on how many people there are. Combine an economy that is based on nothing with depleting energy resources, and you have a senario where we will need fewer mouths to feed, not more.

[Pithlet]

86. Yes, because

God knows every trend always goes to its worst outcome, and God knows nobody can see the economic problems that exist and God knows nobody would ever be able to fix them. We survived the Great Depression, we can survive George Bush. All you're trying to do is make excuses for accepting the subsidy of childrearing people so you can feel better about your arguments against paying back some of that subsidy. I really don't think the world is coming to an end right around the same time you retire.

[maggrwaggr]

94. I'm with you, Pithlet

I agree with you 100%. I'm always kinda shocked at these people on DU (and maybe they're in the "real world" too but they just don't speak up) who seem to really hate us "breeders".

I just don't get it.

[pmbryant]

87. Who subsidizes who? And vice versa. ;-)

I think it is silly to argue about whether people with children are subsidizing those without or vice versa.

After all, those without children are working right now to 'create a functioning society'. And these children who will eventually be supporting our retirements, will eventually retire themselves someday are require their own support. It is an endless cycle of 'you subsidize me, then I subsidize you'.

We all need each other! As progressives, it is silly to argue over this when we are all getting royally ripped off by a select few well-connected individuals.

--Peter

[Pithlet]

88. I agree

I just get riled up when I hear that those of us who have children are somehow putting out those that do not. You're right, we don't all live in a bubble. We do need each other.

[minto grubb]

107. Absolutlely! its nice to see an outbreak of commonsense happening.

If it keeps happening, Bush may get worried. keep it up , America!

[Darth_Kitten]

121. And childless people subsidize people with kids.....

it's a two way street, our tax dollars help raise other people's kids. Where's our tax break? :shrug:

[minto grubb]

64. I am childless...

So why should I pay taxes fo other kids to have an education?
It is a libertarian argument, ' Tax ' is somehow equated with theft.
well, you should not pay tax at all... so long as you never use the local Fire Dept, or call the police for any reason, or live without street lamps down your road and have your dustbin emptied.
hey, c'mon.
The reason I don't mind my taxes paying for other people's kids is that I am a socialist. I believe in the concept of bieng part of a community and making a contribution to my fellow men and women. I thought we all did on DU - and, of course, it will be their kids who look after me when I am in a nursing home, there is that to it...

[Pithlet]

67. Yes!

Someone else who gets it. Good post, minto grubb.

[minto grubb]

74. Thank you,

For what you have said here, and on other threads I started.
can i just add that, in spite of what others have said about me, and in spite of how I come across myself some times, that i think the system is unfair - especially to women. I just want to try and redress that.

[maggrwaggr]

95. yes, a little something called "The Family of Man"

As in Mankind.

Families have children.

We get old, they get productive, we die, they pay for the funerals, etc. etc. etc.

[bleedingheart]

96. and I am one of those tax paying citizens who is raising their

kids to understand that it is their duty to humanity and the community to help others and pay their taxes so that others may be able to live!

community...its about love, understanding and selflessness...

[minto grubb]

108. Careful, talk like that & Bush will call you subversive ore somethin'

[Dr. Wu]

60. If she is elibigle for a govt daycare program

if she left the kids and went to work, she should be eligible for it if she chose to stay home.

[MrPrax]

69. Yup it's a job n/t

[private_ryan]

75. I work on a job too

they Government doesn't pay me jack. They want taxes from me instead. Parents have to make a decision before having kids. Do we have enough money for mom to take off for 2-3 months, 6 months or for longer after the baby is born.

[minto grubb]

78. looks like we got all the money we need when Mr Bush wants to bomb Iraq...

I am off to bed folks, see you in the morning.
my many thanks to all who contributed.

[Liberal Veteran]

79. That's borrowed money....

We'll be paying it back with interest in a few years if we don't go bankrupt first.

I think the bottom line is that you need to understand you are talking to a society that has been voluntarily bamboozled into believing that it's actually a good thing that one of the wealthiest countries in the world should spend it's wealth on new and exciting ways to kill people instead of making the society a better place for all it's citizens.

[minto grubb]

109. Oh, I know just who I'm talking to- most folks over here are the same.

But we on the left have gotta keep talkin sense, putting thes wild ideas about peace bein' better than war and danger ous nonsense like that about, or the whole world will go mad.
the whole wold, as you put it, is ' royally fucked up'. I think those of us in the know have a duty to sayso and ask silly questions, such as ' Do we really need to bomb Iraq?' and ' do we need to pay women just to raise thie own kids?'

[Skidmore]

113. It's borrowed money that we'll need children in the upcoming

generations to pay back. It seems counterproductive to not make certain that we have well educated and healthy youth to fix our messes.:evilgrin:

[LWolf]

82. Great question.

I don't have a clearcut answer.

On one hand, reproduction is a choice. The planet would be better off, IMO, if fewer people chose to reproduce. Women do not have to have babies to be whole, fulfilled people. I think more women would feel free to make that choice if there were not such a cultural/social indoctrination that a person, especially a woman, is not complete without babies.

On the other hand, someone has to have them, and those someones are going to be women. Restricting motherhood to the wealthy is not okay. The impact of trying to raise children and work, find quality child care, pay for said child care, lose senority and income at work, and go through the guilt even the best of us feel at not being there to actually raise the child, can be overwhelming. Kids often spend more time with caregivers than they do with working parents. The time spent is limited by the need to pick up, drop off, feed, bathe, etc., and after a day at work parents are often too tired for prolonged interaction. Then there is the schedule of supervised, organized activities to keep up with. It's not often a financially viable choice for a mother to stay home with children; and, even when it is, it implies a dependence on a breadwinner that unbalances the relationship. The loss of personal independence/power is not good for women in many cases. The best way to prevent that imbalance is an independent income while raising the child/ren.

Do I think we ought, as a society, to pay that price? I don't know. Not in current circumstances. I have too much personal experience with young, powerless, uneducated young women who have had baby after baby to keep the welfare coming, and who used those babies as a shield against interacting in a scary world. And that's what they pass on to those babies; dysfunction. Inability to interact successfully in the world.

If you were to ask me the ideal solution, mine would horrify you. Teachers interact with too many kids born to parents who've let them down in profound ways. I don't think you divorce rights from the accompanying responsibilities. People who are not ready to be parents damage the children they bring into the world. People ought not to be able to have babies unless they are capable of nurturing them. Emotionally and socially healthy people with reasonable resources. I would pay that "mother" salary when the entire population needed a license to reproduce, based upon their ability to function productively in life. Since that isn't an option, I support responsible choice; choose to have children, or not, but act and choose responsibly.

[blondeatlast]

123. I agree with your "horrifying" solution, in many ways.

I'm a late-in-life mom. already into a career well before my hubby and I decided it was time. I still marvel at the awesome responsibility we have in our beautiful little boy.

It is damn ironic to see that those on the Right who are screaming that women should "stay home" to raise their children are the same ones who advocated the disaster we politely term welfore "reform."

Simply put, having children is a choice. I respect any woman's choice on the matter.

[LWolf]

138. It is an oxymoron, isn't it?

One of my wishes for 2004:

May all the children born this year be born into loving families that have the resources to nurture their physical, mental, social, and emotional development.

[Dilettante68]

89. I'd give up 5 years raises and seniority to have

the nuclear bomb in a sexual relationship

[bleedingheart]

92. the govt takes a woman's son or daughter for cannon fodder

so why shouldn't they get some sort of relief...

I am a working mom but many mothers stay at home and I respect that.. I really do. It is a hard job to raise your children and devote all your energy to the task. There are many risks when you do not work... and those children no matter what the libertarians want to point out...are the future...

My boss has no kids and likes to bait me with libertarian statements like.."people choose to have kids"...but when push comes to shove he is a BIG OLE SOFTY...who loves all humanity and has been the kindest gentlest soul when I have had to call off or work from home to care for my children...so I say to all the heartless comments in this thread..."eat your humbug"...

[lazarus]

98. One comment I'd make

Let's not assume that mothers are the sole and only providers for children. I'm a stay-at-home father, and there are quite a few of us out there.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that men work and women stay at home and raise the kids, and that's the way it will always be.

[sweetheart]

110. should men be paid to be full time fathers then?

Given that childbirth is a woman thing, the subsequent raising of the child can be done by either father or mother, and i agree it should be a paid full-time career supported by the state... but i don't agree that only women fit this role.

Forcing companies to keep jobs open for years is a failure, and you can look at germany where such laws are in place for women... the result is still a declining birth rate, and less women's equality... so making corporations responsible does not work... it is a state responsibility, but should not be limited to women, so that we do not polarize people in to sex/roles.

[OldEurope]

111. In Germany not only the mother has these rights.

The father , too, can stay at home. Or one or both of them can work part time. And they do.
Companies with well educated staff are glad, when the mothers or fathers return to their jobs after half a year or two. It´s more expensive to have a high fluctuation rate and breaking in new employees. This may not be true for simple jobs at a shop or diner, but for any job that requires a certain level of education.

[minto grubb]

115. The point is....

I would argue that Germany's system is still a lot better than America's, but it still does not stop women ' voting with their feet'. Women get a raw deal from Society, especially mothers.
However, I see no reason why men should not get the same breaks if they want to take on parenting.
Parenting is making a contribution to Society: having a kid is not like having a bottle of wine with a meal; a child is not some sort of luxury item that carries the tag " if you want it you should pay for it", A child is an asset that the parent raises at great cost, and the state gets for nothing. And society is giving no recognition to this fact.

[OldEurope]

116. Í don´t think there is anything a state or government can

do to raise the number of children to be born. I love my children and I am happy with them, but never had I wanted to have more than these two. And no payment or benefits had ever changed my mind, as I love my job, too, and was very happy to have something else to think about than children and housekeeping.
But I could imagine not to want any child at all, if this would have meant to loose my job and social security, or even to be completely dependent on my husband´s job. Under such circumstances, I´d be childless.
I don´t think that any woman on earth ever had a child, because she wanted to do something for society. Better education for women makes them having less babies, as you can see in every country.
I´m sure, nobody here will say, that women should not have a good education. But the number of children will decline much more, when these well educated women don´t get any support by the society they live in.
Edit: forgot something!
Society means everybody. The father, the neighbours, the bosses and coworkers, school staff and everyone. If a society gives the signal "children are important to us" then the politicians can bolster up the families. This will be the only way to raise the number of births. If society is not at one with this, no money from the government will help.

[Skidmore]

117. Well said...nt

[minto grubb]

118. I just want to be clear..

That I support the right of every woman to be allowed to make choices. Choices about everything. Educated women have fewer children, true. I personally know women who found they were infertile and were heartbroken because they could not have a child to love and raise, however, most women I personally know are satisfied with 2-3 children. I am not arguing that we need to sy=ustain 6 billion peole on earth, but it concerns me that our numbers are declining too rapidly - rather than heading for a 'soft landing', I think we will expeience a population crash in the Western World.
what concerns me even more is that working mothers are getting a very crappy deal, and some people on DU, who call themselves 'Progessives' just don't get it.
As some one said "some posts could have come right out of freeperland". seeing as I never heard no-one say any thing nice about ' Freepers', I wonder who they are.

[sweetheart]

139. Its the economics of time

Kids take time. The more you earn per hour, the more expensive the opportunity cost is for having kids. Its pure economics.

If you want more kids, make it economically just. As it stands, i don't want any kids. There are enough birth cows on the planet, and if i wanted a kid, i could adopt one from a kid-farm. Given that the population has grown 1 billion every 15 years or so since i've been alive, i'm a bit incredulous to your "declining birthrate" statement. Clearly the way to achieve balance is a massive uplift in terms of education and wealth that no person on earth can afford the time to have 8 children.

Also, it is rather known (and ask any kid of such a large family) that there is a declining quality in the parenting when the family gets too large... not enough quality time with the parents. Instead of having a balanced world where birthrates stabilized in all populations, we have poor world where birthrates explode due to the economics, and a rich world where decline for the same reason.

If you want to fix it, fix the north/south fallacy of economics.

[Hekate]

120. Allegedly, US society values women and children ...

In reality, they are the bottom priority. As a society, we allocate billions of dollars to what we value, and millions or nothing to what we do not. Look at the pie chart of the latest federal budget. 50% off the top goes to the military, and that's before the bequest to flatten Iraq and then rebuild it.

Anyone who believes that the fate of mothers and children is of no consequence to themselves or to the society at large receives my most scathing scorn -- because Hekate is sister to the Eumenides and not the more kindly goddesses.

If you have not yet noticed that the US's middle class -- which used to be our pride and strength as a nation -- is rapidly disappearing, you probably are also not aware that for most of the last 20 years the middle class status of many families has been maintained by the underpaid labor of the women of those families. Lawyers and other highly paid professionals are few; secretaries, waitresses, school teachers, and factory workers are many. It's not about buying a new Beemer, it's about shoring up the shrinking paycheck of the man of the house. It's not about private schools for the kids, it's about after school care versus the latchkey.

Every election year it is popular to claim how valuable mothers and children are to our collective future, while simultaneously excoriating any and all who need help.

To our great shame as a nation, and with abundant help from the Republican Party as it has come to be, we are well on our way to becoming a third-world nation as regards what used to be thought of as "the common good." Adequate health care, decent education, safe neighborhoods -- all these are yours IF you can pay for them up front. We still boast of our quality of life, but it is a sham and a hypocrisy, and makes us no better than Saudi Arabia or Pakistan where the wealthy have every advantage and god help you if you aren't.

Do I think women should be paid for the work they do bearing and raising the next generation? Ha! This nation is not that evolved! But we could go a long, long way toward making this a better world by creating an honest-to-god support network like that of more civilized countries.

If you can't wrap your mind around anything as Progressive as "the common good," at least consider "enlightened self interest."

Think educating all our kids is expensive? Try adding up the real costs of ignorance. Think providing adequate health care is expensive? Drug-resistant tuberculosis is making a big comeback--think about that the next time someone coughs on you in public. Think you can avoid the rising crime rate by living in a gated community? You have to leave your moated castle some time. Raise the minimum wage so the working poor can afford food, clothing, and shelter; expand Head Start instead of killing it off as is now being done; improve public schools by paying teachers a living wage and building more classrooms -- the list goes on and on.

Addressing any and all of these progressive agenda items would make the question of "paying mothers" sound as much like a straw man as it really is.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

~~Howard Dean for President in 2004: "Because politics is not a spectator sport."~~

[Darth_Kitten]

122. Bravo

:thumbsup:

[blondeatlast]

125. So very, sadly true. The class war is artfully constructed

by the neocons to be the poor vs. the middle class, with the uninvolved wealthy being the only victors.

[Southpaw Bookworm]

128. Got it in one

Thank you Hekate, for phrasing so eloquently what I was thinking on this topic.

:yourock:

[skippysmom]

129. Excellent post..

That took most of the words out of my mouth.

Should we pay people to have children? It sounds almost like something out of the Handmaid's Tale, especially when it seems linked with increasing the white birth rate.

But I would argue that we need to do something to help out the middle classes (whether they have children or not) and give the poor more opportunities to move up.

What are the biggest expenses middle and lower class Americans have?
-housing
-health insurance
-retirement
-child care
-education (especially college)

A true progressive agenda addresses these issues and would help out all families, without directly paying people to have children.

[minto grubb]

130. Thanks ever so

:you rock:
Cant get the icon to function, but thanks for the post. Am using it as start of nwe thread on he discussion board.

[blondeatlast]

124. "Pay" the children instead

in the form of decent nutrition, quality public education, and a guarantee of free post-secondary education.

There are too many problems facing the children we have now to even consider the question. This is just one more wacky weapon in the class war, which has become all too painfully real.

[noonwitch]

126. If they're not married, they frequently are paid

Child support, welfare, etc. Adults without children are not eligible for most state welfare programs. Child support is to compensate for an absent parent, in most cases, the father.

I'm not criticising, just pointing it out.

[ProfessorGAC]

127. No

Look we already pay taxes, without complaint, to support an educational system in which we have no children. My wife works on a teacher in a small school system for pitiful wages (for a college educated woman). So, she makes the sacrifice of making less $ than she could for the good of other people's children.

Women who have children that leave the work force for a time are making a choice. Some leave their careers aside for a while, some don't. That's a good choice to have. Either decision is a good one, each with its upside and downside. But, the choice is there.

When do we cut off the payment to those women? Do we add cash to the women who don't leave the workplace for 5 years, or 10, or whatever? Why would we discrminate against women that choose NOT to leave the workforce? Awfully slippery slope, there.

Lastly, what about folks like my wife and i who wanted kids but couldn't have them? We didn't make a choice to be childless. Do we get a taxbreak because we would have gotten this subsidy if my wife and i had been able to have kids? If yes, how do we prove we wanted kids we never had? How would anyone?

No, the idea that people should be subsidized for a decision, in their mind, that was the right thing to do (one parent giving up career time, $ and promotability by staying home) just doesn't work for me. It's fraught with inequity and i cannot imagine a workable solution to those inequities.
The Professor

[democratreformed]

131. As a working mother,

I, first, would like to disagree that I can't have a career and children. I DO have a career and two children. One is grown (19) and the other is 8. So far, it has been hard at times but okay.

Now, as far as those who choose to stay at home with their children, there are many things that come to mind:
1. I have a friend whose husband died when she was 5 months pregnant. She got a SS check as long as she chose not to work and her child was under 18 (older if he attended college). Could that be seen as paying a woman to raise her child?
2. Working to provide low-cost or free health care, I think, would help stay-at-home mothers a great deal. Surely, there are other things like this that would help.
3. Here in the south, the stay-at-home mothers of the olden days are largely a myth, in my opinion. Many of the women spent long hours in the field working alongside their husbands and children. Those that didn't do that either worked elsewhere or were the priveleged few just like they are today.

[bleedingheart]

140. when my dad died my mom got a social security check for us

until we were 18 and she got a small portion for herself until the youngest was 16..then she got cut off.

Back then you were punished if you got a job and made more than a certain amount...so the system was set up to screw you over if you were trying to better yourself...and daycare wasn't an option like it is today when I was a kid and it still would have screwed up her finances...
lucky for her, my dad and she had the forethought to pay off the house as soon as they could so we could live on the modest amount the govt gave us....when we were old enough to be left alone by ourselves she got a job for minimum wage and a few hours a week to help reenter the workforce...

life was hard but she is a great mom..

[beyurslf]

136. No way unless you at least revise that to

should a parent (not a mother) be paid to stay home. My biggest complaint about "staying at home" is that it seems to only be a woman's choice. No one says a man can chose to stay home and raise a family. A woman is accepted for making this choice though. No man can say in high school he wants to marry and have a family, with no plans for a career. Where is equality in that?

[GreenPartyVoter]

137. *lol* That is exactly my life you described

I have a teaching degree, but opted to stay home with my boys until they are in school full time.

The plan you have sounds great, but where does the money come from?? And will I be subject to the same child care standards as a daycare or school?

I wouldn't mind the financial assistance (though when you are bad enough off you can get it in other ways, ie medicaid and food stamps) but I wouldn't want to do it if a) it wasn't fiscally sound for the country and b) if it means submitting my family to some sort of constant gov't review. Lord knows if it was anything like "No Child Left Behind" we'd be in an awful lot of trouble. My boys don't like tests! *l*