Obama wants your babies!

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I don't really understand what you mean, Omnis. Are you saying that the public school system is being monopolized by the state?

I think he was referring to Obama's plan, but it could be applied to the public school system. You can only get the service from the government, so there's no competition.

 

[Zrow]

Obama's plan doesn't cause monopolies though - the public school system isn't a monopoly on education, there's no government monopoly on "after school activities", and this wouldn't create a monopoly on early childhood programs.

 

[Omnis]

I don't really understand what you mean, Omnis. Are you saying that the public school system is being monopolized by the state

No, I'm not just limiting it to public schools. But, public schools, for example, make it harder for private schools to compete (because the "referee" is now playing the game by its own self-serving rules), thereby creating a soft fascist economic environment.

I think we had this conversation in a public schools thread on this board.

 

[FoolKiller]

We do that though. Isn't that why taxes in California are so high? They pay for people to live poor states like Maine, where it's just as easy to collect welfare than it is to go hunt for a job.

Not quite. California State Taxes stay in the state of California, unless they offer aid to Maine for some sort of disaster, but they never do that because that is what FEMA (which is federal) is supposedly for.

California state taxes are so high because they have their own welfare programs within their own state.

There are many young parents around me, and childcare is one of the things that's killing them financially. There are people who will almost lose money by showing up to work, between the childcare and commute expenses(extra car, gas, etc.).

I hate paying more taxes, but if the birth rate in this country(excluding the illegals immigrants ) come down low enough, program(s) to help out with their daycare I think would be a good idea. Before it's too late like Japan or South Korea.

The thing is: Do you want your government deciding your childcare for you? How do you guarantee that whatever specific morals or ideals you want your child to learn will be taught to them? Upbringing plays a large role in development and if the parent has no say in the kinds of people helping out with childcare then they can't ensure their child grows to be the kind of person they want.

Example: I can guarantee you that a Christian family looking to raise their child in a Christian environment won't be able to find this government funded daycare teaching Christian ideals. So, they can take their child to a Christian daycare or babysitter, right? Maybe, but since they have already paid for childcare through taxes can they afford another childcare bill?

I don't really understand what you mean, Omnis. Are you saying that the public school system is being monopolized by the state?

I think he was referring to Obama's plan, but it could be applied to the public school system. You can only get the service from the government, so there's no competition.

Obama's plan doesn't cause monopolies though - the public school system isn't a monopoly on education, there's no government monopoly on "after school activities", and this wouldn't create a monopoly on early childhood programs.

I will just lump these three together.

By definition it is not a monopoly, because private institutions are still allowed to exist. That is why it is not Communism. But government does monopolize the funding. That is why Omnis refers to it as liberal fascism.

Let me explain using public schools:

1) The government makes you pay a school tax.
2) You have a child getting ready to go to school.
3) After doing some research you decide that the local public school(s) don't meet the standards you wish for your child.
4) You call up the State Education Department (or equivalent) and tell them that you need your school funding so you can take your child to a school that does meet your standards.
5) They laugh.
6) You say, "What gives?"
7) They say, "That isn't your money."
8) "But you took it from me."
9) "Right, so now it is ours. Thank you for funding your public schools."
10) "But how can I use the money, that I paid, for my child?"
11) "Send them to our schools."

Basically, the government forces you to pay for a service you may or may not want to use. And even if you need that service you can only use the money you paid for it if you are willing to accept their standards. The thing is that private school standards are clearly higher in most cases.

Any government funded childcare will work the same. As it is now rarely do childcare systems leave 30+ kids to one adult. But many public schools are like that now. And they are overcrowded.


And let's not even get into the logistical issues of staffing these childcare centers. Schools already are understaffed, but we are supposed to find quality childcare providers?

And where will these things be kept? He is saying ages 0-5 years. That is the equivalent of elementary school. So, you will have to have school-sized nurseries and playrooms? And as pre-school education sounds like it is part of this as well, that means that classrooms of some form will also be involved. Where do you put these buildings?


This plan has three very huge issues:
1) It can be argued against from a legal standpoint.
2) It can be argued against from a moral standpoint.
3) It can be argued against from a logistical standpoint.

Assuming Obama really did come up with this, my guess is that Obama doesn't have an actual plan. Like always, he just has a good sounding idea to motivate the low income voters to vote for him because they think he cares.

And Obama may truly care, but he plans domestic issues as poorly as he accuses President Bush of planning an exit strategy.

 

[Pupik]

That is socialism.

I didn't say it wasn't, I was merely tuning down the signal-to-noise ratio, and letting the more eloquent members state their case.

I'd just like to say that this kind of phrase sucks, and has no place in political debate. Give me an argument, not stupid rhetoric.

I wanted to say that. ↑

 

[Zrow]

Basically, the government forces you to pay for a service you may or may not want to use. And even if you need that service you can only use the money you paid for it if you are willing to accept their standards.

Right, and this is the underlying problem of any public service. The problem for the Department of Education is that many of the people that would opt against taxes and public schools, in favor of the private system, are the major tax contributers. Could the public school school system sustain itself while allowing people to opt out? I don't have the numbers here in front of me, so I really don't know.

If not, the obvious solution is the complete and total privatization of the educational system, which I feel like most everyone here champions. But how would this change occur logistically, given the massive infrastructure of the public school system that's already in place? How fast would the market react?


As an aside, I want to point out something I've noticed. I had two roommates who just graduated college to be high school teachers (one has a job already, I think the other is still looking). My college, and the public school system in general, seemed to have very high standards for who gets to be a public school teacher and who doesn't. They had to take multiple certification tests, take a number of required teaching-theory courses, student teach for a year (which included a ton of work on the side, as I was always lacking a Wii partner).

What kind of standards to private schools hold to their teachers? (Actual question if anyone knows, I don't). I'm sure there are standards and it probably depends on the school, but I DO know that a friend of mine who majored in physics and religious studies (weird, huh) interviewed to teach at a private school. He didn't get the job, but even the fact that he was granted an interview without any teaching courses or certifications made me question the standards that they have for their teachers. Anyone have any insight on this process?

And let's not even get into the logistical issues of staffing these childcare centers. Schools already are understaffed, but we are supposed to find quality childcare providers?

And where will these things be kept? He is saying ages 0-5 years. That is the equivalent of elementary school. So, you will have to have school-sized nurseries and playrooms? And as pre-school education sounds like it is part of this as well, that means that classrooms of some form will also be involved. Where do you put these buildings?

From the OP's quote, it seemed to me that he was just talking about additional funding for existing childcare centers (subsidies I guess) to make them more affordable. Not that it's a better plan than building entirely new ones.

Assuming Obama really did come up with this, my guess is that Obama doesn't have an actual plan. Like always, he just has a good sounding idea to motivate the low income voters to vote for him because they think he cares.

Bingo. I think he does care, but I doubt his campaign has done any real work in planning something like this yet.




EDIT: Is there an extended quote of this that I'm missing, or is this all he's said on the matter?

 

[FoolKiller]

Right, and this is the underlying problem of any public service. The problem for the Department of Education is that many of the people that would opt against taxes and public schools, in favor of the private system, are the major tax contributers. Could the public school school system sustain itself while allowing people to opt out? I don't have the numbers here in front of me, so I really don't know.

If not, the obvious solution is the complete and total privatization of the educational system, which I feel like most everyone here champions. But how would this change occur logistically, given the massive infrastructure of the public school system that's already in place? How fast would the market react?

The logistical issue of reverting back is why many people support the idea of a school voucher, where if you decide to send your child to a private school the money that would be used for your child would follow them to the private school and you just pay the remaining balance.

As an aside, I want to point out something I've noticed. I had two roommates who just graduated college to be high school teachers (one has a job already, I think the other is still looking). My college, and the public school system in general, seemed to have very high standards for who gets to be a public school teacher and who doesn't. They had to take multiple certification tests, take a number of required teaching-theory courses, student teach for a year (which included a ton of work on the side, as I was always lacking a Wii partner).

What kind of standards to private schools hold to their teachers? (Actual question if anyone knows, I don't). I'm sure there are standards and it probably depends on the school, but I DO know that a friend of mine who majored in physics and religious studies (weird, huh) interviewed to teach at a private school. He didn't get the job, but even the fact that he was granted an interview without any teaching courses or certifications made me question the standards that they have for their teachers. Anyone have any insight on this process?

Like you said, it depends on the school, but I do believe that many will hire someone without teacher certification and then pay to get them certified. Public schools do this as well, at least in Kentucky. My friend's wife did that.

This also changes from state to state, as education is a state program. And is why if a teacher moves states they must re-certify in their new state.

I know in Kentucky teachers have to have a bachelors in either their specialty or general education, elementary education, etc. Then they have to get a masters in teaching, or whatever they call it. That is followed by the certification.

In comparison, many of the higher rated private schools (the ones whose names you know as easily as the public high school names) tend to require a masters or doctorate in their subject and a teaching certificate. Those are also the schools that tend to graduate their students with a few college credits too.

But as they are private they all have different standards. But the bonus to them being private is that you can choose if you think their standards are up to what you expect.

And I am not directing this toward your friends, but I have seen many cases where a person easily gets through the teaching programs in college, but they can't actually teach. The difference between public and private when this happens is that public school teachers are in a union, and so it is hard to get rid of these cases. Many private schools have the ability to be an at-will employer, which means they can fire them at any point, within legal justifications.

From the OP's quote, it seemed to me that he was just talking about additional funding for existing childcare centers (subsidies I guess) to make them more affordable. Not that it's a better plan than building entirely new ones.

Actually it sounds like he is doing both.....more taxes.

Obama said... ‘As president, I will launch a Children’s First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five.’ ‘We’ll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families,’ he said. ‘And we’ll help more working parents find a safe, affordable place to leave their children during the day by improving the educational quality of our childcare programs and increasing the childcare tax credit.’

I also don't like that improving the childcare tax credit bit. It already is an overly abused system. I already know a couple of people that get more in their tax "refund" than they actually make.

Bingo. I think he does care, but I doubt his campaign has done any real work in planning something like this yet.

This and many other things he has been promising. I have noticed he dropped that 2010 date from his healthcare stuff.

 

[a6m5]

FK: I was referring to childcare aid, more in financial sense. Sorry, I didn't make it clear.

 

[forza2.0]

Well, theoretically speaking, if it was to keep expanding we would end up with Communism. I don't think it would ever get that far, but I wouldn't want to take the chance.

Going by that definition england is a communist state. The only people who are going to be benefiting from this is america so whats the big issue?

Maybe some of you need to have kids to appreciate what this means.