Universal, subsidized child Day care - scandinavian style

cawacko said:
then why the comment that only those who listen to right-wing radio would assume a federal involvement when the term universal is invovled and here you are saying you believe the Feds should run it?
Click to expand...

I think he's talking about administering said program, versus the feds who would simply set up guidelines. I see this as an extension of our current education system.

Also it would help to keep kids out of trouble during the day which could have a great impact on some certain communities.
 
Cypress said:
So "involved" is the same as running it? You really should read damocle's posts. this has been covered already.
Click to expand...

this:

-Originally Posted by LadyT
I'd prefer state sponsored child-care.

-Damocles: I would as well, while block grants to state based on per capita need might be a good thing as well.
Click to expand...
 
LadyT said:
I think he's talking about administering said program, versus the feds who would simply set up guidelines. I see this as an extension of our current education system.

Also it would help to keep kids out of trouble during the day which could have a great impact on some certain communities.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand why the middle class/rich should be subsidized, since a considerable number of those groups already have it covered. IF there IS a need for the poor and it's going to be state funded, then having these taxes, but the outgoing only going to the 'needy' would give more funds to those needy, while keeping taxes lower.
 
cawacko said:
Thank you Prak. What you posted and what you linked said two opposite things. Should we be mind readers as well?
Click to expand...


Numerous posters on this thread have mentioned State run or sponsored programs, with support from federal grants.

That is the equivalent of federal involvment but its NOT a federally run program.

Are you going to pretend that you still don't undertand?
 
Cypress said:
Grasping at straws.

I'm involved in my community.

Does that mean I "run" my community?

Read Damocles post on this thread, and you'll understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

Try to remain calm.

There's about 800 million posts on this thread. Who has that kind of time?

In my dialogue with you, you've stated that it would be stupid for the Fed to run it, and that you think the Fed should run it.

Please clarify via your own finger tips, not some nebulous "Damocles" post buried in one of these 4 pages.

Thanks in advance, and God Speed.
 
Cypress said:
Numerous posters on this thread have mentioned State run or sponsored programs, with support from federal grants.

That is the equivalent of federal involvment but its NOT a federally run program.

Are you going to pretend that you still don't undertand?
Click to expand...

You said the Feds should run it and then linked to a post where you said it would be stupid for the Feds to run it. Nothing to do with Damo.
 
Beefy said:
Try to remain calm.

There's about 800 million posts on this thread. Who has that kind of time?

In my dialogue with you, you've stated that it would be stupid for the Fed to run it, and that you think the Fed should run it.

Please clarify via your own finger tips, not some nebulous "Damocles" post buried in one of these 4 pages.

Thanks in advance, and God Speed.
Click to expand...


Its cool.

Here you go:

http://justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=104958&postcount=126
 
cawacko said:
You said the Feds should run it and then linked to a post where you said it would be stupid for the Feds to run it. Nothing to do with Damo.
Click to expand...

Show me where I said that the Feds should run it. I don't believe I ever said that.
 
cawacko said:
You said the Feds should run it and then linked to a post where you said it would be stupid for the Feds to run it. Nothing to do with Damo.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm trying to figure out.

I can't find this phantom post of Damocles' that is apparently floating around somewhere on the internets.
 
Okay, I see where I confused you cawako.

I think I made a typo on one post: I wrote "should", when I meant to write "shouldn't".
 
Runyon said:
I fail to understand why the middle class/rich should be subsidized, since a considerable number of those groups already have it covered. IF there IS a need for the poor and it's going to be state funded, then having these taxes, but the outgoing only going to the 'needy' would give more funds to those needy, while keeping taxes lower.
Click to expand...

The same reason you fund middle class/rich children's education now. Not to mention that 'rich' and 'middle class' are relative terms. Particularly when they are spoken about on a national level.
 
Cypress said:
LOL

Dude, I wasn't angry: you're totally cool. Me and cawacko go way back too, he's a good dude.

It was my fault...I made a typo that confused y'all.
Click to expand...

As long as we're still friends. That's the most important thing.

You were pretty sore at us for a minute there.
 
My problem is the "universal". There are people that don't need the help and don't want it.

I prefer a system that is more "welfare" than "universal" and that ends when it is no longer a necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top