Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 74 of 74

Thread: Nancy Pelosi Wants A Federal Babysitting Service

  1. #61
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Trades;4258160]Maybe they aren't working for maximum profit but instead because they want to run their own business and feel they are providing a service.[/QUOTE]

    Or maybe (as I find is the case for many, many day care professionals), they realize its a means to watch their kids and make some money at the same time.

  2. #62
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4258194]Or maybe (as I find is the case for many, many day care professionals), they realize its a means to watch their kids and make some money at the same time.[/QUOTE]

    My sister-in-law used to run a small daycare out of her house for about 5 of her neighbors kids for just that reason. She had to get a permit and have her house inspected for safety and cleanliness before she could start. It worked out well for her and her neighbors who needed affordable daycare.

  3. #63
    [QUOTE=Trades;4258208]My sister-in-law used to run a small daycare out of her house for about 5 of her neighbors kids for just that reason. She had to get a permit and have her house inspected for safety and cleanliness before she could start. It worked out well for her and her neighbors who needed affordable daycare.[/QUOTE]

    She should be ashamed at herself for charging anything at all. She should do it for the equivalent of $10 an hour.;)

  4. #64
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4258211]She should be ashamed at herself for charging anything at all. She should do it for the equivalent of $10 an hour.;)[/QUOTE]

    LOL, true.

  5. #65
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Trades;4258208]My sister-in-law used to run a small daycare out of her house for about 5 of her neighbors kids for just that reason. She had to get a permit and have her house inspected for safety and cleanliness before she could start. It worked out well for her and her neighbors who needed affordable daycare.[/QUOTE]

    I don't believe this story at all. Today I learned from this thread that all daycare is expensive and unattainable for anyone but the rich.

  6. #66
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4258239]I don't believe this story at all. Today I learned from this thread that all daycare is expensive and unattainable for anyone but the rich.[/QUOTE]

    Even the rich can't get daycare according to Pelosi. She is one of the richest in the House and she said she couldn't find anyone for her 5 kids.

  7. #67
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Trades;4258242]Even the rich can't get daycare according to Pelosi. She is one of the richest in the House and she said she couldn't find anyone for her 5 kids.[/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't go anywhere near her kids either

  8. #68
    In 2007, the average cost of day care for infants and toddlers was over [B]$10,000 [/B]in New Jersey. In New York, it was almost [B]$12,000[/B]. And those figures were over 5 years old.

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-20-day-care-table_N.htm[/url]

    But everything is okay, nothing wrong with that especially when you consider the cost of living. I am sure the middle to low income families, as well as single parents, will understand that nothing should be done to make things better. If there is a hint of any possible help by the government, it should be squashed and replaced with a bed time story about how pure capitalism is the answer for everyone.....everyone, that is, except many of the wealthiest Americans who benefited from a form of socialism over the past few years. Speaking of which, here is an article from 2008 that is interesting. (if course since its from the Huffington Post it will be dismissed. yet we'll post articles from Fox News.com as if that is more reliable, lol)

    [B]Capitalism for the Poor, Socialism for the Wealthy[/B]

    [I]Most Americans believe they possess a natural aversion to socialism. Charges of "socialized medicine" have derailed much-needed health care reforms for years.

    After all, we are a capitalist society, we believe in personal responsibility, lifting ourselves by our bootstraps -- at least that is the stereotype we like to promote.

    The version closer to reality is America offers capitalism to low-income individuals, but is more than willing to unleash its socialist impulses for the wealthy.

    If we were truly a capitalist society Chrysler would not exist today, making cars that don't sell. It would have gone out of business decades ago. By passing the $1.5 billion "Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979," Congress allowed Chrysler to avoid bankruptcy, stay in business, and save jobs.

    However one feels about the Chrysler bailout, it was not capitalism. But recent Wall Street financial fiascos may cause us to long for the return of the Chrysler K-car.

    Congress is now on the verge of bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government created but privately owned, profit-making housing finance companies responsible for nearly half of the U.S. mortgage market. Collectively, they own or guarantee an estimated $5 trillion of debt.

    Fannie Mae was created in 1938, under President Roosevelt, at a time when millions of families could not become homeowners, or risked losing their homes, for lack of a consistent supply of mortgage funds across America.

    In 1968, Fannie Mae was re-chartered by Congress as a shareholder-owned company, funded solely with private capital raised from investors on Wall Street and around the world.

    Fannie and Freddie were able to borrow money at a discount based on the assumption that the government would stand behind their debts if need be. Their operations were regulated, limited by laws detailing what mortgages they could assume.

    But as these institutions grew and profited, they became more powerful behaving more like a publicly traded company than regulated government entity. The executives of each institution were compensated like any other Fortune 500 CEO, pocketing huge salaries.

    It was reported that Freddie Mac Chair, Richard Syron received more than $18 million in compensation last year, while Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd received $13.4 million in 2007 while the company lost $2.1 billion and its shares fell 33 percent.

    But with foreclosures soaring, Freddie and Fannie have sustained billions in losses, their shares have plummeted, there is also talk that bankruptcy in the future of these two institutions designed to maintain confidence in the lending markets. The American taxpayer is being asked to step in and save the day.

    But Fannie and Freddie are different in that they are private when they want to be and public when they need to be.

    As former Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers recently opined, "The illusion that the companies (Fannie and Freddie) were doing virtuous work made it impossible to build a political case for serious regulation."

    He adds, "When there were social failures the companies always blamed their need to perform for the shareholders. When there were business failures it was always the result of their social obligations."

    This leads Summers to conclude that the gains were being privatized and the losses socialized. This is great for the shareholder, but hardly in the best interest of the society as a whole.

    With the lending markets already experiencing a lack of confidence, there is the anticipation that the home mortgage crisis will worsen. The problems created by the subprime lending are expected to bleed into the more traditional lending markets.

    I believe the government must step in order to restore confidence. But there is bit of irony in its doing so.

    Like Fannie and Freddie, the American economy is also a hybrid of private and public participation. We are hardly a socialist society, but we are not paragons of capitalisms.

    The American taxpayer cannot continue to serve as the ultimate guarantor to otherwise unregulated companies. But we tend to be much more forgiving of the failures of Wall Street than those in need of public assistance.

    To the poor we say: "Get a job!" To Wall Street we say: "How much do you need?"[/I]

    [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/byron-williams/capitalism-for-the-poor-s_b_113589.html[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 11-30-2011 at 06:00 PM.

  9. #69
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4258554]In 2007, the average cost of day care for infants and toddlers was over [B]$10,000 [/B]in New Jersey. In New York, it was almost [B]$12,000[/B]. And those figures were over 5 years old.
    [/QUOTE]

    most males don't sit around thinking about the logistics of childcare.

    but there are many valid economic reason for Nancy's off-the-cuff remarks.

    the case against it is all gov't programs suck and the free market is perfect.

    what else is new?

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4258577]most males don't sit around thinking about the logistics of childcare.

    but there are many valid economic reason for Nancy's off-the-cuff remarks.

    the case against it is all gov't programs suck and the free market is perfect.

    what else is new?[/QUOTE]

    When I had children...we took a financial hit. Wife worked MUCH less and I worked much more. Never dawned on me to have other taxpayers subsidize me. In fact, the tax system subsidizes children enough already with exemptions, credits etc.....

    But it is never enough For some.

  11. #71
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4258634]When I had children...we took a financial hit. Wife worked MUCH less and I worked much more. Never dawned on me to have other taxpayers subsidize me. In fact, the tax system subsidizes children enough already with exemptions, credits etc.....

    But it is never enough For some.[/QUOTE]

    This.

  12. #72
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4258577][B]most males don't sit around thinking about the logistics of childcare. [/B]

    but there are many valid economic reason for Nancy's off-the-cuff remarks.

    the case against it is all gov't programs suck and the free market is perfect.

    what else is new?[/QUOTE]

    But they do regurgitate talking points from sean hannity ;)

  13. #73
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4258839]But they do regurgitate talking points from sean hannity ;)[/QUOTE]

    I think talk show hosts should be regulated...they make too much money.;)

  14. #74
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4258634]When I had children...we took a financial hit. Wife worked MUCH less and I worked much more. Never dawned on me to have other taxpayers subsidize me. In fact, the tax system subsidizes children enough already with exemptions, credits etc.....

    But it is never enough For some.[/QUOTE]

    My children are now in their 30s. When the first was born, my wife quit her job and stayed home for 11 years until all were school age. That cost $35,000 yearly to start because of lost income. Add 5-10% per year increases to that. Sacrifices were made. No dinners out, no fancy vacations, frills eliminated - and I was doing ok but had to put college money aside etc. Made me a much better person and earner - pressure.
    When my wife re-entered the work force she could never achieve the status she could have had. Quite frankly, daycare was never considered. At 4 my kids went to nursery school for a little socialization. It seems to have worked.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us