Default Style Register
Daycare.com Forum
View Poll Results: Who Are You Voting For?
Clinton 11 11.34%
Sanders 35 36.08%
Trump 25 25.77%
Cruz 6 6.19%
Kasich 5 5.15%
Other 15 15.46%
Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll
1 2
Daycare Center and Family Home Forum>Who Are You Voting For This Election
sleepinghart 07:22 PM 04-26-2016
April 26th 2016 State Primary Results: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland

~Trump wins all 5 states

~Hillary wins 3- Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland

~Bernie Sanders wins Rhode Island(and leading in Connecticut)

-Will update...
Reply
Michael 10:26 PM 04-26-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
April 26th 2016 State Primary Results: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland

~Trump wins all 5 states

~Hillary wins 3- Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland

~Bernie Sanders wins Rhode Island(and leading in Connecticut)

-Will update...
I like Kasich but I have a feeling he shot himself in the foot calibrating with Cruz in the upcoming states like Indiana. I think Trump would have used him as VP for his delegates if he came up short on the 1237. Trump still needs Ohio in the general so Kasich may still be available.

I hate to see Bernie get stomped so badly by those super delegates. It would make it a much better election for the DNC. He has the energy with the public like Trump does. I think Trump can only get more popular while Clinton will have a hard time with the hard core Berners moving over to her. I think HRC would pick Warren for VP but I'm not sure Warren would move away from Sanders. I think she was hoping to be on the Sanders ticket.

This election is as addictive as the OJ trial was and that was tiring after a while.
Reply
sleepinghart 05:10 AM 04-27-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
April 26th 2016 State Primary Results: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland

~Trump wins all 5 states

~Hillary wins 3- Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland

~Bernie Sanders wins Rhode Island(and leading in Connecticut)

-Will update...

~Okay, it looks like Clinton ended up winning Connecticut; so she won 4 states and Sanders won one- Rhode Island. ~For a full delegate total see link below, and just click on "Republican" and/or "Democrat" for whichever result you wish to see:
https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2...hort/m.09c7w0/
Reply
sleepinghart 06:37 AM 04-27-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
I like Kasich but I have a feeling he shot himself in the foot calibrating with Cruz in the upcoming states like Indiana. I think Trump would have used him as VP for his delegates if he came up short on the 1237. Trump still needs Ohio in the general so Kasich may still be available.

I hate to see Bernie get stomped so badly by those super delegates. It would make it a much better election for the DNC. He has the energy with the public like Trump does. I think Trump can only get more popular while Clinton will have a hard time with the hard core Berners moving over to her. I think HRC would pick Warren for VP but I'm not sure Warren would move away from Sanders. I think she was hoping to be on the Sanders ticket.

This election is as addictive as the OJ trial was and that was tiring after a while.

~In the beginning, I liked Kasich. I mean, he wasn't a fave of mine, but I liked him well enough. That opinion changed when he started putting himself before the country and refused to drop-out even when it was obvious he didn't stand a chance(*unless they change the rules, and as I already stated earlier, I am suspicious of that), and even when doing so would have benefited the country. ..But anyway, that was enough to turn me off Kasich and this new "deal", or collusion, between him & Cruz is just the latest. It just looks bad. Heck, it is bad. ~As far as Kasich getting VP, I can't see Trump offering nor can I see Kasich accepting...Although I do agree with you that it may have been a good thing. I am seeing a lot of Christie...Chris. Did you see him standing behind Trump last night at his winning speech? What do you think about that pairing or do you see that as a possibility?

~Though I'm not a fan of Bernie...well of his politics, beliefs & such anyway, don't know about as a person or in general, but you do have to feel bad for the guy, and I do. Even Donald Trump felt bad for him saying yesterday, and then again last night during his victory speech, something to the effect of he(Bernie) was being treated terribly by the democrats and that he thought Bernie should run as an independent(..which of course would most likely greatly benefit Trump), but still.


(Michael quote)"He has the energy with the public like Trump does. I think Trump can only get more popular while Clinton will have a hard time with the hard core Berners moving over to her"(end quote)

~I totally agree with this.

(Michael quote)"This election is as addictive as the OJ trial was and that was tiring after a while"(end)

~Tell me about it! I literally have to take a step back every once in awhile and take a break from anything & everything related to the presidential race....FB, twitter, the news, this threadeverything. It's just really overwhelming for me at times.
Reply
Meeko 06:33 PM 04-27-2016
Well, as a resident, I can't vote.

If I could..."None of the above" would suit me.......
Reply
Ariana 05:25 PM 04-28-2016
I am Canadian and the only thing I know about your politics is what I learned from House of Cards

very interesting discussion!

Go Bernie
Reply
DaveA 07:01 AM 04-29-2016
I've hesitated posting on this thread because the one thing I NEVER do is say "I'm voting for ......", especially online. Plus I'm from central IL, which means we're pretty much at the mercy of Chicago's "Vote early and often" stuff in national/ statewide elections. So for me this election is almost a spectator sport.

That being said, then only word I can think of to describe this time is a "mess". Both parties tried to shove their favorite candidate (Bush/ Clinton) on their voters and it got shoved back up their collective a@@es. On the R side, Trump is a direct result of party leadership dumping on conservative/ libertarians. So when Trump popped up it was the chance for a big ol' middle finger to Washington. On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, it's President Clinton because they'll lose so much of their base they'll get crushed. If the Democrats nominate Clinton, start saying "Hello President Trump". If neither get nominated get out the popcorn, because this election will make Star Wars look realistic by comparison.

It just leaves me shaking my head. When this started there were people that I trusted the judgement regardless of if I liked or disliked their policies (Webb, Carson) or thought could be an effective leader of a divided government (Walker). Now that it's basically down to 2 I'm like "300 million people and this is the best we could come up with?"
Reply
mommyneedsadayoff 08:24 AM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by DaveA:
I've hesitated posting on this thread because the one thing I NEVER do is say "I'm voting for ......", especially online. Plus I'm from central IL, which means we're pretty much at the mercy of Chicago's "Vote early and often" stuff in national/ statewide elections. So for me this election is almost a spectator sport.

That being said, then only word I can think of to describe this time is a "mess". Both parties tried to shove their favorite candidate (Bush/ Clinton) on their voters and it got shoved back up their collective a@@es. On the R side, Trump is a direct result of party leadership dumping on conservative/ libertarians. So when Trump popped up it was the chance for a big ol' middle finger to Washington. On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged.

If the Republicans don't nominate Trump, it's President Clinton because they'll lose so much of their base they'll get crushed. If the Democrats nominate Clinton, start saying "Hello President Trump". If neither get nominated get out the popcorn, because this election will make Star Wars look realistic by comparison.

It just leaves me shaking my head. When this started there were people that I trusted the judgement regardless of if I liked or disliked their policies (Webb, Carson) or thought could be an effective leader of a divided government (Walker). Now that it's basically down to 2 I'm like "300 million people and this is the best we could come up with?"

Reply
TomCopeland 08:39 AM 04-29-2016
I'm surprised people aren't looking at the candidates' position on child care, family leave, child care tax credits, and other policies that would help children and families.

Clinton does have positions on these issues that are supportive of children and families:https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issue...ood-education/ Bernie's website says he's working on a plan to make child care affordable, but doesn't say much: https://berniesanders.com/issues/fig...womens-rights/

Trump says nothing about this on his website.
Reply
Blackcat31 08:46 AM 04-29-2016
I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.
Reply
e.j. 01:12 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by DaveA:
I'm like "300 million people and this is the best we could come up with?"
I've been saying this very thing for quite some time now. In past elections, I at least felt I could vote for the candidate I least disliked. This is the first time I've felt I that I couldn't vote for anyonewho was running.
Reply
e.j. 01:13 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.
Among other reasons!
Reply
TomCopeland 04:02 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.
Please explain.
Reply
Michael 04:21 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by TomCopeland:
Please explain.
HRC has stayed at 8 in our poll for sometime. We definitely could use some stumping for her on here. Some of the members probably don't wish to talk politics openly and I have seen that with a lot of my friends.

Perhaps Tom, you could give us your viewpoints on her statements for improving childcare.

I think the separation on opinion would not be so much the candidate but whether providers want limited government in our businesses.
Reply
Blackcat31 04:24 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by TomCopeland:
Please explain.

This will be hasty because I am on my phone so pardon the typos....


These are the 3 highlighted topics (I bolded them below) from the link on H Clintons page: (My replies to them are in blue)

Invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start.

Head Start is a fundamental failure. I don't understand why we invest so much money for a program that can't SHOW and prove their own worth. The amount of money spent on HS could be used for so many other things. The salaries of it's workers and how they allocate their funding is laughable. For Ex, as a Head Start Assistant Teacher, I wanted to use some of our classroom money to purchase a few board games. Candyland/Chutes and Ladders.

I was told I could not purchase them at Walmart ($3.00 EACH game) but instead had to purchase them from specific sources that contract with HS. The cheapest was $14.97. Now WHY spend that amount of money when it was clear that it was such an overly inflated price? I dont understand that. Many Many times we were told "Gotta spend the grant money up or we won't any next year" and many similar statements.

That kind of spending is what is killing tax payers when it comes to these kinds of programs.


Ensure that every 4-year-old in America has access to high-quality preschool in the next 10 years.
Study after study as well as thread after thread on early childhood forums PROVE that children under age 5 do NOT need preschool or early education. They need the basics. Freedom to run and play and explore and be a child. Not produce memorized ABC's and 123's by age 2.
High Quality preschool is what will put good quality provider out of business unless they go earn a degree so they qualify as teachers and that is not fair considering the amount of money ECE teachers and family caregivers are paid.


Provide child care and scholarships to meet the needs of student parents

I currently provider care to several families receiving early learning scholarships through Parent Aware and I can tell you first hand that the parents these scholarships should have helped didn't. The parents and families it is helping are the ones already paying nothing for child care. The one family I have no longer has to pay a co-pay for their 3 children.

Instead due to the scholarship they receive their children now spend 15 hours MORE in child care than they did before and not because the parents are working more but simply because they no longer have to spend a single $1 on their child care costs. Which allows them to take vacations (without their children), have cosmetic surgery and buy a brand new vehicle.

I understand the goal of the program but sadly it missed it's mark.


So because Hillary Clinton supports the very things that are working providers out of business I will not vote for her.
Reply
Blackcat31 04:24 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
HRC has stayed at 8 in our poll for sometime. We definitely could use some stumping for her on here. Some of the members probably don't wish to talk politics openly and I have seen that with a lot of my friends.

Perhaps Tom, you could give us your viewpoints on her statements for improving childcare.

I think the separation on opinion would not be so much the candidate but whether providers want limited government in our businesses.
THIS^^^^^
Reply
Thriftylady 04:50 PM 04-29-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.
This. We don't need more government in childcare, we need less. Let us do our jobs without making it more costly. The more the government gets involved, the more home daycare providers are priced out of providing care. Hillary will almost certainly make sure there are no home daycare providers left. And I don't care what anyone says, center care is not always better care. I know there are a few great centers out there. But it is my understanding that many of the big corporate ones aren't that great!
Reply
sleepinghart 07:05 AM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
HRC has stayed at 8 in our poll for sometime. We definitely could use some stumping for her on here. Some of the members probably don't wish to talk politics openly and I have seen that with a lot of my friends.

Perhaps Tom, you could give us your viewpoints on her statements for improving childcare.

I think the separation on opinion would not be so much the candidate but whether providers want limited government in our businesses.

(^bolding^ by me)
~...^^This^^!
Reply
TomCopeland 08:25 AM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
HRC has stayed at 8 in our poll for sometime. We definitely could use some stumping for her on here. Some of the members probably don't wish to talk politics openly and I have seen that with a lot of my friends.

Perhaps Tom, you could give us your viewpoints on her statements for improving childcare.

I think the separation on opinion would not be so much the candidate but whether providers want limited government in our businesses.
Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.
Reply
NightOwl 08:46 AM 04-30-2016
"I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves." Tom Copeland.

Totally agree with this. The greater good is ignored by some in exchange for what will benefit the individual. This country won't function on an "every man for himself" mentality. It will crumble. It must be a "one for all, all for one" mentality to be truly successful.
Reply
Blackcat31 09:20 AM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by TomCopeland:
Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

But it doesn't. There is NO proof of this. It's just something that is repeated over and over and for some reason believed.
Head Start and the federal government did it's own study into the effectiveness of Head Start and they themselves, said the program is not a success.

They can not SHOW that there is any benefit for these kids beyond 3rd grade and cannot prove or show that children NEED Head Start...they gain the same benefits via quality care. Which can be in many forms...not a Head Start classroom with an over inflated budget and reckless spending.

That ^^ is what I feel is continually ignored. We CAN give children what they need and can do it with a much smaller budget and without so many government regulations.

For years people have challenged those that believe in Head Start and structured/academic based early childhood education to post links or studies proving the benefit of these programs and so far no one has been able to do that.


The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

This is a good program but one that is so widely and easily abused that it needs a complete overhaul. I've been in this business for over 2 decades and my area is very low income (I live on the Iron Range where the mining industry governs our economy) so usually more than 50% of families in my area use child care subsidy to pay for their child care costs. I am well aware of how this program benefits families...and it's not in the way it was intended. Those that truly use the program as intended are few and far between.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

Its the implementation of the program and monitoring of how it's used that is the problem.

These programs continue to give more and more rather than teaching towards self sufficiency.

It's the working families that can't afford to live. The families that struggle just above the "low income" guidelines....its those families that have to choose between child care and food. It's those families that are left out.
I see it every single day and have hundreds of examples of how we are not helping anyone UP but instead are funding bad choices.

I feel to ignore that is reckless.



I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

I plan to work hard to make sure that trends don't shift from family care to school based by not voting for HRC.
She supports that very movement.


To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

The anti-government attitude is due to the fact that the government does VERY little to help or assist child care providers.

We are the very foundation of whether or not the public school teachers (who are respected, recognized and celebrated) can successfully teach these children when they get to school.

If family child care providers and parents do not set a good foundation for early learning the teachers will fail so why are we so forgotten, underpaid, disrespected and disregarded?


The anti-government attitude comes from the fact that the government does so little to support us in any way. A couple tax breaks here and there is far from compensation. I am grateful that so many providers feel so passionate about this job because without that passion there would be little reason to remain in this profession.
The pay is awful, the benefits are non-existent and the number of hours we put in are astronomical compared to public school teachers.

Yet many feel our jobs are more important than public school teachers.

That gap in the thought process is what confuses and saddens me.



Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.
This last paragraph is where I will somewhat agree but until there are some fundamental changes FOR child care providers (changes that will benefit and support them) the anti-government attitude will remain.
Reply
mommyneedsadayoff 02:07 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by NightOwl:
"I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves." Tom Copeland.

Totally agree with this. The greater good is ignored by some in exchange for what will benefit the individual. This country won't function on an "every man for himself" mentality. It will crumble. It must be a "one for all, all for one" mentality to be truly successful.
I think that is the biggest problem, though. Our country was founded on individual liberty and is why we are a republic. The majority is not suppose to govern the minority. Our government programs benefit some at the EXPENSE of others. I think most people want to help people out, make sure they have food, health care, ect., but genuine and efficient help does not happen when the government is the middle man with the money. They waste too much and the people who were suppose to be helped get caught in the shuffle.

I agree with BC on headstart and universal preschool. Headstart has not proven to be more educationally beneficial than traditional daycare, so to me, it is "free" daycare. We have early headstart, so from birth on, it is available for those with lower income. As BC said, the people who are suffering the most are those int he middle class who make just a bit too much to qualify for anything, but don't make enough to not live paycheck to paycheck. I have been this person for a while now. I hate to admit it, but I thought about quitting my job so we could qualify for help with health care. If I had cut my income by a few hundred each month, we would have qualified for subsidized health care and since my insurance premium was more than the income cut, it honestly made more sense to do it that way, but I couldn't do it It didn't feel right, but it stinks that those are the options and I know that most people take the first option, because it makes life easier, but the system won't be able to keep up imo
Reply
Thriftylady 02:19 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by mommyneedsadayoff:
I think that is the biggest problem, though. Our country was founded on individual liberty and is why we are a republic. The majority is not suppose to govern the minority. Our government programs benefit some at the EXPENSE of others. I think most people want to help people out, make sure they have food, health care, ect., but genuine and efficient help does not happen when the government is the middle man with the money. They waste too much and the people who were suppose to be helped get caught in

I agree with BC on headstart and universal preschool. Headstart has not proven to be more educationally beneficial than traditional daycare, so to me, it is "free" daycare. We have early headstart, so from birth on, it is available for those with lower income. As BC said, the people who are suffering the most are those int he middle class who make just a bit too much to qualify for anything, but don't make enough to not live paycheck to paycheck. I have been this person for a while now. I hate to admit it, but I thought about quitting my job so we could qualify for help with health care. If I had cut my income by a few hundred each month, we would have qualified for subsidized health care and since my insurance premium was more than the income cut, it honestly made more sense to do it that way, but I couldn't do it It didn't feel right, but it stinks that those are the options and I know that most people take the first option, because it makes life easier, but the system won't be able to keep up imo


I agree with this!! The whole problem with the government funding things is what has gotten us in the debt we are in. It isn't helping the "working" class at all. It is helping those who don't work As far as the food program, well yeah I think we should nix it. It ISN'T about serving healthy foods to kids. It is about forcing providers and schools to buy unhealthy subsidized foods. I was on it years ago, and unless and until something changes will never be again. As far as tax credits, the people that need them most aren't paying as much in taxes as a general rule anyway. So not sure about that one. And as far as home providers deducting expenses, I don't see that as any different than any other business, home or otherwise, that isn't a child care issue, simply a tax issue. Head start is a whole other sore spot with me. DD was being fought over by the district PRE K and HS when she was assessed. HS sold me all these promises about how much more kids learned at HS, being broken into smaller groups and such. Come to find out it was a glorified daycare, the same thing I was at the time running in my home!

The government was never meant to rule with an iron fist, but more and more they are. They are taking over our workplaces and our homes. And sadly we (as a people) are allowing it.
Reply
Michael 02:29 PM 04-30-2016
I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A
Reply
Thriftylady 02:29 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by :
To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?
Define "free" education. When I enrolled DD (now 17) in Kindy, it cost me well over $200! First grade and second grade a bit more. At the time DS was in Middle school, and his was nearly $300 a year. And that didn't include special classes with extra fees such as art or wood shop.

Now I will say here in Ohio, we pay $20 a year. And for DD that means she also is in college classes earning college credits. Next year, her senior year she will be taking all of her classes at the community college for her $20 a year. That also doesn't include special classes like art that need supplies, but it is more "free" than when we were in KS. So not every child gets a "free" education. Those on free/reduced lunches do get fees cut in half, but at $200 or more a year, half still isn't free.
Reply
Blackcat31 02:49 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A
Yes to bolded above! I won't support universal preschool in ANY way simply because one size does not fit all. Education should be individualized not standardized and parents should have the freedom to choose while children should have a right to play.
Reply
Thriftylady 03:02 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
Yes to bolded above! I won't support universal preschool in ANY way simply because one size does not fit all. Education should be individualized not standardized and parents should have the freedom to choose while children should have a right to play.
AMEN! I love watching children learn, but you shouldn't shove it down the throats of young children not yet ready. And parents (caregivers) of each child should be making these choices.
Reply
Unregistered 03:11 PM 04-30-2016
Sully the cat
Steve the turtle
Aspen the dog
Or maybe the ants that come in can get a collective vote. Everyone else sucks!!!!!
Reply
mommyneedsadayoff 03:41 PM 04-30-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
I don't think anyone here is saying they are against government programs. Some are helpful but when is an agency or program too over-reaching and repressive? When is the proverbial "canary in the coalmine" moment where people decide to make change. There needs to be a balance between what the government wants as a national standard and what the public perceives as their need for freedom and to raise the livelihoods of their families. That balance is too one sided these days.

If its not working, its time to change course. When the government takes power from the public, giving back that control will not go unchallenged and becomes burdensome.

An example, there is a video I posted in another thread by Michael Moore, that showed in Finland, once the school system got rid of homework and shortened the school day to four hours, they went from #29 in the world education ranking to #1.

They found that children and parents, when allowed to find interest and happiness in what they wanted, improved and absorbed education better. Less imposed regulation gave them the freedom to find what naturally worked. I think we can make the same argument in childcare.

Its an interesting watch: https://youtu.be/54EpTVvm00A
I will sit on the fence alone here, but I am against government programs in their present state. At the very least, I am against expanding them if they are not successful. I don't think they work. I can't support something that is inefficient and wastes money, just like I wouldn't invest my money in a company that is not succeeding. It would not make sense.

As for the last two bolded areas, I just want to say that I don't think that is possible. Once you give power to the government, they will not give it back. They set a standard and everyone who cannot meet it gets left behind. The issue is that many people want government to set that standard and to regulate their lives, their livelihood, education, healthcare, ect. We have seen that they are not very good at it and waste our money. I have seen thread after thread abut regulations on providers and how most on this site want government to butt out a bit or at least spread the cost of those regulations on to everyone, not just the provider. Why would we think government can take on more and do better, when they have not proven they can successfully handle what they already control? It just doesn't make sense to me.
Reply
Laurel 05:58 AM 05-01-2016
I haven't read all the replies but just have a general comment.

Since they are finding out that preschool doesn't give children a real head start as they catch up in the early grades anyway, they need to re-evaluate what they want to do about this. But that isn't exclusive to the Head Start program. That is ANY preschool. So if this program isn't working they need to figure out which way to go with this.

I think it would be hard for any candidate to know this topic like we do. Hillary Clinton needs to be educated on it. That won't affect how I vote as I am not a one issue voter.

One other issue child care providers have is that they are not organized in any meaningful way (except we are here in Florida). That is why they implemented QRIS that most of us hate (but they didn't in Florida...lol....just saying). We fought it as a group.

I understand the anti government stance (with various issues) because sometimes government does waste money and there are people that cheat the system and there are flaws in the system. This is true in private business also. What I don't get is the EXTREME hate of all things government. I rather like Social Security and Medicare. I am glad there are food stamps (now called SNAP cards) even though there is some abuse of the system. I think it sure beats begging on street corners.

Most people, either liberal or conservative, are decent hard working people who want to be self sufficient. But sometimes we have a little trouble (our family got food stamps for a while when my children were little) and need a hand up. I think it is generally a 'pie in the sky' idea that if we get rid of government social programs that everyone will be forced to just step up and somehow help themselves when they are without a job or sick or have no relatives to help. On the other hand, I think government interferes too much with things like child care regulations. QRIS is NUTS! We need a balance.
Reply
Laurel 06:10 AM 05-01-2016
P.S. I hate it when the extreme anti government people say "Well sure we want people who truly need help to get it but we don't believe in food stamps/welfare." Huh? I wonder what this means. You can't really have it both ways unless you set up some private programs and they don't have to be fair to everyone by law like government programs do. It seems it would be better if those people and all of us would just work to close loopholes, catch cheaters and make the program work instead of wanting to scrap it....and for what? What is an alternative?
Reply
Thriftylady 06:38 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by Laurel:
P.S. I hate it when the extreme anti government people say "Well sure we want people who truly need help to get it but we don't believe in food stamps/welfare." Huh? I wonder what this means. You can't really have it both ways unless you set up some private programs and they don't have to be fair to everyone by law like government programs do. It seems it would be better if those people and all of us would just work to close loopholes, catch cheaters and make the program work instead of wanting to scrap it....and for what? What is an alternative?
I don't have an issue with things like food stamps for people who need them for a short time. We were on them for a short time. I do have an issue with them when people don't work for years and years and sit and get free rent, free groceries, free or next to it utilities, etc. Those programs are supposed to help people through a tough time, not become a way of life. And I have seen many people make it a way of life. I remember when I was in HS there was a girl about my age. Mom knew her mom and the mother told my mother that she was pushing her 16 yr old to have another baby (she already had one), so they could get more money and food stamps. Those people are out there, more than you think. THAT is my issue with the way the programs are handled.
Reply
sleepinghart 08:14 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by TomCopeland:
Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.

(^bolding^ by me)
~I am not entitled to any of those things. I may, or may not receive them, but I am not entitled to them in any way. I'm also not necessarily "for" things that may benefit me.
Reply
Controlled Chaos 08:26 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
My vote will NOT go to someone that does not support the second amendment.
I am curios about what you mean by this. Do you think any of the candidates are going to over turn or abolish the second amendment?

Are you opposed to stricter gun laws regarding background checks, closing loopholes at gun shows, requiring gun safety classes?

I grew up in a hunting house, but would love any candidate who made getting a gun like driving a car. ie licenses that need renewed, safety/competency test, and guns registered. etc. I also don't see a need for weapons that fire multiple rounds without reloading. I don't think their deadliness makes sense on a civilian level. Rifles for hunting great. Smaller guns that can be concealed for safety are fine.

Hope this isn't too OT
Reply
sleepinghart 08:34 AM 05-01-2016
~This may be a little OT, but all this talk of government and government programs & benefits and government programs helping and benefiting folks has reminded me of the nine most terrifying words in the English language..."I'm from the government, and I'm here to help".
Reply
sleepinghart 09:02 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by NightOwl:
"I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves." Tom Copeland.

Totally agree with this. The greater good is ignored by some in exchange for what will benefit the individual. This country won't function on an "every man for himself" mentality. It will crumble. It must be a "one for all, all for one" mentality to be truly successful.
~No doubt there are people who only look out for themselves, who are selfish and such as that...very true, they exist. However, I just wanted to say that I don't think it's true that Americans, most Americans in general, function on an "every man for himself" mentality or that they ignore the greater good. Americans, again in general, are a very giving, thoughtful people. In fact, America is the most charitable nation in the world*- we give more, help others more than any other country or people in the world. Just think, after every disaster you can think of, foreign or domestic, how long did it take everyday Americans to pull out their checkbooks, donate their time, etc.? It's hard for me to see these same people, doing a total 180, when it comes to politics, voting, etc.


*Study- It was found that wealth had nothing to do with how much people gave; so, in other words, how wealthy America is had nothing to do with them being #1.
Reply
sleepinghart 09:25 AM 05-01-2016
~I can't help but to repeat this small part of Blackcat31's post because it is so true & I so agree....

(Blackcat31 quote)"we are not helping anyone UP but instead are funding bad choices.

I feel to ignore that is reckless
"(end quote)
Reply
Blackcat31 09:43 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by Controlled Chaos:
I am curios about what you mean by this. Do you think any of the candidates are going to over turn or abolish the second amendment?

Are you opposed to stricter gun laws regarding background checks, closing loopholes at gun shows, requiring gun safety classes?

I grew up in a hunting house, but would love any candidate who made getting a gun like driving a car. ie licenses that need renewed, safety/competency test, and guns registered. etc. I also don't see a need for weapons that fire multiple rounds without reloading. I don't think their deadliness makes sense on a civilian level. Rifles for hunting great. Smaller guns that can be concealed for safety are fine.

Hope this isn't too OT
Yes I am opposed to many things toted as "better gun control".

NONE of the new measures being suggested are going to prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Criminals don't fill out background checks or abide by gun safety rules as it is so how are more of those rules going to help?

It is my right as a US citizen to own any style and type of gun I choose and it is no ones right to know what type, how many or for what reason I choose to own them UNLESS I use them illegally.
Tracking (beyond what is already monitored) is the beginning of a tyrannical government.

Our forefathers felt so strongly about this right that it is the second ammendment.... Second only after our right to free speech.

I own many guns.
Everything from a RedRider BB gun to multiple round semi-automatic guns.

However, as an educated, law abiding citizen that is my right and no one else's business. Including the government.

So yes, any candidate that is looking to change or remove my right to legally bear arms is not a candidate I will support and sadly so far NONE of the "new stricter gun rules" being suggested are going to fix or help the real issue we are facings when it comes to death/tragedies.
Reply
Blackcat31 09:55 AM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
~No doubt there are people who only look out for themselves, who are selfish and such as that...very true, they exist. However, I just wanted to say that I don't think it's true that Americans, most Americans in general, function on an "every man for himself" mentality or that they ignore the greater good. Americans, again in general, are a very giving, thoughtful people. In fact, America is the most charitable nation in the world*- we give more, help others more than any other country or people in the world. Just think, after every disaster you can think of, foreign or domestic, how long did it take everyday Americans to pull out their checkbooks, donate their time, etc.? It's hard for me to see these same people, doing a total 180, when it comes to politics, voting, etc.


*Study- It was found that wealth had nothing to do with how much people gave; so, in other words, how wealthy America is had nothing to do with them being #1.
nicely said!
Reply
mommyneedsadayoff 01:45 PM 05-01-2016
Originally Posted by Laurel:
P.S. I hate it when the extreme anti government people say "Well sure we want people who truly need help to get it but we don't believe in food stamps/welfare." Huh? I wonder what this means. You can't really have it both ways unless you set up some private programs and they don't have to be fair to everyone by law like government programs do. It seems it would be better if those people and all of us would just work to close loopholes, catch cheaters and make the program work instead of wanting to scrap it....and for what? What is an alternative?
Just to clarify on my last post...I am not anti government and when I say I don't support some government programs, I simply mean I don't support them in their current state. It makes no sense to keep throwing money down the tubes just for the sake of having a program. I think the idealism that we can fix the current programs is an issue. We need to scrap them and start over, imo.

And I don't agree that private organizations do not have to be fair. Just as businesses cannot discriminate, it is illegal for private organizations to as well. I think private organizations do much MORE for people than the government. My town flooded in 2011. The people who helped and made the most impact were from church groups, private orgs, and individuals. FEMA came months later and caused a whole heck of a mess and the people who needed the most help were left struggling. The people who benefited the most were very low income who didn't own their homes and who were already being provided assistance in other ways. People whose homes were worth less than $5000 (mostly trailer homes) were given the same as those with homes who were worth $200k. The ones who were hurt the most and are still trying to come out of it, were the middle class people who owned their homes and saw their value go to nothing. Everything they had, 25 years of paying their mortgage, gone. Most had to foreclose and they lost big time. This is the issue I have with many programs. If we want to be able to help those in need, we have to find a way to do it so it is not at the expense of others. If someone needs help buying food, I am there to offer what ever I can. If they need food and come in my house and take it out of my fridge by force, then I am not so willing to help. My point being, people are tired of paying to help others and not seeing their money used wisely and they (government) keep coming back for more and more. It makes people resentful and less willing to help of their own accord. That is just human nature. It is hard to sacrifice for the greater good when you feel like you are the only one making any sacrifice.

I hope that makes sense what I am trying to say. I tend to ramble! Long story short, I am not anti government, but our current system needs an overhaul
Reply
Laurel 02:55 PM 05-01-2016
Mommyneedsadayoff, I didn't really read your post when I wrote that. I skipped a lot of them. I guess that wasn't such a good idea.
Reply
sleepinghart 06:36 PM 05-03-2016
~Indiana Called(GOP)- Trump wins
...Campaign Source says- "Cruz to drop out of race"

~Sanders currently in the lead...Again, Indiana
Reply
Michael 07:26 PM 05-03-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
~Indiana Called(GOP)- Trump wins
...Campaign Source says- "Cruz to drop out of race"

~Sanders currently in the lead...Again, Indiana
Cruz "suspended" his campaign. He is holding his delegates for the GOP convention. It's leverage that he intends to use to move the party agenda.
Reply
CityGarden 12:19 AM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by Play Care:
I've avoided this thread because politics this year is making my blood boil.

I'd like Bernie to be the Dem nominee. But I'm a realist and it will be Hillary.
I'd vote Hillary over Trump.
Say what you will about Hillary, but she has so much more experience than Trump. Like it or not, you can't bull doze your way forward, and Hillary knows it. Like someone else said, she may be crooked but she's not incompentant...
But I maintain that by the time politicians get to a certain level, they've sold their souls. High level politics is dirty, ugly business.
I could have said this word for word.
Reply
Michael 02:53 PM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by CityGarden:
I could have said this word for word.
I am going to have to put up a poll soon with options like

Who would Never Vote for Trump?

Who would Never Vote for Sanders?

Who would Never Vote for Clinton?

I think it would be interesting since the election may come down to not who you would vote for, but who you would never vote for. There are high negatives on those running.
Reply
Thriftylady 02:56 PM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
I am going to have to put up a poll soon with options like

Who would Never Vote for Trump?

Who would Never Vote for Sanders?

Who would Never Vote for Clinton?

I think it would be interesting since the election may come down to not who you would vote for, but who you would never vote for. There are high negatives on those running.
Well my problem right now at this point is both who are looking to be nominated are on my "I would never vote for list". Now what?
Reply
Michael 03:08 PM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by Thriftylady:
Well my problem right now at this point is both who are looking to be nominated are on my "I would never vote for list". Now what?

I could add another option:

Will not vote or will write in another candidate
Reply
Thriftylady 04:21 PM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
I could add another option:

Will not vote or will write in another candidate
See this is why I am at a crossroads. I feel like I should vote. I think if we don't exercise the right, we could in fact loose it. And as far as a write in, well that would be okay if there was a push for someone who could win, but that isn't likely to come about. I am really feeling in a quandary about this.
Reply
Angelsj 05:16 PM 05-04-2016
There are other parties, people. If enough of us vote third party maybe they will start to get the idea.
Reply
Thriftylady 05:24 PM 05-04-2016
Originally Posted by Angelsj:
There are other parties, people. If enough of us vote third party maybe they will start to get the idea.
But if we don't all vote for the same third party, the vote is wasted. And honestly I haven't heard of any third parties being put on the ballot in my area.
Reply
Josiegirl 04:09 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Thriftylady:
See this is why I am at a crossroads. I feel like I should vote. I think if we don't exercise the right, we could in fact loose it. And as far as a write in, well that would be okay if there was a push for someone who could win, but that isn't likely to come about. I am really feeling in a quandary about this.
Ok, I'm darn ignorant about the way votes are counted, etc. But because they don't count our votes one for one, haven't we lost a lot right there? I just can't help but feel, especially years like this, that the biggest pocketbook gets the most votes. And I'm not asking this to be snarky but to understand better. I don't feel voting is done fairly anyways.
Reply
Thriftylady 05:23 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Josiegirl:
Ok, I'm darn ignorant about the way votes are counted, etc. But because they don't count our votes one for one, haven't we lost a lot right there? I just can't help but feel, especially years like this, that the biggest pocketbook gets the most votes. And I'm not asking this to be snarky but to understand better. I don't feel voting is done fairly anyways.
In a way you are right. Voting has never really been done fairly. The electoral college was set up so that the south would ratify the constitution, and put benefits in there for the south. By counting slaves, it swayed the population numbers. Slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted as 3/5 of a person for the college. This made the south way more populated and gave them more pull in elections. And we still operate with that system today, even though we no longer have slaves. It was set up, to insure slavery.

That alone shows our system of voting is not really fair. So yes, we are loosing something. But for now, we have what we have. The only thing we can do is try to change it! The issue there of course is that in order to change the system, we have to fully understand it. And how many of us really do? I don't completely.
Reply
DaveA 06:11 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Thriftylady:
In a way you are right. Voting has never really been done fairly. The electoral college was set up so that the south would ratify the constitution, and put benefits in there for the south. By counting slaves, it swayed the population numbers. Slaves were not allowed to vote, but were counted as 3/5 of a person for the college. This made the south way more populated and gave them more pull in elections. And we still operate with that system today, even though we no longer have slaves. It was set up, to insure slavery.

That alone shows our system of voting is not really fair. So yes, we are loosing something. But for now, we have what we have. The only thing we can do is try to change it! The issue there of course is that in order to change the system, we have to fully understand it. And how many of us really do? I don't completely.

Little bit in the historical weeds on this one, but here goes:

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent a direct majority election of a President. As strange as that sounds, without the electoral college a few major cities could basically run over the rest of the country. I do agree it needs tweaking (votes distributed proportionally instead of winner take all) but the principle is sound. The 3/5 compromise is a whole different history discussion, and not a pleasant one.

I had a college professor who stated the 16-18th amendments will go down in history as the point the federal government went from servant to ruler. The 16th (income tax) gave the government the funding to grow exponentially, the 17th (direct election of Senators) stripped the states of one of their biggest check on the federal government, and even though it was repealed the 18th (prohibition) solidified the precedent of government forcing moral/ behavior changes on the people.

Like I said in my earlier post- get out the popcorn. This election is going to be "interesting" in all kinds of different ways.
Reply
Thriftylady 06:31 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by DaveA:
Little bit in the historical weeds on this one, but here goes:

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent a direct majority election of a President. As strange as that sounds, without the electoral college a few major cities could basically run over the rest of the country. I do agree it needs tweaking (votes distributed proportionally instead of winner take all) but the principle is sound. The 3/5 compromise is a whole different history discussion, and not a pleasant one.

I had a college professor who stated the 16-18th amendments will go down in history as the point the federal government went from servant to ruler. The 16th (income tax) gave the government the funding to grow exponentially, the 17th (direct election of Senators) stripped the states of one of their biggest check on the federal government, and even though it was repealed the 18th (prohibition) solidified the precedent of government forcing moral/ behavior changes on the people.

Like I said in my earlier post- get out the popcorn. This election is going to be "interesting" in all kinds of different ways.
I guess this part depends who you believe. Regardless it is a part of history that is not truly taught in schools. I believe as the professor who taught the class does, that the college was ONLY done so the south would ratify the constitution. And it gave them the major population, so turned them into the "biggest cities with the most votes". Basically it was "we will give you this, so you don't have to worry about slavery ending, so that you will sign this". Otherwise we would have never had a constitution and perhaps never the US. I believe it had nothing at all to do about the big cities having more pull. It was framed that way, but as with many things in government many things are framed in a way that make them look like something they are not.
Reply
sleepinghart 06:55 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
Cruz "suspended" his campaign. He is holding his delegates for the GOP convention. It's leverage that he intends to use to move the party agenda.

~Oh wow, I was wondering about this! I knew, I just knew, there was something to it...something more going on...hard to believe it was really going to be as simple as that smh. ~Do you know if Rubio is still holding on to his delegates; and if so, reckon what he plans on doing with them? I believe I read an article the other day that suggested Rubio was "warming up" to Trump.
Reply
sleepinghart 07:21 AM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Thriftylady:
But if we don't all vote for the same third party, the vote is wasted. And honestly I haven't heard of any third parties being put on the ballot in my area.
~I know some, including Donald Trump, have suggested that Bernie Sanders run as an independent, or another 3rd choice, in this election. The idea doesn't seem too far fetched to me...at all, and is something right now, I can see likely happening.
Reply
Michael 12:37 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
~Oh wow, I was wondering about this! I knew, I just knew, there was something to it...something more going on...hard to believe it was really going to be as simple as that smh. ~Do you know if Rubio is still holding on to his delegates; and if so, reckon what he plans on doing with them? I believe I read an article the other day that suggested Rubio was "warming up" to Trump.
Yes, Rubio asked the RNC to allow him to keep his delegates a few weeks after he "suspended" his campaign. All the other candidates that dislike Trump would love a piece of the power if he wins. Yes, Rubio would love to be VP. Republicans are starting to circle around the buffet table and are positioning for leverage.

The federal government has the most money and the most power. It's why it's so systemically controlled by those that want a piece of it. It's very hard to change for even those that get elected to change it. Once the newly elected get into the Washington process, they are overwhelmed by it and ultimately decide to become a part of the establishment which can be very rewarding to them if they fall in step with the ruling class.

Trump is a very interesting candidate to me. I think I understand what he's doing and Van Jones touched on it in his YouTube video (http://youtu.be/DHLp-P5cayw). The candidate is not really the Trump you see in the headlines. Just like FDR controlled radio, JFK and Reagan controlled television and Obama controlled the Internet, Trump is controlling social media. That's why the others became President. They knew how to reach the public more effectively.

Trump is creating "personas" for what the differing public "needs". The country has become so complicated and divisive that he knows he has to reach out to many sectors that in the past have been separated by differing ideologies. We are a vastly different country than we were 20 years ago and he seems to grasp this intuitively.

He understands that the ends justify the means. His means is justified, he is winning. I don't believe he's a racist or misogynist as the media and elites are making him out to be.

He simply knows that the government and elites are stacked against him and the only way he can win, in a place that is corrupted in it's lust for power, is by going to the people.

Look at his family. They seem polite, moral and successful to me. They are a product of what he has created. They do not seem perverse. Trump is episodic in what he does which can be unattractive. Long term, he wins and that is attractive to me.

Your vote does count. It is the one time our elected officials and elites shudder that they could lose their position. They can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Reply
Annalee 12:49 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
Yes, Rubio asked the RNC to allow him to keep his delegates a few weeks after he "suspended" his campaign. All the other candidates that dislike Trump would love a piece of the power if he wins. Yes, Rubio would love to be VP. Republicans are starting to circle around the buffet table of leverage and are positioning.

The federal government has the most money and the most power. It's why it's so systemically controlled by those that want a piece of it. It's very hard to change for even those that get elected to change it. Once the newly elected get into the Washington process, they are overwhelmed by it and ultimately decide to become a part of the establishment which can be very rewarding to them if they fall in step with the ruling class.

Trump is a very interesting candidate to me. I think I understand what he's doing and Van Jones touched on it in his YouTube video. The candidate you see is not really the Trump you see in the headlines. Just like FDR controlled radio, JFK and Reagan controlled television and Obama controlled the Internet, Trump is controlling social media. That's why the others became President. They knew how to reach the public more effectively.

Trump is creating "personas" for what the differing public "needs". The country has become so complicated and divisive that he knows he has to reach out to many sectors that in the past have been separated by differing ideologies. We are a vastly different country than we were 20 years ago and he seems to grasp this intuitively.

He understands that the ends justify the means. His means is justified, he is winning. I don't believe he's a racist or misogynist as the media and elites are making him out to be.

He simply knows that the government and elites are stacked against him and the only way he can win, in a place that is corrupted in it's lust for power, is by going to the people.

Look at his family. They seem polite, moral and successful to me. Trump is episodic in what he does which can be unattractive. Long term, he wins and that is attractive to me.
Ironically, my college nephew and niece had this discussion at the supper table last night...they both are all in for Trump and say they are moving to England if Hillary wins
Reply
Cat Herder 02:32 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Blackcat31:
I carefully considered every candidates view on early childhood.

It's exactly why I am NOT voting for Hillary.
I am with her. Blackcat, that is.

Looks like Trump is where my vote will land. From my FB feed, it seems most of my peers have reached the same conclusion.

Funny, when I first saw he was running I though it was an onion article. His world seemed so irrelevant to mine.
Reply
Mom2Two 02:59 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Michael:
Added OTHER. Whomever wants me to change their vote to "other", let me know by PM. I would need to subtract it from your original vote though.

I see the "disruptors" are taking the lead here. I find it odd that no women here are voting for Hillary. In California I hear about the need for a woman in the WH. She seems qualified by her resume, I would be interested in why she is not anyone's vote. I guess you could always log out if you wanted to comment anonymously.
I'm old enough to remember her attempt as FLOTUS to bring in socialized medicine. My family is still in Australia (where I'm originally from) and as I hear about how my BIL has to be on a waiting list for an echo after a heart attack, or when my dad was on a wait list for a hospital bed when he was in late stage cancer...um, no. Note that this was for those who ONLY had public health care. You can pay for secondary private insurance and get better care. But still...only proof that there will always be classes and while I agree with some attempt to minimize some of that...it will always happen.

I also experienced the "free" university/tertiary education. They limited seats in the universities the same as they limit hospital beds. Compared with experiencing tertiary education here...here is better. PEOPLE, DON'T BELIEVE THE SLANTED COMPARISONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. My Aussie family would tell you that things are great there, but they haven't experienced both. But I have.
Reply
Mom2Two 03:05 PM 05-05-2016
"On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged."

Wow, interesting thought about the prop thing. Maybe you're right...
Reply
Mom2Two 03:25 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by TomCopeland:
Yes, I think Hillary would bring more government money and involvement in the child care field vs. Trump. And I think this would be a good thing.

Head Start is not a failure. It helps millions of low income children and families.

The child care subsidy program helps millions of families enabling them to be able to work and support their families.

To ignore this is reckless. Our country provides free school education (K-12) for everyone. Our government (federal and state) heavily subsidize higher education.Tell me how a low-income family is supposed to afford high quality child care without some government assistance?

I do think there is a serious issue of whether or not more government involvement means a greater shift towards school based care and away from family child care. I do not support that trend. I think the family child care community needs to press hard to ensure that it doesn't.

To shun all government involvement in child doesn't make sense. Do you want to eliminate the Food Program? Do you want to eliminate the parent child care tax credit? Do you want to eliminate the special tax rules that allow providers to deduct house expenses? Do you want to eliminate the new $2,500 rule that allows providers to deduct expenses less than this amount in one year? I don't understand this anti-government attitude. It sounds like some folks are against government programs that benefit others, but not themselves.

Family child care, in general, is one of the lowest paid professions for people who must meet increasingly higher quality standards. Government programs don't always operate efficiently and can be improved. The proper role for government is a debatable issue that we reasonably disagree on. But, to say that we don't need government at all in the child care field doesn't make sense to me.
My feelings about improving things for home daycare providers are similar to the way I'd like to see things improve for teachers: not just more money, but better working environment. Specifically, I wish that there was some kind of encouragement for more days off work allowed for parenting needs. That would make our lives better, because the conflict for parents is constant, and we end up getting dumped on. Especially for single moms. I know that I'm low paid...but of course there are benefits, or we wouldn't be doing it (such as being able to homeschool or whatever).

Government money is never free. I trust the natural flow of capitalism over government help. Yes, I'm on the CACFP, and I take state grants.

But I would give up the fed money in a heart beat rather than have to swallow more socialism. Blech! It ruins people. Puts too much power on the unreachable government. I'm not libertarian, but with homeschooling, I see how a lot of those moms operate. They are the most pro-active, confident, out-reaching, volunteering people I know. Socialism kills that. My Aussie family is always looking to (or whining about) the government when they have a problem. My conservative neighbors are more proactive, but the libertarians and even far, far more proactive. I don't know if people realize how valuable and powerful that is.

Yes, I do value the rule of law greatly, and I believe there is place for shared costs, such as public education (too many parents are just "not that into" their kids and the kids deserve a chance), and disability (it's extremely difficult to be prepared for disability/chronic illness in young/middle age). But I really believe that the line should be where there is a crying need.

For affordable child care...I honestly believe that we need to wake up and realize that having babies out of wedlock is just an extremely difficult situation to be putting oneself into. Studies show that it's mainly the less educated, lower-income part of society where children are born out of wedlock. Generally speaking, more educated mothers are waiting til after marriage.

I started off by saying that I wish there was government encouragement (labor law) for days off for working parents. There are things I don't like about the direction our society has headed with regard to protecting and nurturing children...but I do think we need to deal with reality of the way things are. People are hard to change sometimes.
Reply
spud912 03:37 PM 05-05-2016
One of HRC's "selling points" is to have free preschool for everyone. I provide preschool.....legally unlicensed. She will put me out of business because I have no desire to change my age group to babies and toddlers (my least favorite ages).

I know I can get a job easily at my prior employer and I will eventually go back to work outside of the home. BUT if I get pushed out sooner rather than later than that means we definitely will not have another child.
Reply
Michael 03:42 PM 05-05-2016
Originally Posted by Mom2Two:
"On the D side, I believe Sanders was a "prop"- running just to show that Clinton could overcome a "challenge" in the primary. Problem is- either he wasn't in on the joke or enough people really don't like her so he almost took her out. As is, I think she's irreparably damaged."

Wow, interesting thought about the prop thing. Maybe you're right...
While I don't believe that socialism is what is needed for this country I do think that Sanders would have at the very least attempted what was most needed for our country; breaking up the corporations and their monopolies.

While he complains that some "people" are worth billions, it is the government that has the options at its disposal to limit what a company can take from America's economy. Corporations grow and will continue to do so unchecked. At some point it can become unhealthy to our market. We are at a point where anti-trust measures are needed. It was this government's fault that allowed these powerhouses to control so much. IMO It is an unholy alliance that I now believe is corrupt.

Time to break them up. Teddy Roosevelt did it and over 50 years later Eisenhower (he was republican) did it with a 90% tax at the top bracket on "corporations" that were given the keys to the treasury to ensure our production of war materials in order to win the war. They had pooled too much money in the same way many corporations are doing so today. The rest of us need a tax break maybe even a flat tax. Corporatism is what is crushing the middle class, not capitalism.
Reply
sleepinghart 12:22 PM 05-10-2016
Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary

"Ted Cruz doesn’t want to release his delegates and is looking at restarting his campaign if he wins Nebraska.

Cruz, who suspended his White House run last week, said he does not expect to win Nebraska’s primary but is leaving the door open.

We launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended our campaign was that with the Indiana loss, I felt there was no path to victory,” he said Tuesday on conservative host Glenn Beck’s radio program.

If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.”


~Respectfully Snipped From-- http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-wins-nebraska
Reply
Michael 03:53 PM 05-10-2016
Originally Posted by sleepinghart:
Cruz floats restarting campaign if he wins Nebraska primary

"Ted Cruz doesn’t want to release his delegates and is looking at restarting his campaign if he wins Nebraska.

Cruz, who suspended his White House run last week, said he does not expect to win Nebraska’s primary but is leaving the door open.

We launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended our campaign was that with the Indiana loss, I felt there was no path to victory,” he said Tuesday on conservative host Glenn Beck’s radio program.

If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.”


~Respectfully Snipped From-- http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-wins-nebraska
I think that train has already left and Cruz is dreaming. He will now be considered a spoiler and that will not go over well. I bet he gets less than 10% today.
Reply
Tags:election, government, poll, president, vote
1 2
Reply Up