Child-care cut may hit thousands

Thousands of low-income working parents in Missouri could lose their state-subsidized child care or be forced to pay more out of pocket as a result of a proposed budget cut that would make Missouri’s eligibility standards the stingiest in the nation.

By The Associated Press

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

The funding cut embraced by the Senate Appropriations Committee could result in a loss of subsidized child care for 3,860 children and reduced state subsidies for an additional 2,330 children, according to figures calculated Wednesday for The Associated Press by the state Department of Social Services.

Missouri currently provides child-care subsidies for about 47,000 children whose families are in poverty or earn only a little bit more than the federal government’s official poverty designation. Missouri’s income eligibility threshold ranked 48th nationally last year, barely ahead of Indiana and Idaho, and would be the lowest by far if the proposed cut is affirmed by the full Senate and House.

The child-care subsidies typically help single mothers in low-wage jobs such as Kelli Hamilton, who relies on the aid for her 10-year-old daughter and 12-year-old autistic son. Already near the top of Missouri’s income eligibility limit, Hamilton fears the proposed budget cuts would take away her subsidies, potentially forcing her to leave her children at home alone while she works. She’s especially concerned because her autistic son functions far below his age level.

“Do I stay at home and make sure he’s safe, or do I go to work and support my family?” asks Hamilton, 32, of Kansas City.

As passed last month by the House, the budget for Missouri’s 2013 fiscal year would have provided $199 million for child care, an increase of $10 million that the Department of Social Services said is necessary to maintain the current payments and eligibility levels.

The Senate Appropriations Committee cut about $7 million of existing federal and state funding for child-care services, eliminated $5 million of the requested increase in state funds and also cut about $13 million that had been used for grants to child-care providers and other things besides direct subsidies for children.

The committee chairman, Sen. Kurt Schaefer, said the cuts are necessary to balance the budget, especially because it appears unlikely that the Senate will pass a tax amnesty bill that could have generated up to $70 million of overdue tax revenues for the state.

“We’ve got to make some very hard decisions and find the money,” said Schaefer, R-Columbia. He added: “What we’re trying to do is look at some of those programs that did not take a level of reduction that other programs have taken — substantial reductions in the last three years — and try and even that out just a little bit more.”

Schaefer said “a relatively small number” of children would lose subsidized child care and noted that the Senate committee also included money for a pilot project intended to help people transition off child-care subsidies.

But the budget cut raised alarms among children’s advocates. The Partnership for Children emailed an “action alert” to supporters Wednesday urging them to call a toll-free number that would connect them to the offices of Schaefer and certain other senators to express opposition to the cuts. Advocates also plan to bring a group of low-income mothers to the Capitol next week to personally lobby against the cuts, said Sister Berta Sailer, co-founder of Operation Breakthrough, which provides child care in the Kansas City area.

The Department of Social Services said the budget cut would limit traditional child-care subsidies to those earning 103 percent of the federal poverty level —or $19,663 annually for a family of three — down from a threshold of 122 percent of the federal poverty level, or $23,290 for that same family. Reduced subsidies would be allowed for families earning up to 115 percent of the federal poverty level, instead of 134 percent if the cut doesn’t go through.

If the budget cut stands up, “it’s a serious impact to low-income families,” said Brian Kinkade, interim director of the Department of Social Services. “Child care is an important benefit that helps people move out of poverty.”

More like this story

wyriontair 1 year, 1 month ago

If a child has a disability, then as a society we should by all means give some assistance for child care. Having said that, I worked for minimum wage and had to pay for all the child care, that was MY RESPONSIBILITY as a parent. My mother also worked full time and by the time I was 8 I stayed by myself.

gofish 1 year, 1 month ago

This is just horrible! Children left home alone are likely to be abused and neglected. When, not if, that happens the cost to Missouri's taxpayers and society in general is enormous. Do the Republican's not understand the phrase "cutting your nose off to spite your face"? This is just plain lunacy.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

If parents cannot afford to properly take care of their children, they shouldn't be having them. Why would I get a house or car I couldn't take care of, but then I would expect or demand that the taxpayers give me money or else free gasoline and oil changes, and pay for all repairs and car washes? I don't expect others to pay for the care of my pets.

Take some personal responsibility, people. Don't have kids if you cannot take care of them properly. Some better planning and personal responsibilty would be appreciated by others, especially the tax payers who have to pay high medical bills to give your kids insurance, hire babysitters, pay for your little brats when they get imprisoned because they never learned right from wrong due to the parent's neglect or sluffing all the care of their kids off on a minimum wage baby sitter.

3DMom 1 year, 1 month ago

I had no problem caring for my children financially until I left my abusive ex-husband. I walked out - no money, no job, nothing but the clothes and necessities I could fit in the car. I took the first job I was offered because I had to care for my boys but it wasn't enough to pay the bills and child care so I applied for child care assistance (instead of food stamps or TANF). Should I have just stayed home and drawn welfare until I could find a better job? Stayed with my husband? This is one of the better programs they offer low income people. At least the ones applying for and using this are actually WORKING and trying to make life better for their family.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Don't have children with an abusive husband. Better yet, don't marry an abusive husband in the first place. More personal responsibility needed!!!

Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago

Good grief, Lifer. Are you sheltered? Most people don't have so much perfect individual control over their own lives to deserve a life locked into the results of early mistakes. Shouldn't conservatives value the opportunity to re-invent oneself? Isn't it better for society to give people a chance to make a better life for themselves, EVEN IF their own bad decisions played a role in the fact that they need a better life in the first place?

Why is it "personal responsibility" when poor people have to pay for their mistakes for ever, and "class warefare" when rich people have to pay for theirs?

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Don't know about much of what you are talking about here. 2nd chances are fine with me, but enabling seems to be a waste of time.

No one is talking about controlling their own lives. It is all about making good decisions and being responsible.

rural_resident 1 year, 1 month ago

Are you a stone thrower? Maybe your screen name should be changed to "Sinless!" You say you don't want to have to help pay for people that have kids and aren't responsible...well maybe I don't want to pay for your irresponisble driving habits! Next you'll be saying people that have been diagnosed with an illness and are low income should be executed because you don't want to have to pay for their health care. All of these situations have a common denominator "unpredictable circumstances." But you wouldn't know anything about that would you, the perfect world that you live in you must be able to see the future!!

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Nope, I have made a lot of mistakes and sins. I paid the price in most cases and I learned from the experiences. Sometimes I got lucky, and sometimes a friend would bail me out of trouble. However, I would never have expected the government to forcibly make people pay money (taxes) to pay for my mistakes. What you are saying is apples and oranges here and you know it. You have no good argument or defense for your position, so you change the topic and attack the poster. Go away.

asb 1 year, 1 month ago

Lifer, saying people that already have children shouldn't have had them is low, even for a nasty troll like yourself. It doesn't solve a problem, it just makes you sound meaner than Scrooge. Low income child assistance isn't a moral issue, it's a how-to-avoid-starving-children issue. You totally devalue your usefullness to these forums when your only argument against a universally valued program is to not have the problem, even after the barn has been de-horsed. Try again, but with your brain instead of a boot.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

asb, I don't think I ever said people shouldn't have had children. What I said is that they need to think and plan ahead before making decisions. If they mess up, they can ask others for help, but it should not be the government's place to automatically jump in and bail them out for making bad decisions. Now I would be all in favor for some low cost job training to help them get the skills to be better able to help themselves out of their predicament, etc. The constitution doesn't say any thing about all citizens are entitled to have a certain standard of living or quality of life, but what it does say is that they should all have the opportunity to pursue it.

gofish 1 year, 1 month ago

If you read the article Lifer, the issue has come about because the GOVERNMENT was NOT responsible and made BAD decisions by not collecting the tax revenue it was owed. Now they want children from underemployed parents to be the sacrificial lamb and expect that everyone will be ok with it! How about they put this massive cut where it belongs? Cut the budget for the Dept of Revenue who FAILED to enforce the law and collect the taxes we are owed? Everytime this Republican led legislature doesn't get it's way with a budget they sacrifice the children, the elderly, and the mentally ill. Pure darwinism. If they upheld the christian beliefs that they all scream about when it comes to issues of pro-life and birth control they would be HELPING the least vulnerable, not sacrificing them. Bunch of lying hippocrits! If every one of us GOT what we really deserve in life, we'd all be in trouble.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Kind of like all the Solyndra - type jobs that the democrats help create?

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Those are both symptoms of what makes me angry: People not making good decisions and then taking responsibility for them, as well as the resulting waste of precious tax dollars to pay for their mistakes.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Lifer, This may be one of the most reprehensible comments I've ever read. You have NO idea what this woman's life was like. He may have seemed like a prince of a guy at first, that's a very common occurrence. Or maybe the abuse started after she got pregnant? That happens too. But of course, she should have to stick it out or be stigmatized for his wrongdoing. For that matter, maybe it wasn't HER he was abusing. Maybe it was the kids? She'd have no way of knowing if he was going to smack them around until she had them. Shame on you.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Sometimes bad things happen to good people. Is it really the government's responsibility to bail everyone out who who has something bad happen to them?

You have no idea what this woman's life is like either. She may have had jumped in the sack and made a kid the first night she met the guy because she wanted to trap him into marrying her, and then she got tired of him and started to howl a fake story of abuse. Regardless of if it is your imagined story or mine, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. In the end it is the children who suffer the most, and that is bad. Shame on the legislators and the governor for threatening to make cuts to the most vulerable citizens, instead of to the pork and special interests at the feedbag all the time.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

A gov't big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have. Careful what you wish for.

asb 1 year, 1 month ago

Cute. and quite paranoid. No government, no matter how big, can give us anywhere near everything we want, and good luck taking much at all, let alone everything, from Americans used to having a responsive government vulnerable to political forces, no matter what the TP says. But what should I expect from somebody who symbolically calls the President a liar with a signature icon.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

Paranoid? You need look no further than WI to see how people react when entitlements are taken away. Greece? France? Or did you miss those stories about gov't giveth and gov't taketh away? Now, for the liar part, facts are pesky things:

"OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion."

"U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code."

asb 1 year, 1 month ago

Broke governments taking away some things are not the same as government power growing enough to take away everything, thanks for the adjustment in scale. I'm sure Barak Obama has lied, as a person, parent and president. We all do, but we only get fairly called liars when we cannot be believed. Your example of a tax penalty isn't a tax increase, it's a revenue increase. I know, semantics, but therein lies the lie, or not. The man is not a liar.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

He's not a liar, he's a bold faced liar. Guantanamo closed?

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Child care, especially for children under the age of 2, is incredibly expensive. I work with this information every day and have seen it as high as $350.00 a WEEK in St. Louis and KC and in the cities $200.00 a week is fairly common for infants that I've seen. So imagine you are able to work for $19,663.00 per year. That's $1,639, rounded, per month. Now imagine you have a kid that's 4 - daycare of about $114.00 a week - and an infant - $164.00 a week. (Using the statewide average I got from naccrra.org/randd/data/docs/MO.pdf, and I believe that to be several years old, but sounds fair.) That's $278.00 a week in daycare or $1,205.00 per month, for daycare. You want to try to pay for rent, utilities, food, clothing, toiletries, etc., etc. on $434.00 per month? And I'm assuming the $19,663 is after taxes if it's before, it's even worse. Even if you have food stamps you can't properly care for a family of three on that income with that daycare expense. So what choice is there besides welfare?

It's all well and good to say, "Don't have kids if you can't pay for them." But what about people who thought they could? What about families that were intact and got divorced, leaving one parent with the kids and the other refusing (or unable) to pay their child support? Oh, they'll get in trouble eventually, but does that help the custodial parent pay the living expenses and daycare now? What about people who's spouses die? What about people who had better paying jobs but were downsized when a company went out of business? Are we making exceptions for those people since they are "morally superior" to someone who just has a couple of kids out of wedlock?

It's pretty simple: childcare or welfare? You have to make it financially feasible for a parent to seek work outside the home if you don't want them on state aid.

Motherof2 1 year, 1 month ago

Ok I am a mother of 2 baby boys and they are my world! I would like to add something to this subject. JCLifer you really need to have all information before you decide to bash someone they way you are! I was in the same boat as 3DMom I was with a man that was very abusive not just physically but mentally and emotionally. It was not something that came about when we first got together it developed over a period of time after he had an accident. The abuse became worse and worse which YOU JCLifer will never understand unless you are in those spot. That was not a life I will chose to have my children subject to so yes after the last time that he broke my arm I decided it was time to leave because the counseling was not going to work! After I left he cleaned out all of my bank accounts I was not even allowed back in to my own home to get my childrens things and at the time this took place I was preg with our second child. So my son and I only had the clothes on our backs that we left with. I was thankful that I had family to turn to but it still was not going to pay the bills child care it not cheep by any means and when you have to do it on your own it is much harder I did NOT plan that to happen but I did in return have my boys that I cherish very much! I asked for help with child care for a month and was not able to receive it which made us even more tight with money and so it was hard for me to even find a sitter that would take my child that I would be able trust and not harm my child. He did not pay child support not one penny and even though it was court ordered they were unable to track him down so instead of receiving close to 650 a month I received nothing and did it 100% on my own he was more then 15,000.00 in back owed child support and as of today I still have nothing other then the pain in my body from when the weather changes and my beautiful baby boys which like I said are my WHOLE WORLD. I didnt receive any other help from the goverment but there are some families that truly need this and it will in return boil down to whether or not they will now be able to continue working because of this. Some people don't have the family support that I was able to have. Some people just need this for a tempoary basis when times like these arise.

Daddy 1 year, 1 month ago

Hats off to Missouri law makers for this one! It is time to eliminate welafare alltogether. It is not my responsibility to pay for your kid, or stock your pantry. Get a job and close your legs!

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

I take it back Lifer. Daddy here may well have bested you on reprehensible statements.

rural_resident 1 year, 1 month ago

Daddy, right? Hmm... hope you kids never end up needing a little assistance later in life!! I don't want to pay for your kids any more than you want to pay for mine, but that's not how contributing to society works! If you don't like it leave!! Go live in some other country that doesn't care about their people or their cries for hunger or help!! No one would miss you and your attitude! The families that would be effected by these cuts are WORKING people, (as it states in the FIRST FIVE WORDS of this article) they don't live 100% or even 50% off the Government as you have obvisously have been so quick to judge! These families are in a hard time as most of this country is right now. Some even work full time and are continuing their education on a full time basis too! These families are contributing members of society!! As for eliminating welfare altogether let's not forget unions and that stupid health care bill then too!!

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

Charity is for churches and family, not government. Government should not be in the business of making slaves of dependency. Taking one persons money and giving it to another is not charity, it is stealing. Churches run on donations and "should" be void of political hidden agendas. Government really should be covering very basic services, not subsidizing bad decisions. As a society we are slowly accepting the broken families progressives/feminism have created as the norm. If "you [sic] kids" need assistance, blame mom or dad for not being there, not government.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

I have no problem with the concept that TANF benefits should have stricter guidelines. I think people should be either in school, learning a trade or actively looking for work in order to draw that. In fact, most forms of welfare should be retooled. They should be short-term benefits to help folks get back on their feet, not lifelong crutches. But daycare assistance is different, because the people are working (or going to school, but I'm not too opposed to cutting that one). They are trying to do the right thing and not be on welfare. They are trying to work and raise their families without assistance! It's quite simple. For many people, if they can't afford daycare, they can't work. If they can't work, they draw other forms of welfare. There's no middle ground there. Work or stay home. That's the choice they have to make. If they think people are misusing the system, then make other changes. Don't let them pay out to family members...I've seen too many cases where someone's aunt or sister or mother is the "daycare provider" and who would be for free, but the state pays them anyway. Cap the number of children they'll pay for - I don't endorse popping out kid after kid any more than the rest of you. Lower the age cap. Right now I believe they pay until the kid's 13. A 11 or 12 year old generally doesn't need daycare. I don't know how well any of that would work, but if the idea is to get people off welfare, then give them the tools they need to do it.

wyriontair 1 year, 1 month ago

My mother was physically and mentally abused before the time where women could get divorces, she had to wait SEVEN YEARS before she could divorce and growing up we were physically abused. My mother worked and I went home after school, did my homework, whatever else I was supposed to do and if I could I played with my friends, there was no daycare then, Usually those who need a helping hand can get it through various churches and organizations until they secure a job. There is a difference between helping someone become independent and enabling them to take advantage of a situation. The only funding for childcare that shouldn't be cut is for children with disabilities and like I said as a civilized society, we should always make sure they have the proper care.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Don't you feel it would have been better if she'd have been able to get divorced sooner and gotten help with daycare for you, so she could work and support you when you were still too young to have taken care of yourself while she was away?

wyriontair 1 year, 1 month ago

We'd all probably been better off, however, there was no such thing as "day care", nor was there any "state" assistance and we turned out just fine, we stand up for what's right or wrong, always stepped in if we saw someone being bullied, and we learned at an early age to take care of ourselves and help others if need be.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

Wouldn't you rather have family step in than a stranger? Perhaps living with a relative while mom gets back on her feet would be healthier than going to a building full of kids.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Not everyone has relatives that can do that. I never got daycare assistance, but if I had not been able to afford child care I would have had no alternative. Both my parent's were deceased by the time my son was born and I have one sibling, a brother, and he and his wife both work full-time, have their own child and certainly couldn't afford to have two more mouths to feed. My son's father's family didn't live anywhere nearby and if they did, and he'd been an abuser, the idea is to get away from him, not move in with his family.

I'm sure it would have been really nice to be a stay-at-home mother. Maybe my own son would have been better off if he hadn't gone "to a building full of kids." But, I chose to work and pay the bills myself and was fortunate enough to make enough money to not need aid.

rodinman 1 year, 1 month ago

Where there is one parent in the household -- get the name of the other parent and make them pay child support. Until the parent with the kids identifies the other parent (test using DNA) they get no support at all. It is time to make daddies (and mommies) foot the bill for their children. My suggestion would need tweaking but it would be a good start.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

That's a great idea, but what happens when they just don't pay? Many, many, many people are ordered to pay support and simply dont. It happens. They either claim "self-employment" with little earnings or they work for cash. Sometimes they just disappear and can't be located by the FSD. Sometimes they claim to be disabled. Sometimes they have a dozen kids and a minimum wage job and even taking 50% of their income, doesn't pay the support obligations on all of them. There are dead-beat parents, and believe me when I say I hate that phrase and don't use it lightly, but they exist. And then there are the ones that did pay, until they lost their jobs and now they are on unemployment - or living with their own parents again when that runs out - or now only working part-time because that's all they can find. What do the custodians do then? I absolutely believe noncustodial parents should pay their support. Sadly, it just isn't as easy as it sounds. Mar their credit - they don't care. Take their driver's license - they drive anyway or they don't and can't get to work. Put them in jail - then they really can't pay. But the kids still need food and clothing and shelter and if the custodial parent can't afford daycare, how do they work?

viktorkowski 1 year, 1 month ago

I have to wonder at the people on the Appropriations Committee sometimes. If I were to hedge my bets this is what I would bet on, those few millions you saved now will be lost to the many times more you will lose in the future. many of these single parents will have no option but to quit their jobs and begin to draw welfare. as a consequence the businesses that have hired these people at their minimum wage jobs will lose their workers. just how to they intend to keep wages low if there are no desperate people to work them?

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

So, people that work and get compensated for working minimum wage are desperate. And when push comes to shove, quit your job rather than getting another one because there's nothing more denigrating than working two jobs as supposed to being at the mercy of government handouts. Thanks for clearing that up.

viktorkowski 1 year, 1 month ago

we talking about the same single parents not making a living wage and barely getting by should get a second job so that they never see their child? how could they afford child care for the other x hours of days at a second job if they couldn't afford the first eight? employers that pay minimum wage know that they are employing a certain desperate segment of society. they also get the added benefit of tax payers paying social cost because they refuse to pay a living wage. who's the bigger parasite the one getting child care subsidized or the employer that doesn't pay a living wage? this was studied to death in denmark and it was determined it was cheaper to provide the daycare.

viktorkowski 1 year, 1 month ago

the real problem is that there are a number of predatory businesses that are paying minimum wage now for more than just "minimum skills". when people are paid wages this low tax payers are footing the bill to pay for what they cannot afford. So in reality we are subsidizing these businesses.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago

Close to a third of Missouri state employees are eligible for Medicaid because of the low pay scale. Who says the state isn't run like a business?

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Maybe instead of a hotdog, they can hand out the WIC payments and food stamps to state employees at the appreciation festival this year. At least that might save the state some postage too.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago

That's a good idea, and the Governor and budget committee members in the House and Senate should have to hand them out.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Since we haven't heard a peep about employee appreciation day, I'm starting to think we might be denied even the hot dog this year.

asb 1 year, 1 month ago

Thursday, May 31st.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

Oh, thanks. I never bother to go get my weiner, but it's nice to know they didn't ignore it entirely.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago

The merchants could probably afford to appreciate us a lot more if we could afford to buy something in their stores.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

You all have to remember that when cuts are made, they always try to cut the children, the disabled, the police, the firemen, the nurses, the little people. They threaten to close prisons and let the inmates out. They threaten to close small town post offices. They threaten to stop funding some essential service. That is what politicians do. They cut some group that is emotionally-charged and get people all worked up. Both parties do this. They never cut things like $7 million dollar bicycle bridges over the river, or SUVs for police officers, or expensive meals and lawn care at the Capitol Building or governor's mansion. You never hear the feds threaten to cut just one $15 billion dollar defense line item. You never hear then say they are going to cut dynamite used to blow open levies that protect perfectly good farm land. They never cut the legislative pay or the perdiems. They never cut money going to other countries to help them with rebuilding their roads or schools or hospitals. They never cut business tax breaks or big business subsidies. It is always the school busses, or puppy mill inspectors and stuff like that.

Any one with any sense and awareness- heck, any state worker could probably show you enough garbage, fluff, waste, or ineffective programs that could much easily be cut to raise the money, but they never touch those things. They always cut the vulnerable poor children. etc.

asb 1 year, 1 month ago

What you just said would have much more value if you hadn't just told a working mother to get a job, close her legs, and that she shouldn't have the children she has.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

I didn't say those things. I suggested people be accountable and take responsibility for their decisions. However, I really don't need your validation to make me feel good or that I have the right answer. I am right whether or not you think I am. However, I do hope you have a nice evening.

rural_resident 1 year, 1 month ago

JCLifer, I agree with you 100% on where the state seems to make its "necessary" budget cuts. It's one those "Where do we start..." things, I guess. In my opinion, start with the conservation department, they have WAY TOO much $$$!! I heard that they own ALL the wildlife in the state!! Why are you and I still paying for health insurance of elected officials and their families from 10 years ago, too? As for the bicycle bridge, that was Federal government $, not the States. Public Safety and MODOT are also Federally funded in certain areas. But I couldn't agree with you more that the bicycle bridge is pretty dumb!

Oh, and is this Newt?!?

Sequoia 1 year, 1 month ago

The bike bridge is NOT dumb. It is one of the highlights of Jefferson City. If you don't appreciate the grand view you get of the Missouri River, the lifeblood of the history of this state and its people, then you have no soul whatsoever. Go take a walk on it before you proclaim it dumb.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

You know, I've been meaning to walk across it but haven't gotten around to it. But has anyone else noticed that people are still riding bikes across on the traffic lanes? Darn near hit one the other day. (Sorry to deviate from the real issue of this thread.)

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago

They called it a bike bridge to get the federal part of the funding worked out. Walking across that bridge is a good idea because it is much better suited to walkers than cyclists.

The first time I rode across it there was a family with unruly kids on scooters and one of the kids threw her scooter down right in front of my bicycle and ran off to spite her mother and little brother. They were entitled to be there but things like that discourage cyclists.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

"...then you have no soul whatsoever." = melodramatic

evenkeel 1 year, 1 month ago

Reading so many of these comments I believe I have the solution. There are 3 parts to it.

No more arranged marriages! There are so many tales of abusive spouses and broken families. If people had the opportunity to chose their own partners I would think that divorce and single parenthood would drop off greatly. There would be no need to feel obligated to marry an abusive, lazy, substance-taking, sexual miscreant. (Genius!)
Allow the marketplace to offer a special kind of insurance. You know, something like this: a person pays a small monthly premium to an insurance company and then if an untimely death occurs, the beneficiaries collect a windfall from the insurance company. That way, the children are protected from catastrophic loss of their parents. I think we could call it, I don't know, how about calling it LIFE INSURANCE? That way the name kinda explains the product. (Brilliant!)
Allow people to determine for themselves what they are going to get paid at their job! It works like this: If you want to get paid more, then develop some skills. If you are not interested in developing a marketable skill, then you are OK with not making much money.
An ambitious person could do some investigation and find out which professions pay really well and then that ambitious person could learn the skills necessary to become a member of that particular profession. This is a FABULOUS alternative to our present system of indentured slavery!

My 3-point solution is really going to catch-on in a BIG WAY. You are all welcome. My job is to think and I must say... I make a damn fine living.

tonto_goldberg 1 year, 1 month ago

You should run for governor.

JCLifer 1 year, 1 month ago

Evenkeel, you are wiser than most all the politicians! Truly brilliant!

evenkeel 1 year, 1 month ago

That is the beauty of it tonto. None of my ideas require government action. Indeed, government interference would be nothing but a hinderance. Personal responsibility takes care of it. Ya just gotta love freedom! Consequences...that is a bit tougher to embrace.

3DMom 1 year, 1 month ago

I had to stay away from this discussion for a few days because after reading Lifer’s comment I was honestly too repulsed to respond in an adult manner. Lifer: Your comment was disgusting and disrespectful to anyone who’s been in an abusive relationship. What I did was necessary for my safety and the safety of my children. The circumstances leading up to my divorce are none of your business and I won’t dignify your callousness and ignorance with an explanation. The point of the entire thing was I had 2 choices – apply for childcare assistance so I could WORK or stay home and collect welfare. I chose to work. I set a good example for my sons and I can look at myself in the mirror because of that choice.

spelchek 1 year, 1 month ago

Nothing wrong with a hand up. Everything wrong with a hand out.

JMO 1 year, 1 month ago

You have every right to be proud of yourself for getting out of a harmful situation and showing your children the value of earning a living instead of getting aid. As I've said before, the choice you faced, work or welfare, is the very reason for the daycare assistance program. You'd think the "let's end welfare" folks, would be lining up to thank you for making the choice you did. Must be nice to have everything go right in a perfect life, huh?

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID