This will make you scratch your head...

[milton waddams]

Imagine a workfare mother taking on a job as a nanny, not for a rich person, but for another workfare mother, and at the same time hiring her employer as a nanny for her own children at exactly the same rate she is getting paid, so that they both have child care except during their mutual half-hour commute by bus twice a day.

Why not just pay the welfare mothers for raising their children?:nanner:

 

[ggeorgeflorida]

That doesnt make any sense because there is a structure in the American economy. We can't just pay people to sit around. There are jobs that need to be done other than raising childreeen. Dont get me wrong, raising childreen is one of the most important jobs you could ever have, but the government should not pay you to do it.

 

[milton waddams]

That doesnt make any sense because there is a structure in the American economy. We can't just pay people to sit around. There are jobs that need to be done other than raising childreeen. Dont get me wrong, raising childreen is one of the most important jobs you could ever have, but the government should not pay you to do it.

you are not paying someone to sit around. you are paying them to be a nanny in the example i laid out. if you pay them to be a nanny, why not just pay them to raise their own kid?

 

[DukeLaCrosse]

head lice works better

 

[Gordar]

you are not paying someone to sit around. you are paying them to be a nanny in the example i laid out. if you pay them to be a nanny, why not just pay them to raise their own kid?

If that works I'd call it a flaw in the system.

Then there are 2 things you can do.

1. Change it so that the mothers have to find a real job instead of just helping eachother out

2. Change it so that mothers with small children don't have to work so that they can care for their own children without having to worry about where the money comes from.

Which choice you'd make would probably depend on your political POV.

 

[STDiva]

you should change this when you are president

 

[calpoon]

you are not paying someone to sit around. you are paying them to be a nanny in the example i laid out. if you pay them to be a nanny, why not just pay them to raise their own kid?

yes, but in the example someone is paying someone else, so if you raised your own kid, then wouldn't that mean you were paying yourself? why would you pay someone else to raise their own kid and have them pay you to raise yours? why don't you just raise your own kids, and keep your money and not pay anyone else anything?

 

[milton waddams]

yes, but in the example someone is paying someone else, so if you raised your own kid, then wouldn't that mean you were paying yourself? why would you pay someone else to raise their own kid and have them pay you to raise yours? why don't you just raise your own kids, and keep your money and not pay anyone else anything?

you wouldn't be paying yourself because someone else would be paying you. you are not paying someone else to raise their own kid. Person A pays person B to take care of person A's child and person B pays person A to take care of person B's child. This way person A and person B can tell the government they are employed and hence can not be taken off welfare.

 

[Legzman]

what the fuck are you smoking?

 

[calpoon]

Ok. first of all let's assume that they are on welfare because they don't have any money or another job, so how is person A going to get the money to pay person B, and vice versa? that makes no sense.

and you said that they would be paid to take care of their own kid, so person A takes are of person A's kid, person B takes care of person B's kid, not the other way around... so who is paying them?

neither one of these ideas is a solution that gets them off welfare because they'd still need to get money from the government.

 

[Namreg]

what the fuck are you smoking?

exactly. but why argue with him... this is the "battered and assaulted' guy from about 3 weeks ago... no point in arguing with him. like talking to a wall (well a bit funnier, when he gets upset, but pointless nonetheless)

 

[broderic_randal]

what the fuck are you smoking?

whatever it is, i want some

 

[milton waddams]

Ok. first of all let's assume that they are on welfare because they don't have any money or another job, so how is person A going to get the money to pay person B, and vice versa? that makes no sense.

and you said that they would be paid to take care of their own kid, so person A takes are of person A's kid, person B takes care of person B's kid, not the other way around... so who is paying them?

neither one of these ideas is a solution that gets them off welfare because they'd still need to get money from the government.

first of all, there is no reason to assume they have no money. if you assume they have some money, however they may have acquired it, my point holds. Even if you have no other source of income then some minimal amount from welfare to help your child, you could use the money to hire the nanny and vice versa.

no. person A does not take care of person A's kid. they take care of person B's kid. i said this already but you seem confused. this is what creates the context in which both person A and person B's actions can be construed as employment.

i understand it doesn't ultimately get them off welfare, but it provides them with a way to have a job so the government can't kick you off welfare after a certain period of time because you have no job. in other words, the whole "welfare reform" of the bill clinton years can be challenged by the simple example i have laid out.

 

[warman2442]

whatever it is, i want some

*Scratches head

 

[Marlo Manson]

Can I, can I have my stapler back?? but, but, you....my stapler...errrrr!!

 

[ChefChiTown]

Imagine a workfare mother taking on a job as a nanny, not for a rich person, but for another workfare mother, and at the same time hiring her employer as a nanny for her own children at exactly the same rate she is getting paid, so that they both have child care except during their mutual half-hour commute by bus twice a day.

Why not just pay the welfare mothers for raising their children?:nanner:

That is why that can't ever happen. Who would be watching the children for that half hour bus ride?

 

[RandomHero]

Stressed is desserts backwards..


think about it..

 

[milton waddams]

:1orglaugh

That is why that can't ever happen. Who would be watching the children for that half hour bus ride?

hmm, let's see. maybe a friend or family member? wow, that took a grand total of 2.6 seconds to think of.

and, obviously, if you imagine no commute there is no problem. also, you could take a risk a leave the kid alone for a little bit during a commute. not that i'd recommend that, but it's possible, especially if the kid is sleeping and the doors to the house are locked. expand your mind: the possibilities are limitless! :1orglaugh

 

[ChefChiTown]

:1orglaugh

hmm, let's see. maybe a friend or family member? wow, that took a grand total of 2.6 seconds to think of.

and, obviously, if you imagine no commute there is no problem. also, you could take a risk a leave the kid alone for a little bit during a commute. not that i'd recommend that, but it's possible, especially if the kid is sleeping and the doors to the house are locked. expand your mind: the possibilities are limitless! :1orglaugh

If you can get a friend or a family member to watch your children, then the government isn't going to pay to have a nanny watch them.

 

[bendover]

Imagine a workfare mother taking on a job as a nanny, not for a rich person, but for another workfare mother, and at the same time hiring her employer as a nanny for her own children at exactly the same rate she is getting paid, so that they both have child care except during their mutual half-hour commute by bus twice a day.

Why not just pay the welfare mothers for raising their children?:nanner:

I'm not sure that this makes a whole lot of sense to me. As I read it, you are spelling out a hypothetical situation to support welfare. If workfare mother 1 is working a traditional job and workfare mother 2 is working at childcare facility, which both sets of children are being cared for at, as well as other children and workers, then that is a traditional job.

I know women that run daycare businesses out their homes, They watch their own children, as well as children they are contracted to work for.

My aunt did this, when her kids got older she went back to college and earned a teaching degree, now is a licensed teacher.

I also know of woman who do not make a lot of money or want to save money who have their retired parents watch their kids.

The bottom lines is a government is in place to serve the people, but the more services they the offer the more money it costs, therefore the government must be a money generating institution. Workfare/welfare workers in your scenario are not generating revenues to the system.

In any economy that wants to grow there must be incentives to earn. If people are given everything, what is the incentive. If people who earn large sums of money, hire people to aid them in producing wealth as well as hire people to care for their own children, then they are generating revenue for the system exponentially, because they are paying taxes on their own earnings as well providing someone with an income to again pay taxes, who spend their money on the things they want and need, that causes a need to hire people to meet those needs, who intern pay taxes.

I love it when rich actors and musician announce that the poor need help, ask the government to help them, maybe even perform or solicit funds, but how many of those people would give up their mansions and nice cars, live a more traditional life style and give the bulk of their wealth to helping the poor. Not very many.