Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20030429 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:13:19 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:13:19 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20032005 jeffster1970 : Problem is, babysitting costs money-and, at that, not always reliable, keeping the kids occupied takes a lot of energy from the parents.

However, TV, Internet and Game Consoles are cheap and is something parents seem to prefer, and they wonder why the kids have issue.

It's a shame that parents today just don't "get" it.
--
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
 Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20032005 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:57:48 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031674 jc100 : Well if I had it my way it'd be like such.

(see link for my math) - Federal Poverty Guidelines.

»aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/07poverty.shtml

Everyone should be allowed to claim up to three kids. Have more than three Kids, then you MUST make the minimum amount (federally accepted) in order to claim the fourth or above. Otherwise, you are allowed ONLY three kids to claim. For instance. A family of six (Mother + Father + Four Kids) MUST MAKE 27,610 within the 48 states to be considered above the poverty line. If this family MAKES less.. then Mother + Father should only be allowed 3 kids on their taxes. The fourth kid DOESNT count for ANY SORT of write off. It should go by age, too. So parents can't pick and choose which one will give them the most back. I bet such a system would stop people, too. Being it doesn't provide jail time but it also doesn't REWARD them for bad behavior.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031674 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:01:42 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031571 patcat88 : Just make a "no [or less then X number of] dependent children credit" on tax returns. Poor people get taxed higher. A couple $K each year per extra child should really clamp down. Otherwise you goto jail for 1 year. And your kids goto foster care obviously.
quote:
shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7203.html]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031571 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:46:44 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031484 patcat88 :
said by Lumberjack See Profile :

And come on, cap the damn welfare and tax credits at 2 or 3 kids!
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031484 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:35:44 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031117 jc100 : Yep sounds about right. My opinion welfare should exist, but should be something people have to WORK to stay on, NOT work to get off of. IE. If you are on welfare you must go to school or hold a job. Sort of like it is now, but without the ten million loopholes to get of it such. Personally, there's nothing wrong with a boost, its a problem when people think they can live off it.

As per the kids tax breaks, I guess this would be good idea. Either reward parents with three or less kids with the most breaks and base any additional breaks based upon income. IE if you got 5 kids, you must make the federal minimal guidelines to support those kids in order to claim them. If you don't, then you are only allowed to claim the max your income supports. I'm sure that'd clamp down on a lot of this baby popping. Too bad it won't happen though.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20031117 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:46:10 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030684 nevtxjustin : Reminds me of a cartoon many years ago. Lady was entertaining a visiting couple and her kids were racing around the living room, swinging on the lampshades and climbing the drapes. She was saying, "I'm just going to let the government raise my children..."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030684 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:48:11 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030429 jc100 : Gov. educated children will be less likely to question their masters =). Win win for all, if you want sheep and yes men no doubt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030429 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:07:30 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030258 SLD : Don't forget that lazy parenting can lead lead to lazy, stupid children that are easy to manipulate. Also, lazy parents are more likely to be stupid as well. Both pluses for Gov't. Educated citizens are harder to fool and control.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030258 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:41:29 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030216 Lumberjack : I agree with you and most of the responses.

Instead of the government attempting a parenting role because parenting sucks, the government should instead parent the parents by competent legislation. I believe some governments already do this but at least in the US parents are not held accountable enough. Instead like somebody else had posted, the government rewards dumb parents by allowing tax breaks for not using birth control along with welfare, etc...

So instead of the message being "don't worry we'll raise them for you" it really should be "if you can't raise them, we won't and instead we'll give em to somebody else that can." And come on, cap the damn welfare and tax credits at 2 or 3 kids!
--
»www.fairtax.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20030216 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:35:42 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029363 jc100 : You forgot one key argument in your response, lazy parents can always fall back on the, it's not my problem and fault argument. If this fails and it's a government mandate, they can wash themselves of blame, and then scream and moan about it. Hence are the ways of the crap parents. Whine when it doesn't work, but all other times sit back and do nothing. Either way, it's not the government's place to dictate what should be done as long as no physical harm is coming to a child. Yet, these stupid parents as you said, give them the ammunition to do so on that very argument it's for the good of the child.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029363 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:18:08 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029309 anon :
said by Lumberjack See Profile :

When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home?
You're assuming that the government is actually happy about good parenting practices; they aren't.

The thing to realize here is that lazy/stupid parenting gives the government (any government) an excuse to step in and act as a parent because they can claim that the "adults" that are supposed to be teaching their kids right from wrong are simply "not up to the task."

What's worse is that lazy and stupid people actually look forward to that happening. Because when the government takes responsibility for raising your children, it means that you don't have to spare them another thought.

Which frees up your time for other, more "important" things.

Don't get me wrong: I wish that every parent felt as you do. I'm just saying that lazy and stupid parenting works to the advantage of the government because it gives them an excuse to:

A) Run the lives of parents and their children (because they aren't capable of running their own lives).

B) Take more money away from people because, let's face it, running peoples' lives for them gets expensive.

...that's all.

Sorry to sound so cynical, but it just seems that everywhere I go in the US, I see parents who seem delighted to have other people raise their children for them.

And they are getting their wish.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029309 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 10:07:06 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029160 jc100 : Yep why not. We should go back to that model they used in the 16th century. Give away your kids until they are older and take them back then. The wealthy would have others raise their kids or ship them off. Hell, lets just have the government set up parental centers. This way they can do whatever the bleep they want, and parents can just continue to pop them out with no remorse. Now back to reality, this is sarcasm, but it's quite sad that a government feels the need to dictate stuff like this. Then again, it happens in the U.S too. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029160 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:39:22 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029142 BF69 :
said by Lumberjack See Profile :

When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse.
Hey why do the actual parenting when you can get the government to do it for you? I mean they do everyhting else so well, let them raise our kids too.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029142 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:35:03 EDT Re: In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029095 jc100 : Parental responsibility? HAHAHAHAH... That's similar to asking people with 10 kids and on welfare to use contraceptives. It won't happen. Still, IT IS NOT the government's job to regulate what parents deem acceptable. Only if the child is in mortal danger or being harmed should the government step in and assist. That's my opinion anyway.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029095 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:24:41 EDT In the home parents, not government , is the filter. http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029010 Lumberjack : When will governments and society learn that parents are the key holders to content their child sees while at home? Poor parenting already causes enough problems and for the governments of the world to believe they can 'help' just makes it worse.
--
»www.fairtax.org]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20029010 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:06:39 EDT