TA-OP said:

---

Didn't the Trump admin support a paid family leave bill through the Senate toward the end of his term? If his admin does it again, so you really have faith that all the Congressional GOP lemmings won't just fall in line behind him?

---

Its a **** idea.
Government doesn't need to get involved in this. At all.

Curb inflation, curb government spending, reduce taxes, promote nuclear families. Encourage women to stay home with their newborns, and young ones (all of these are of course anathemas to the democrats - as we saw when the NFL kicker suggested women spend more time with their children because bringing up children is the most important thing they will do)

I don't think that poster wants more kids. If so then that posters idea of wanting the government to help is the funniest thing I have read EVER on texags. I

We should encourage mom's to stay home and take care of their children. Give married couples, with a stay-at-home mother a $15,000 per child tax credit. If you want someone else to raise your kid so you can earn more that is fine, but for those who are otherwise forced to work in a cubicle, and forego raising their children due to purely economic factors, give them a choice.

TA-OP said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

It already exists...

It's called work from home....

Companies run by intelligent people have adopted wfh full time.....

---

Tell me you've never raised an infant or toddler without saying so.

---

We've raised 3. including a set of twins. And we did work from home.
It's hard.
But no one said raising kids was going to be easy.

What if someone wants to stay at home and raise their dog?

Sorry, but you're never going to convince me I need to tell my daughter to put aside her career goals and ambitions so she can raise kids for her husband. That old school philosophy is one of the reasons conservatives have trouble appealing to younger generations.

• Drastically cut government spending, to…
• …. greatly reduce taxes overall
• People stop living way beyond their means
• And stop falling for the decades old narrative that you are worthless if you stay home and actually take the responsibility of raising your own children. Single most admirable and important job a person could do.

She doesn't. She just shouldn't expect others to pay to raise her child.

Still avoiding any real discussion

backintexas2013 said:

---

What if someone wants to stay at home and raise their dog?

---

Go back to Kibble and stop the Fresh Pet orders?

aggiehawg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

if you cannot afford kids, do not have kids.

and eliminate the child tax credit as well.

---

My quibble with that is we wat to incentivize married couples to have children. One of the reasons there are tax deductions for dependents.

I would be okay with tax deductions for child care at licensed facilities or within the work place. Incentivize employers to either have such facilities or deductions for giving employees stipends for same.

My reasoning is that could kill two birds, encouraging a return to the workplace from WFH to help the cratering commercial real estate market (indirectly).

---

There haven't been tax deductions for dependents for six years now, 2024 will be the 7th year.

I am fine with incentivizing the "right" married couples to have children, but all the incentives that are in the law incentivize the lower income people to have kids they cannot afford and the rest of us get to pay for it.

backintexas2013 said:

---

What if someone wants to stay at home and raise their dog?

---

If they don't know the difference between a dog and a human child and the importance of two parents in the development of a human child, they can't be helped.

Dan Scott said:

---

JD Vance was on with Megan Kelly and said it's messed up how we have a society where young people don't want kids because it will hinder their career. So he said we should make the work place more accommodating for parents who want to work. He didn't say how in the interview but likely means paid leave or job security while out.

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

Sounds more like some kind of help with child care - or increase tax incentives for kids.

So you get to pick who the government supports based on feelings. Got it

TA-OP said:

---

Sorry, but you're never going to convince me I need to tell my daughter to put aside her career goals and ambitions so she can raise kids for her husband. That old school philosophy is one of the reasons conservatives have trouble appealing to younger generations.

---

She doesn't have to put aside her career and ambition, she can abandon the raising of her children to someone else if she even wants them. That said, those who understand the importance of a mother to a child and of being raised by two parents, should be encouraged to stay home and take care of them. The children deserve that even if the parents selfishly decide to pursue their own selfish ambition.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So you get to pick who the government supports based on feelings. Got it

---

Based on science. And, I'll not argue science with someone unable to distinguish the difference between a dog and a child.

backintexas2013 said:

---

So you get to pick who the government supports based on feelings. Got it

---

You're ignoring that people who have children are contributing more to society. How much in taxes will a person with no children have contributed 3 generations from now? How much will a person with 3, 4, 5, or 6 children?

Dogs don't pay taxes.

I believe two parent homes are important but the government shouldn't pay for it. That's what this thread is about. Forced taxation so a mom can stay at home isn't ok

TA-OP said:

---

Sorry, but you're never going to convince me I need to tell my daughter to put aside her career goals and ambitions so she can raise kids for her husband. That old school philosophy is one of the reasons conservatives have trouble appealing to younger generations.

---

Stop making US pay for your daughters decisions.
You want to have a career. Great.
You want to have kids, and stay home with them? Great.
You want to have kids and have a career. That's hard. Get a helmet.

Don't need nanny government to step in here.

NicosMachine said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

What if someone wants to stay at home and raise their dog?

---

If they don't know the difference between a dog and a human child and the importance of two parents in the development of a human child, they can't be helped.

---

We might be called names for not respecting the state sanctioned union of some lady & her cat before too much longer.

This is about government paying for it. That's not ok except to big government liberals.

Ultimately, I think the public school system will have to be revamped to accommodate the 6 week - 5 year age group. That would be the best thing government intervention could do that doesn't involve giving straight cash to families.

backintexas2013 said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

When it comes to paid family leave or making early childcare more affordable, it's only ever been the occasional lip service from the GOP.

---

Thank goodness. We shouldn't be paying for it. If you want to pay for it more power to you.

---

What about tax credits? Incentivize behaviors that are good society with lower taxes?

jopatura said:

---

Ultimately, I think the public school system will have to be revamped to accommodate the 6 week - 5 year age group. That would be the best thing government intervention could do that doesn't involve giving straight cash to families.

---

We need no more "government intervention" because that would only result in more welfare for some, paid for by others. If both halves of a married couple want to work, then pay for day care. It is available. If one wants to stay at home and raise the kids, do so.

Bob Lee said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

So you get to pick who the government supports based on feelings. Got it

---

You're ignoring that people who have children are contributing more to society. How much in taxes will a person with no children have contributed 3 generations from now? How much will a person with 3, 4, 5, or 6 children?

Dogs don't pay taxes.

---

You're not wrong at all, but I'd like to point out that the family is a good in and of itself. We should not have to make economic arguments for support of that fundamental societal bedrock.

one safe place said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

if you cannot afford kids, do not have kids.

and eliminate the child tax credit as well.

---

My quibble with that is we wat to incentivize married couples to have children. One of the reasons there are tax deductions for dependents.

I would be okay with tax deductions for child care at licensed facilities or within the work place. Incentivize employers to either have such facilities or deductions for giving employees stipends for same.

My reasoning is that could kill two birds, encouraging a return to the workplace from WFH to help the cratering commercial real estate market (indirectly).

---

There haven't been tax deductions for dependents for six years now, 2024 will be the 7th year.

I am fine with incentivizing the "right" married couples to have children, but all the incentives that are in the law incentivize the lower income people to have kids they cannot afford and the rest of us get to pay for it.

---

Difference is welfare payments being based on number of children claimed as born.

Not what I was speaking about. I was referring to verifiable childrcare costs. Room for fraud? Sure. But could a deduction get caught quicker than a subsidy? And have more teeth? Yes.

Problem has been that encouragement o have more and more kids via welfare payments went one direction. That didn't work well.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Sounds like build back Better plan from few years ago. I'm thinking in the next 4 years there will be federal paid year since both sides support it.

---

When it comes to paid family leave or making early childcare more affordable, it's only ever been the occasional lip service from the GOP.

---

Thank goodness. We shouldn't be paying for it. If you want to pay for it more power to you.

---

What about tax credits? Incentivize behaviors that are good society with lower taxes?

---

Lower taxes. Period.
Let the people keep more of what they earn. And let them decide how they want to prioritize it.
Then you can spend that money on your kids college, on your iphone, or on high end dog food.

You ok with incentivizing people to not have kids? What about incentivizing people to not be lol fat tubs of goo?

backintexas2013 said:

---

I believe two parent homes are important but the government shouldn't pay for it. That's what this thread is about. Forced taxation so a mom can stay at home isn't ok

---

If there is anything the government should support, it's two parent households and where possible, ensuring one parent is not deprived of staying home and raising the child due to economic burdens. The federal and state government gives credits and assistance to have strangers care for the child, why not encourage married mothers to care for their child?

backintexas2013 said:

---

This is about government paying for it. That's not ok except to big government liberals.

---

How is the government paying if, all things being equal it's the ones with kids who are the largest contributors? I have 6 kids. I pay federal income tax, but my tax bill is $12,000 less than it would be if I had no kids. My 6 children and their children will pay federal income taxes. Childless people will still collect social security. It won't be their children shouldering the burden of a growing population of old people.

one safe place said:

---

jopatura said:

---

Ultimately, I think the public school system will have to be revamped to accommodate the 6 week - 5 year age group. That would be the best thing government intervention could do that doesn't involve giving straight cash to families.

---

We need no more "government intervention" because that would only result in more welfare for some, paid for by others. If both halves of a married couple want to work, then pay for day care. It is available. If one wants to stay at home and raise the kids, do so.

---

We're to the point that for the majority of 18 year olds graduating today, they cannot afford housing + childcare + students loans if they do everything "right" without relying on family to pay for housing or college. What gets dropped? Children. It is a government problem if birth rates fall too much.

Did you see the original post I was replying to? It was about government paying for leave for mothers and taking care of olds. That's not ok

NicosMachine said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

I believe two parent homes are important but the government shouldn't pay for it. That's what this thread is about. Forced taxation so a mom can stay at home isn't ok

---

If there is anything the government should support, it's two parent households and where possible, ensuring one parent is not deprived of staying home and raising the child due to economic burdens. The federal and state government gives credits and assistance to have strangers care for the child, why not encourage married mothers to care for their child?

---

Because feminazis
And because it doesn't work for the vote bank that has single parent households.

C@LAg said:

---

if you cannot afford kids, do not have kids.

and eliminate the child tax credit as well.

---

The developed world is facing demographic problems as a result of a slowdown in people having children. It's good for society when people have kids (within reason, obviously poor families having 8 kids is not a good thing). Many are citing financial hurdles as a reason for not having kids or waiting to have kids.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want people to have more kids, there needs to be some flexibility in our culture that makes it less of a burden early on. It's also better for the kids and family building when parents have an opportunity to bond with their children at a young age.

I was fortunate that my boss gave me some parental leave outside of policy. I also reported to an SVP at a small company at the time and he had the ability to do so. Not everyone is that fortunate.

jopatura said:

---

one safe place said:

---

jopatura said:

---

Ultimately, I think the public school system will have to be revamped to accommodate the 6 week - 5 year age group. That would be the best thing government intervention could do that doesn't involve giving straight cash to families.

---

We need no more "government intervention" because that would only result in more welfare for some, paid for by others. If both halves of a married couple want to work, then pay for day care. It is available. If one wants to stay at home and raise the kids, do so.

---

We're to the point that for the majority of 18 year olds graduating today, they cannot afford housing + childcare + students loans if they do everything "right" without relying on family to pay for housing or college. What gets dropped? Children. It is a government problem if birth rates fall too much.

---

Government causes the problems. Too much government spending, too much taxation ...too high inflation, stepping in to provide education loans for useless majors, raising property taxes to pay for low income housing, incentivizing single mothers...the list goes on and on.

Part of me thinks like a hard nosed capitalist and says everyone should pay their own way, no handouts for kids or new parents beyond what your company will offer. The other part knows that's not realistic and leaves a lot of people struggling. The cost of living is too damn high.