Phatbob said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Direct Enter Enter said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

Hey Google, "How much FICA goes into Social Security each year nationwide?"

"Estimates from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicate that around $1.17 trillion in FICA taxes was directed to Social Security in 2023"

Hey Google, "How many dollars in social security benefits are paid out annually?

"In fiscal year 2023, the Social Security Administration paid out approximately $1.38 trillion in benefits, while projections for 2025 estimate the total annual payout to be around $1.6 trillion."

---

Hey Google, "Explain the difference between the Social Security program and the Social Security Trust Fund"

^I already explained this, so please do yourself and me a favor and educate yourself on SS, how the money spent is collected, and the difference between that and the discretionary annual budget.

---

You're pointing to the 5'-6' area of the pool and calling it something different than the rest of the pool and expecting it to matter what it is called. It doesn't matter what it is called, it works in reality the same way as the rest of the budget because there IS NO TRUST FUND, only the general budget.

---

lol you're just wrong. SS is an entirely separate pool with it's own water source. This is a matter of basic civics. The Government doesn't allocate a single PENNY to Social Security outside of what is raised through FICA. The social security 'deficit' is covered exclusively BY FICA DOLLARS (not additional government deficit spending).

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Incredible how dumb the supporters are of this. Zero understanding of economics or human behavior. The worst state in the country making itself even worse with more government welfare.

And then using the old tactic of comparing this to small, largely mono-ethnic white countries that have wholly differetn cultures than what New Mexico has. Comparing the people of AQB to Norway? Laughably stupid and embarrassing.

---

I wasn't comparing the US to those countries but highlighting the brain dead response about 'communism' when the only countries that provide completely free childcare are not communist.

Basically, this board has an issue where the govt providing ANY sort of social services is communist (just a basic definitional and practical delusion).

---

Hey man why not just do what's best for the kids and implement craddle to the grave UBI? It's always best for parents to raise their kids so just pay parents to stay home and raise their kids I mean that's better right? What we need is more people dependent on the government not less, right?

---

You are great at setting up a straw man. I'll let you beat it yourself.

---

So you are only for UBI up to a certain age I take it? Be honest do you think we should have some type of UBI? Are you really ok with the government taking more and more of people's money to "take care" of those that are to stupid, lazy, etc. to take care of themselves? Just curious how left your ideology really goes.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

Conveniently ignoring the part where true conservatives say don't have kids you can't afford or properly support without government intervention. Precedes the "pro-life"/"pro-birth" argument entirely.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Incredible how dumb the supporters are of this. Zero understanding of economics or human behavior. The worst state in the country making itself even worse with more government welfare.

And then using the old tactic of comparing this to small, largely mono-ethnic white countries that have wholly differetn cultures than what New Mexico has. Comparing the people of AQB to Norway? Laughably stupid and embarrassing.

---

I wasn't comparing the US to those countries but highlighting the brain dead response about 'communism' when the only countries that provide completely free childcare are not communist.

Basically, this board has an issue where the govt providing ANY sort of social services is communist (just a basic definitional and practical delusion).

---

Hey man why not just do what's best for the kids and implement craddle to the grave UBI? It's always best for parents to raise their kids so just pay parents to stay home and raise their kids I mean that's better right? What we need is more people dependent on the government not less, right?

---

You are great at setting up a straw man. I'll let you beat it yourself.

---

So you are only for UBI up to a certain age I take it? Be honest do you think we should have some type of UBI? Are you really ok with the government taking more and more of people's money to "take care" of those that are to stupid, lazy, etc. to take care of themselves? Just curious how left your ideology really goes.

---

How about this, if you make a good faith effort to steel man my position and ask an honest question; I'll answer. But you're taking my support of 'free' childcare (birth to pre K) to imply that I also support UBI for everyone forever. You're picking a fight on grounds you completely made up (bad faith, straw man).

AgNav93 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

And I'm sure the quality is going to be awesome.

---

---

It will be quality socialist / communist early childhood indoctrination.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Incredible how dumb the supporters are of this. Zero understanding of economics or human behavior. The worst state in the country making itself even worse with more government welfare.

And then using the old tactic of comparing this to small, largely mono-ethnic white countries that have wholly differetn cultures than what New Mexico has. Comparing the people of AQB to Norway? Laughably stupid and embarrassing.

---

I wasn't comparing the US to those countries but highlighting the brain dead response about 'communism' when the only countries that provide completely free childcare are not communist.

Basically, this board has an issue where the govt providing ANY sort of social services is communist (just a basic definitional and practical delusion).

---

Hey man why not just do what's best for the kids and implement craddle to the grave UBI? It's always best for parents to raise their kids so just pay parents to stay home and raise their kids I mean that's better right? What we need is more people dependent on the government not less, right?

---

You are great at setting up a straw man. I'll let you beat it yourself.

---

So you are only for UBI up to a certain age I take it? Be honest do you think we should have some type of UBI? Are you really ok with the government taking more and more of people's money to "take care" of those that are to stupid, lazy, etc. to take care of themselves? Just curious how left your ideology really goes.

---

How about this, if you make a good faith effort to steel man my position and ask an honest question; I'll answer. But you're taking my support of 'free' childcare (birth to pre K) to imply that I also support UBI for everyone forever. You're picking a fight on grounds you completely made up (bad faith, straw man).

---

Got it you support UBI. I doubt any of us are surprised that you have no issues with spending other people's money. Since you care so much about this program can we assume that you will be kicking in an extra 20-30% of your income to pay for kids "free" daycare?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

Those irresponsible enough to need "...support raising those children..." should:

1. Have made, and be making, better choices so they can pay their own way
2. Turn to their extended family and/or friends to help them them do what they will not do, i.e., pay their own way through life.
3. Seek support from their church or other organizations to help them do what they will not do, i.e., pay their own way through life.

Saves them $12,000 ... but costs everyone else $12,000.

More proof that nothing is FREE.

#truth

I have it on good authority that New Mexico has appointed Mr. Dwight K. Schrute to head up this new program.

pirmag said:

---

who will pay for it?

---

They have considerable tax revenue from the part of the Permian Basin oil fields that extend over into New Mexico. That is how it is reported to be paid for. I am generally not in favor of using tax dollars for this kind of thing.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

Conveniently ignoring the part where true conservatives say don't have kids you can't afford or properly support without government intervention. Precedes the "pro-life"/"pro-birth" argument entirely.

---

While that may be the true conservative position, pragmatism demands working within the constraints of reality. "Don't have kids you can't afford," doesn't address the problem of childcare for all the kids already born or those who will inevitably be born when their parents cannot afford them. You can say your position "precedes" that all you want, but that just sidesteps the issue instead of addressing it. It's fine if you want to say, "Not my kid, not my problem," but you need to at last own it and be prepared to own the inevitable consequences when they make themselves your problem.

It also doesn't address the problem of ever increasing childcare costs encouraging a lower birthrate in the middle class and what that means for population stability. Do you want the US to go the way of Japan, South Korea, or Europe? No country can sustain itself with demographic decline, which is why so many European liberals welcome migrants. They understand that they need the population infusion to sustain their economies. We will eventually run into the same problem if it's too expensive to have kids until your mid 30's and couples only have 1-2 because of the cost and being so late in life when they're finally financially stable.

Bucketrunner said:

---

pirmag said:

---

who will pay for it?

---

They sure don't generate enough revenue in that state to pay for it.

---

Everyone there will just have to pick two more Hatch Green Chilis.

Sims said:

---

49th in economic well being
50th in education
46th in health
50th in family and community well being

But hey, let's further lock people into that government will give you what you need plantation mentality.

---

And let's give even more people reasons to have more children who they cannot care for. And have the government pay for it.

You need to do some more reading and studying of facts....I get why loonatic is in your name.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

Conveniently ignoring the part where true conservatives say don't have kids you can't afford or properly support without government intervention. Precedes the "pro-life"/"pro-birth" argument entirely.

---

While that may be the true conservative position, pragmatism demands working within the constraints of reality. "Don't have kids you can't afford," doesn't address the problem of childcare for all the kids already born or those who will inevitably be born when their parents cannot afford them. You can say your position "precedes" that all you want, but that just sidesteps the issue instead of addressing it. It's fine if you want to say, "Not my kid, not my problem," but you need to at last own it and be prepared to own the inevitable consequences when they make themselves your problem.

It also doesn't address the problem of ever increasing childcare costs encouraging a lower birthrate in the middle class and what that means for population stability. Do you want the US to go the way of Japan, South Korea, or Europe? No country can sustain itself with demographic decline, which is why so many European liberals welcome migrants. They understand that they need the population infusion to sustain their economies. We will eventually run into the same problem if it's too expensive to have kids until your mid 30's and couples only have 1-2 because of the cost and being so late in life when they're finally financially stable.

---

Why is "not putting your kid in childcare and raising them yourself" not the default instead of government childcare?

Phatbob said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

Conveniently ignoring the part where true conservatives say don't have kids you can't afford or properly support without government intervention. Precedes the "pro-life"/"pro-birth" argument entirely.

---

While that may be the true conservative position, pragmatism demands working within the constraints of reality. "Don't have kids you can't afford," doesn't address the problem of childcare for all the kids already born or those who will inevitably be born when their parents cannot afford them. You can say your position "precedes" that all you want, but that just sidesteps the issue instead of addressing it. It's fine if you want to say, "Not my kid, not my problem," but you need to at last own it and be prepared to own the inevitable consequences when they make themselves your problem.

It also doesn't address the problem of ever increasing childcare costs encouraging a lower birthrate in the middle class and what that means for population stability. Do you want the US to go the way of Japan, South Korea, or Europe? No country can sustain itself with demographic decline, which is why so many European liberals welcome migrants. They understand that they need the population infusion to sustain their economies. We will eventually run into the same problem if it's too expensive to have kids until your mid 30's and couples only have 1-2 because of the cost and being so late in life when they're finally financially stable.

---

Why is "not putting your kid in childcare and raising them yourself" not the default instead of government childcare?

---

Yeah. And where does it stop. What else do the liberals think that the productive citizens must be taxed in order to pay for the personal expenses of the nonproductive and underproductive people? Day care, housing, food, clothing, health insurance?

I might could support some of this if the recipients had to, as a condition of receiving taxpayer funds, be spayed/neutered and had to pay back, via garnishment of wages and other payments to them, every dime of handouts they received.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

Are you really this blind. This is one of the poorest states in the union? Who is going to pay for it? Libs have no idea how thing work in the real world.

Let me guess, You'll say the Fed's right even though they are $36.5T in the hole.

I love your posting. I used it to illiterate feels over reason all the time.

ttu_85 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

Are you really this blind. This is one of the poorest states in the union? Who is going to pay for it? Libs have no idea how thing work in the real world.

Let me guess, You'll say the Fed's right even though they are $36.5T in the hole.

I love your posting. I used it to illiterate feels over reason all the time.

---

I would assume they did the math the aggregate outcome of increase spending will be offset via increase labor participation (higher taxable income).

Like I said in my OP, I'm looking forward to NM doing this as a test case. If it fails, it won't affect you. If it succeeds, we have a working model that can benefit other states.

I'm sure they ran the math on it real well. They probably thought of all the unintended consequences as well. I can't think of anything the government hasn't helped with. Just look how cheap college and health care has gotten since the government has gotten involved.

Quote:

---

If it fails, it won't affect you.

---

Really?

Really?

Oh, and TANSTAAFL!

Quote:

---

Oh, "Tanstaafl." Means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." And isn't,' I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, 'or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in long run or turns out worthless."
Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

what would be best is the nuclear family and women staying home to raise their children. public funded childcare is to undermine the family and train people to be dependent on the government

---

The State of NM isn't forcing families to send their kids to daycare. Families are still able to parent how they please (stay at home or pay more for private facility at your leisure). What this does is help the families who cannot afford private daycare but can also not afford to not work. Idk the specific breakout for NM residents, but I know as a nation that a vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and any minor disruption in their stream of income could be disastrous. Removing even a tiny portion of income can dictate whether a family is homeless or not. This at least provides an avenue for famiilies who want to grow and who want to work and participate in the economy, but were forced to choose the best of bad outcomes (a life without kids or a life without financial security).

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

It's stupid. You're child, your choice, right liberals?

---

Classic republican. They pretend to value children only until they're born then it's not 'their' problem anymore.

---

You can't see the difference between ripping a fetus apart killing it and not completely funding child care?

---

You demand women carry pregnancies to term and then shrug when families need support raising those children. That's not "pro-life," that's just pro-birth.

So yes, I absolutely see the difference.

---

what would be best is the nuclear family and women staying home to raise their children. public funded childcare is to undermine the family and train people to be dependent on the government

---

The State of NM isn't forcing families to send their kids to daycare. Families are still able to parent how they please (stay at home or pay more for private facility at your leisure). What this does is help the families who cannot afford private daycare but can also not afford to not work. Idk the specific breakout for NM residents, but I know as a nation that a vast majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and any minor disruption in their stream of income could be disastrous. Removing even a tiny portion of income can dictate whether a family is homeless or not. This at least provides an avenue for famiilies who want to grow and who want to work and participate in the economy, but were forced to choose the best of bad outcomes (a life without kids or a life without financial security).

---

Actually, you are incorrect. NM was already paying for childcare for any family that was bringing in up to 400% above the poverty line. So the poor people were already getting free child care. This expands it to even filthy rich people.

Even Elon Musk would get free child care in NM. I bet you don't like it nearly as much now knowing that.

Wow, that's amazing!! How did the state make it free for everyone?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Libs get excited over communism

---

Ah yes, communist countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway and Slovenia who also offer 'free' childcare.

---

They also have a lower standard of living, this is beyond dispute. The lower and middle classes actually pay taxes there as well.

Yeah there's nothing "free" about it.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

ttu_85 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/new-mexico-1st-state-offer-universal-child-care/story?id=125411997

Quote:

---

New Mexico has become the first state in the country to guarantee universal child care to families residing in the state.

New Mexico families will be eligible for free child care for infants and toddlers starting Nov. 1, no matter their incomes. The groundbreaking initiative will require no co-pays from families.

The typical New Mexico family is expected to save over $12,000 per child annually with the initiative.

---

This is awesome. Hope it serves as a (positive) test case for other states to follow suit!

---

Are you really this blind. This is one of the poorest states in the union? Who is going to pay for it? Libs have no idea how thing work in the real world.

Let me guess, You'll say the Fed's right even though they are $36.5T in the hole.

I love your posting. I used it to illiterate feels over reason all the time.

---

I would assume they did the math the aggregate outcome of increase spending will be offset via increase labor participation (higher taxable income).

Like I said in my OP, I'm looking forward to NM doing this as a test case. If it fails, it won't affect you. If it succeeds, we have a working model that can benefit other states.

---

Inputting garbage math into an equation will produce garbage math results.


The proponents state universal daycare will save $12,000 a family from personal daycare expenses. Those that are paying for daycare are already in the workforce therefore NO NEW REVENUE will be collected from them. The only new revenue will be from stay-at-home parents and there are NOT ENOUGH of those people to help balance the dramatically increased budget.

Slicer97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

Nope.

---

And you probably paid more into those than the those who would celebrate them.

Only a good idea if those parents are foe
Rced to get a full time job and get off wellfare. Yoj cant have both free childcare and wellfare

Tax money grows on trees.

LOL.

More 2 teas bs.

Nothing like the left trying buy more votes with taxes payer money. And what tactic :"Here is something 'free', now have more babies! "!
But, what happens when tax payers are outnumbered by freeloaders?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

richardag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

agracer said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

This at least provides an avenue for famiilies who want to grow and who want to work and participate in the economy, but were forced to choose the best of bad outcomes (a life without kids or a life without financial security).

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Odds are they will continue to choose more kids they cannot afford and still be financially in a bind and on the government nipple.

Another entitlement for a state thay cant afford it that will be underwater in year and have questionable results. Yippee

Sad