Necessity is not the mother of subsidy
18 Oct 2007 02:39 pm
This is something one hears an awful lot:
So, if two incomes are mandatory for the basics of middle class life -- home, car, kids, dog, then childcare is now a necessity for most families. Those babies don't raise themselves. Yet, where is the child-care discussion in this presidential debate?
Food, shelter, or clothing are also necessities for children. But no one suggests that the government should provide them, except in the cases of those who are too poor to provide for themselves. Why should childcare be any different?
meganmcardle.theatlantic.com
Some comments
Two incomes are NOT mandatory in any way shape or form. That is false on its face. US military enlisted and officers do quite well on one salary (since its hard for a spouse to hold a job when moving every 2-3 years). I have seen it many times. Heck my wife left the workforce when she became pregnant with our first and never wnet back. We have a house, 3 kids, 2 dogs, 2 cars - no problem.
So the basic premise is wrong. Thus no need to discuss childcare, except for the single mothers who have deadbeat dads (or the other way).
Posted by buffpilot | October 18, 2007 2:51 PM
I second the point by buffpilot. Two incomes might be needed for a home in a gated community, two BMW payments, and 2 kids in private school. However, it is with in the power of a lot of "middle class" families to scale back a little and live quite comfortably on one income.
Posted by COD | October 18, 2007 3:04 PM |
