Posted on 03/13/2014 12:24:32 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Well I can think of three ways; divorce, death of spouse, and having or adopting a child while single. If you can think of a fourth way then by all means feel free to mention it.
Harry Reid knows what is best for your family and your neighbor’s family.
OK, now... percentages...
And I just _love_ the euphemistic way of putting that... “having a child while single”.
What is your alternative? Put the mother on welfare so she can stay home with her child? You don't think that assisting with day care costs might not be cheaper than welfare?
If you don’t understand and/or reject the traditional family, you are not a conservative.
And please, please, please tell me what is conservative about sticking your head in the sand and pretending that every child in the country would be living in a traditional family if only they did away with day care subsidies. What world do you live in?
Daycare is not a necessity when children are raised in a home with a loving parent who stays home to raise them.
***
No, it is a necessity if you think having a brand new car and fancy vacations is so important that you pay strangers to raise your precious children.
It would be interesting to see if your scenario was more responsible for the “necessity”, or if it’s the tax burden.
I’m betting on the latter.
More children would be living in traditional families if our governmental policy didn’t subsidize bastardity.
Percent of what?
And I just _love_ the euphemistic way of putting that... “having a child while single”.
Our 'out of wedlock' if you like. But what does the circumstances under which the children were born have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that only women who have kids out of wedlock need subsidized daycare?
Reid is looking for a daycare center for his retirement.
You are trying to direct the argument away from the traditional family, I see. Welfare is one liberal anti-family alternative, just as daycare is the other.
You are further arguing that leftism is an inevitability. I think, with all due respect, it is you with your head in the sand. Are you insisting on perpetuating liberalism by continuing to reward it?
Why are women having kids out of wedlock in the first place? What are both the men and women creating these kids being taught?
We decided to take a pay cut when our daughter was six months old and my wife quit her job to stay home with her instead of daycare. Over half of our income went away, but I am so thankful that we could have a fulltime parent at home. Daughter is more conservative than mom, and almost more than I am.
Their agenda - federally funded daycare?
They’ve already let slip that our children don’t belong to us, and hillary says it takes a village, so we all have to dig a little deeper for the common good.
Definitely a necessity IF you run a communist country. The earlier you can control the minds the better, which is what government funding of daycare would be, control.
***
Well said!
If you personally can’t afford to take care of your kids, you ought not expect the village to do it for you.
That’s what we are doing. DH and I are working opposite shifts. There’s somebody home 24-7.
It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, as Hebrews 10:31 says. There hasn’t been a single instance of any country rebelling against God in this manner and succeeding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.