HRC just announced she's for universal public 4y/o kindygarden

[Okla-homey]

Way to pander Hill. Perhaps you feel this might attract some of the young wimmens of child-bearing years back from the Obama camp.

Please note. I'm a big fan of kindergarten, but 4 y/o public kindergarten is state-sponsored daycare. period.

:mad:

[olevetonahill]

:D If shes fer it Im agin it
less shes saying "Free Natty" for all :D

[olevetonahill]

Sides Homester
Dont they already call that " Preschool " ?

[MamaMia]

You would have had to pry my 4 year old babies from my arms with the jaws of life, to take them away from me at that age.

[olevetonahill]

heh
I just called my DIL who works at the skool .
They call it " Pre K "
They Have to take the 4 yr olds 1st But they will take 3 yr olds :eek:
Based On INCOME . Of ****ing course !:mad:

[olevetonahill]

Way to go Billary
Backing or Calling for something thats been Going on for a long time .:P

[jk the sooner fan]

the clintons are going to show what they're all about when the primaries roll around.....things are just starting, but they're going to do everything they can to crush Obama and any other major player

its ripe for Al Gore to jump back in imo......

[olevetonahill]

the clintons are going to show what they're all about when the primaries roll around.....things are just starting, but they're going to do everything they can to crush Obama and any other major player

its ripe for Al Gore to jump back in imo......
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Hatfield]

the clintons are going to show what they're all about when the primaries roll around.....things are just starting, but they're going to do everything they can to crush Obama and any other major player

its ripe for Al Gore to jump back in imo......

uhmmm....not to knitpick...but isn't it the goal of every politician running for an office to "crush" the opposition?*


*this comment in no way should be seen as support for hillary

[jk the sooner fan]

uhmmm....not to knitpick...but isn't it the goal of every politician running for an office to "crush" the opposition?*


*this comment in no way should be seen as support for hillary

way to miss the point, maybe i should have spelled it out with a thick crayon

[Hatfield]

use a big one....and write slowly

[sooneron]

I prefer a husky pencil

[picasso]

the clintons are going to show what they're all about when the primaries roll around.....things are just starting, but they're going to do everything they can to crush Obama and any other major player

its ripe for Al Gore to jump back in imo......
The Dems have to think there's no way the country is going to elect Obama.

I still think Hillary will be the one.

[sooneron]

I'm voting GOP, they would NEVAR think of pandering.

[BU BEAR]

I am for universal lawn care... And I wont raise your taxes and I will use only American citizens to provide this service to every home and business owner in America.

How will I provide a new service without raising taxes?

Good question. Glad you asked.

I am going to order the Federal Reserve to print more money. Sure, that is not such a great move for the economy, but I figure since Social Security will bankrupt itself and Medicare will bankrupt the country; we should expedite the process and get our lawns mowed in the mean time. In addition, by providing this service using American labor, I will show the public that lawn care is in fact a job that Americans are willing to do contrary to the perception of our currently elected officials.

[soonerscuba]

way to miss the point, maybe i should have spelled it out with a thick crayon

Please do, I am confused too. I think that Obama probably wants to crush Hillary, or Romeny to McCain, or pretty much any other election ever.

[Howzit]

I'm voting GOP, they would NEVAR think of pandering.

Next thing you know, some politician will begin taking lobby money.

[1stTimeCaller]

Next thing you know, some politician will begin taking lobby money.
is that like petty cash?

[yermom]

Jaux in '08!

[mdklatt]

Please note. I'm a big fan of kindergarten

Kindergarten as you and probably your daughter experienced it, or the way it is now?

[1stTimeCaller]

how is it now?

[mdklatt]

how is it now?

In most places, kindergarten is now what first grade was to us. They're in class all day, and the emphasis is on actual schoolwork instead of adjusting to school.

[85Sooner]

So she can start the Gov indoctrination sooner! Hell those are the only age kids who have not been forced to see AG's POS movie.

[1stTimeCaller]

In most places, kindergarten is now what first grade was to us. They're in class all day, and the emphasis is on actual schoolwork instead of adjusting to school.

hmmm. I'm not sure what I think about that. I am a big fan of Headstart type programs for pre-K kids that are from poor families.

[Frozen Sooner]

This sort of thing always amuses me. For about half the population, Hillary Clinton could announce that she was in support of puppy dogs and flowers and they burn up the airwaves denouncing puppy dogs and flowers. For the other half, she could endorse genocide against the left-handed and mandatory castration and they'd hail it as revolutionary and forward-thinking.

[SoonerInKCMO]

she could endorse genocide against the left-handed and mandatory castration and they'd hail it as revolutionary and forward-thinking.

But, but... I can use my right hand for most things. Please don't let Hillary kill me. :(

[85Sooner]

This sort of thing always amuses me. For about half the population, Hillary Clinton could announce that she was in support of puppy dogs and flowers and they burn up the airwaves denouncing puppy dogs and flowers. For the other half, she could endorse genocide against the left-handed and mandatory castration and they'd hail it as revolutionary and forward-thinking.


The problem is she wants to take alot of our money to do it. See the sig in her own misdirected words.

[Frozen Sooner]

The problem is she wants to take alot of our money to do it. See the sig in her own misdirected words.

I'm sorry, there's a politician out there who isn't promulgating the idea of taking a lot of our money to push their agenda?

[yermom]

are they adding another year or just starting earlier?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I am for universal lawn care... And I wont raise your taxes and I will use only American citizens to provide this service to every home and business owner in America.

How will I provide a new service without raising taxes?

Good question. Glad you asked.

I am going to order the Federal Reserve to print more money. Sure, that is not such a great move for the economy, but I figure since Social Security will bankrupt itself and Medicare will bankrupt the country; we should expedite the process and get our lawns mowed in the mean time. In addition, by providing this service using American labor, I will show the public that lawn care is in fact a job that Americans are willing to do contrary to the perception of our currently elected officials.You should post more often. That's some thoughtful sh*t, there.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So she can start the Gov indoctrination sooner! Hell those are the only age kids who have not been forced to see AG's POS movie.There was some kid in HS who made nat. radio news by loudly complaining he's been forced to watch it 4 times, already by his school.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Sometimes during lunch (or if I have a day off) I like to go to the bookstore or library for some quiet and a little change of scenery. Invariably, there are stay-at-home moms with their little rugrats running around - kinda eliminating one of the two things I'm looking for. Assuming these kids are all of the pre-school age range of <5 years old, lowering the age of kindergarten entrance would decrease the number of kids out and about by around 20%. I'm all for that.

[mdklatt]

I am a big fan of Headstart type programs for pre-K kids that are from poor families.

Exactly. My sister teaches pre-K now, but she's taught kindergarten, too. It's tough to teach kids to read when half the class still craps their pants and cries all day because they miss mommy. Those kids could have really used pre-K. At her school district, pre-K is free for at-risk kids (from poor families or having emotional or learning disabilities). For a lot of these kids, we can either pay for pre-K for a year or two, or pay for them to be in jail or on welfare for the rest of their lives.

[mdklatt]

I'm sorry, there's a politician out there who isn't promulgating the idea of taking a lot of our money to push their agenda?

But the pubz are spending the money of future generations, so it's all good. Pass the buck, baby. :texan:

[sooner_born_1960]

All of this is going to change the situation at home, how? Give me a bright kid with parents who care about learing, let him skip pre-k, pre-pre-k, and k. Enroll him in first grade when he's six, and he'll lap the 4th year students by the fouth week of school.

[1stTimeCaller]

Exactly. My sister teaches pre-K now, but she's taught kindergarten, too. It's tough to teach kids to read when half the class still craps their pants and cries all day because they miss mommy. Those kids could have really used pre-K. At her school district, pre-K is free for at-risk kids (from poor families or having emotional or learning disabilities). For a lot of these kids, we can either pay for pre-K for a year or two, or pay for them to be in jail or on welfare for the rest of their lives.

A friend of mine does the same thing. She said one of the first things they have to teach most of them is how to brush their teeth.

[royalfan5]

All of this is going to change the situation at home, how? Give me a bright kid with parents who care about learing, let him skip pre-k, pre-pre-k, and k. Enroll him in first grade when he's six, and he'll lap the 4th year students by the fouth week of school.
spending less time with the crappy parents can't hurt. Also, society has to deal with the less than bright who have crappy parents, and I don't think ignoring them is going to make society better off.

[85Sooner]

I'm sorry, there's a politician out there who isn't promulgating the idea of taking a lot of our money to push their agenda?


True but she is nearly as bad as it gets and the others arn't running for Pres.

[sooner_born_1960]

spending less time with the crappy parents can't hurt. Also, society has to deal with the less than bright who have crappy parents, and I don't think ignoring them is going to make society better off.
Starting them to school when they are 3 or 4 isn't either.

[royalfan5]

Starting them to school when they are 3 or 4 isn't either.
why not?

[HskrGrl]

My question is... is this going to be a mandatory Pre K for all children who are planning to attend public schools or would it be a lower age for those starting Kinder. If it's neither then it's just the pre-k program that is already in place in most school districts so what she is proposing is nothing new at all. Personally, I'm opposed to either the required pre-k or the lower Kinder age. Especially if it was a lower Kinder age. Being that I have a late May birthday I graduated high school when I was 17. Under this new plan 16 year old high school graduates would be a common thing. :eek:

[royalfan5]

My question is... is this going to be a mandatory Pre K for all children who are planning to attend public schools or would it be a lower age for those starting Kinder. If it's neither then it's just the pre-k program that is already in place in most school districts so what she is proposing is nothing new at all. Personally, I'm opposed to either the required pre-k or the lower Kinder age. Especially if it was a lower Kinder age. Being that I have a late May birthday I graduated high school when I was 17. Under this new plan 16 year old high school graduates would be a common thing. :eek:
Get's them into the working world faster, that way. How else are we going to pay for all the babyboomers and their entitlements?

[TUSooner]

Pre-K for 4yos? Meh, OK, as long as it's not too rigorous.

A FEDERAL MANDATE or ENTITLEMENT FOR IT?- NFW

[mdklatt]

All of this is going to change the situation at home, how? Give me a bright kid with parents who care about learing, let him skip pre-k, pre-pre-k, and k. Enroll him in first grade when he's six, and he'll lap the 4th year students by the fouth week of school.

What about the other kids? If we're going to at least pretend to be the land of equal opportunity, early education is the place to try to level the playing field. It's one thing to hold an adult responsible for a lifetime of poor decision making, but are you going to stick it a four-year-old because of who their parents are?

Sorry kid, but I'm not the one who chose to be born to a crack whore.

[sooner_born_1960]

What about the other kids?
Which other kids?

[Hamhock]

It's tough to teach kids to read when half the class still craps their pants and cries all day because they miss mommy.


this thread was a reply to 1TC.

coincidence?

[mdklatt]

Which other kids?

The ones who need pre-K.

[1stTimeCaller]

BeBe's kidz.

;)

[mdklatt]

this thread was a reply to 1TC.

coincidence?

Yes. Otherwise I would have said "pee their pants" instead of "crap their pants".

[85Sooner]

Right now we have Pre K for all four year olds that

1. are on government assistance and
2. all kids who have english as a second language.

Needless to say, My caucasion son whom I support by working 50 hour weeks is not eligible to attend.

[Frozen Sooner]

Pre-K for 4yos? Meh, OK, as long as it's not too rigorous.

A FEDERAL MANDATE or ENTITLEMENT FOR IT?- NFW

Agreed.

A mandate? No way.

An entitlement? Absolutely.

Federal funding to pay for it? Hopefully.

School budgets are stretched too thin as it is.

[sooner_born_1960]

The ones who need pre-K.
If a kid needs pre-k, what he really needs is to wait a year to enroll in k. Some kids just need another year to mature.

[royalfan5]

If a kid needs pre-k, what he really needs is to wait a year to enroll in k. Some kids just need another year to mature.
Would a kid not mature, and gain socialization in Pre-K?

[sooner_born_1960]

Would a kid not mature, and gain socialization in Pre-K?
It doesn't really matter what he does with that year.

[Petro-Sooner]

Ok, someone explain this to me. Why are poor kids allowed free pre-k schooling but others not?

[sooner_born_1960]

Ok, someone explain this to me. Why are poor kids allowed free pre-k schooling but others not?
It makes the do-gooders feel good.

[royalfan5]

It doesn't really matter what he does with that year.
so a 4 yr. old matures at the same pace, irregardless of whether they are engaged in learning activities or ignored?

[Frozen Sooner]

Ok, someone explain this to me. Why are poor kids allowed free pre-k schooling but others not?

Poor kids are statistically much more likely to start school at an educational disadvantage. Pre-K is necessary in many cases to get them to a level where they can even function at the kindergarten level.

That's also somewhat of a canard. Poor kids are given preference into limited free pre-K, AFAIK. It's not limited to only poor kids, they just get first dibs.

[1stTimeCaller]

Right now we have Pre K for all four year olds that

1. are on government assistance and
2. all kids who have english as a second language.

Needless to say, My caucasion son whom I support by working 50 hour weeks is not eligible to attend.

Why does your kid need to go? Does he not have parents that that teach him to read, speak english and basic life skills such as potty training and how to brush his teeth?

I have zero kids that I support and I work 84 hours a week and have worked as long as 21 days straight without a day off. What do I win? What did you pay for your public school education? Nothing. Your parents did just as you are or will be paying for your kid's education now.

[sooner_born_1960]

so a 4 yr. old matures at the same pace, irregardless of whether they are engaged in learning activities or ignored?
Get's back to the home life.

[royalfan5]

Get's back to the home life.
What if there home life sucks? or if the kid is in daycare all day anyway, why not have them in with professional early childhood educators?

[mdklatt]

If a kid needs pre-k, what he really needs is to wait a year to enroll in k. Some kids just need another year to mature.

There was a girl in one of my sister's classes who was teaching the other girls how to pole dance at recess, like she learned from her mom. Do you really think another year at home would have been beneficial?

[mdklatt]

Ok, someone explain this to me. Why are poor kids allowed free pre-k schooling but others not?

Poor kids are the most likely to benefit from it. Why should we provide subsidized pre-K for kids who don't need it and/or whose parents can afford daycare?

[1stTimeCaller]

It's been brought up in this thread before, most communities already have programs like this in place.

IMO, it's cheaper to society to pay for a classroom full of at risk kids than it is to house a handful of prisoners.

[OSUAggie]

heh, I saw a 4-year-old pole dancing on a stop sign the other day in Tulsa. I gave her a dollar.

[Mjcpr]

It's been brought up in this thread before, most communities already have programs like this in place.

IMO, it's cheaper to society to pay for a classroom full of at risk kids than it is to house a handful of prisoners.

Just stick to the stripper threads, Sugar Tits.

[sooner_born_1960]

If HRC had announced her plan to confiscate children from unworthy parents, as defined by the Royal Council of South Ovalites, and put them in the homes of loving parents who cared about education and took the initiative to begin early education of their children, I think the kids might have a fighting chance. I don't think her plan for a pre-k entitlement will do a thing to help the kids.


Please excuse the long first sentence.

[Frozen Sooner]

heh, I saw a 4-year-old pole dancing on a stop sign the other day in Tulsa. I gave her a dollar.

Well, yeah, but I'm sure 4 is past the age of consent for a sheep anyhow.

[mdklatt]

IMO, it's cheaper to society to pay for a classroom full of at risk kids than it is to house a handful of prisoners.

Good luck with trying to make sense. Left-wingers are for spending money even if it's not cost-effective, but right-wingers are against it even if it is.

[mdklatt]

I don't think her plan for a pre-k entitlement will do a thing to help the kids.


What's your experience in the educational field?

[sooner_born_1960]

What's your experience in the educational field?
I'm just a parent.

[Hamhock]

There was a girl in one of my sister's classes who was teaching the other girls how to pole dance at recess, like she learned from her mom. Do you really think another year at home would have been beneficial?

<insert snide home school commment here>

[mdklatt]

I'm just a parent.

My sister deals with this stuff every day. She says pre-K makes a big difference for some kids. I certainly wouldn't support mandatory pre-K for all kids, or even free but optional pre-K for all kids. But paying for pre-K for the kids who need it isn't just cost-effective, it's the right thing to do.

[sooner_born_1960]

I don't see how your sister can measure the difference. My original point was that by the middle of the first nine-weeks of first grade, you won't be able to tell who had pre-k and who didn't. The kids who come from a home where learning and nurturing is a priority are going to surpass the kids who aren't. No matter how many years the latter group spent in various forms of kindergarten.

[1stTimeCaller]

I don't see how your sister can measure the difference.

with her tonsils?:hot:
:pop:

;)

[sooner_born_1960]

Hah. The jokes on you. She doesn't have her tonsils.

[royalfan5]

I'm for any program that teaches the drive thru kids to subtract in their head and speak clearly. Other than that, I don't give a damn about their education because they won't ever pay any taxes for my benefit.
So you are planning to die as soon as you retire?

[mdklatt]

I don't see how your sister can measure the difference.

When she taught kindergarten, the kids without any pre-K and a messed-up home life were all but flinging poo on the walls (although I think there was some of that, too). Now that she's teaching pre-K, she sees at least some of the poo-flingers being ready for kindergarten at the end of the year. And she can at least recommend that the kids who aren't ready for kindergarten be held back. A handful of problem kids can monopolize a teacher's time, which is detrimental to every other kid in the class.

Do you have any evidence other than your own opinion that pre-K doesn't make a difference?

[mdklatt]

with her tonsils?:hot:
:pop:

;)

I don't get it, but I'm pretty I don't want to. :eek: :mad:

[OSUAggie]

Everyone I know that went to pre-K is a ****ing moron.

Whether or not it's because of pre-K is anybody's guess.

[Mjcpr]

Everyone I know that went to pre-K is a ****ing moron.

Whether or not it's because of pre-K is anybody's guess.

I think in your case it's because of where they went post-12.

[TUSooner]

****IMO, it's cheaper to society to pay for a classroom full of at risk kids than it is to house a handful of prisoners.

Yeah, well, uh, true. Good point.

The question is: "Will paying for a room full of kids today save us from the handfull of jailbirds tomorrow?" I think "probably," but it depends....

[royalfan5]

Everyone I know that went to pre-K is a ****ing moron.

Whether or not it's because of pre-K is anybody's guess.
All the girls that I know are Okie State fans have lots of facial hair.

Whether or not it's because of being an Okie State fan is anybodies guess.

[sooner_born_1960]

Do you have any evidence other than your own opinion that pre-K doesn't make a difference?
Everything I've posted is opinion. Just like everyone else.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yeah, well, uh, true. Good point.

The question is: "Will paying for a room full of kids today save us from the handfull of jailbirds tomorrow?" I think "probably," but it depends....

There's a pretty well-established negative correlation between education and prison time.

I don't know that there's a conclusive link between the two. It may just be that people who are instilled with good ethics tend to come from families that emphasize education, better-educated people are better at not getting caught, or what.

[mdklatt]

The question is: "Will paying for a room full of kids today save us from the handfull of jailbirds tomorrow?" I think "probably," but it depends....

From a quick Google, here's one long-term study: http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/pdf/86-100%20barnett%20ackerman.pdf

[mdklatt]

Everything I've posted is opinion. Just like everyone else.

No offense, but I trust my sister's opinion more in this case since that's what she does.

[sooner_born_1960]

I was hoping for an executive summary.

[1stTimeCaller]

Did Andy work on that study?

[sooner_born_1960]

I'll agree that enrollment in pre-k makes a child better prepared for K. If that is the only goal, fine. I'll stop agreeing if someone asserts that this leg-up, or leveling of the palying field has any long-term effect.

[sooner_born_1960]

Did Andy work on that study?
As a subject.

[mdklatt]

I was hoping for an executive summary.

From the little bit I read, TUSooner had it right: It depends.



In sum, ECE [early childhood education] can be a remarkable investment with high returns and important impacts on the educational, social, and economic success of children growing up in disadvantaged circumstances. Yet, the evidence also raises concerns that such gains will not be realized when public policies are brought to scale. Not all studies have found the same results. Moreover, the continued poor educational outcomes of children in poverty raise questions about the effectiveness of current programs.

[FaninAma]

I think Pre-K is a good idea for parents who are unsure of whether their kid is ready for kindergarten. If they are too immature to handle pre-k then it's probably a good idea they are held back a year.

Both of my daughters went to church sponsored pre-k's. I thought it was a very useful and benficial in terms of learning to operate and function in a structured classroom environment.

Apparently in the Ada and Byng school system there is all day pre-k for all kids living in the school district. So far, I have been impressed with the quality of the teachers and the educational environment the kids get exposed to.

I do agree that the best pre-k cannot make up for bad parents but since society has placed no standards on who can be a parent then society has, by default, accepted the responsibility to assist those parents who are poor parents.

I can think of a lot of worse ways to spend money than education....regardless of the age of the person being educated.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think in your case it's because of where they went post-12.You voted with your heart...and your mind.

[TexasLidig8r]

Early childhood education? bah...

First, we should be taking steps to make illegitimate children financially disadvantageous. If a single mother wishes to have a number of illegitimate children in order to obtain more government assistance, have the feds enact legislation that does the opposite.. the more illegitimate children you have, the fewer benefits, welfare, etc. you will be eligible to receive.

We enable the cycle of poverty, despair, and illegitimacy through government subsidies.

You want to try to break that cycle? How about tax breaks for families with children? Have children and you remain married.. great, here's a break on your taxes. You wish to place your 4 year old in day care or pre-K, great... here's more of a tax break.... You're a single, non-custodial parent (notice, I did not say "Dad") and don't pay court ordered child support... fine... mandatory weekend jail terms with a greater proportion of their income going to pay child support.

Early childhood education is merely a symptom... fix the real issue first.. that is, the illegitimacy rate in the United States.

[yermom]

i don't really see how they are related

[FaninAma]

Lid,

You have opened up a whole new can of worms. I am a huge advocate for children and children's rights but I have a hard time understanding why society, despite the incontrovertible facts indicating the best environments for raising healthy, happy and intelligent children, continues to subsidize the very behavior that results in dysfunctional family environments.

But once the children are born society cannot turn its back on them. Therein lies the rub. You are called a Nazi and elitist if you propose parental standards for prospective parents prior to having children.

And you are called heartless and callous if you think society should refuse to pay for or help support children that irresposible "adults" bring into this world despite being woefully unprepared to take care of these children emotionally and financially.

You can tell how old a person is if they remember that it used to be unusual and socially stigmatizing to have a family member who had a child out of wed lock. I remember growing up in SW Okla and the one of the biggest scandals of the small town I lived in was when the high 17 year old unmarried daughter of the mayor turned up pregnant by the captain of the football team. They eventually got married but it was definitely a different time and era.

[TexasLidig8r]

Lid,

You have opened up a whole new can of worms. I am a huge advocate for children and children's rights but I have a hard time understanding why society, despite the incontrovertible facts indicating the best environments for raising healthy, happy and intelligent children, continues to subsidize the very behavior that results in dysfunctional family environments.

But once the children are born society cannot turn its back on them. Therein lies the rub. You are called a Nazi and elitist if you propose parental standards for prospective parents prior to having children.

And you are called heartless and callous if you think society should refuse to pay for or help support children that irresposible "adults" bring into this world despite being woefully unprepared to take care of these children emotinally and financially.

Very true. Nonetheless, continuing to implement legislation that does nothing but in essence, takes parenting decisions away from parents cannot be the best answer. Children today, are having children. They do so knowing that government assistance is always available. Teen age boys engage in unprotected sex knowing their sexual partner, if she gets pregnant, has very little recourse.

Education at age 4 is a parenting decision! Now, the education proposal is saying, "you cannot be trusted to make "proper" educational decisions for your children, so the government is going to make it for you."

If the government insists on becoming increasingly involved in parenting decisions and in the socio-economic structure in the United States, (which I vehemently oppose), then, get involved BEFORE children are born and place emphasis at this stage.

[mdklatt]

You want to try to break that cycle? How about tax breaks for families with children?


I assume you're talking about tax breaks in addition to existing deductions for dependents? I don't mind paying to educate kids that already here, but I am not paying for people to have kids in the first place. We're in no danger of a population implosion, so I don't see any need to encourage the practice.

[FaninAma]

I assume you're talking about tax breaks in addition to existing deductions for dependents? I don't mind paying to educate kids that already here, but I am not paying for people to have kids in the first place. We're in no danger of a population implosion, so I don't see any need to encourage the practice.

Then you better get ready to pony up to have the states beef up their child-support enforcement divisions. At this point, the efforts to force the non-custodial parents to pay for the children they conceived are woefully inadequate.

[yermom]

in OK won't they just take it out of your paycheck?

now if they aren't working...

then they should go to the labor camps ;)

[FaninAma]

in OK won't they just take it out of your paycheck?

now if they aren't working...

then they should go to the labor camps ;)

The statutes are in place to do that but there are so many dead beat parents that the state is miserably slow and behind the curve at tracking and enforcing the stautes with these individuals. And it's not financially feasible to throw all of these individuals in prison.

[mdklatt]

Then you better get ready to pony up to have the states beef up their child-support enforcement divisions. At this point, the efforts to force the non-custodial parents to pay for the children they conceived are woefully inadequate.

Those are kids that are already here. I don't think we need tax breaks (Lid's idea) to encourage people to have kids in the first place. People don't seem to need any fiscal incentive to have sex.

But I do support strong enforcement for child support.

[TexasLidig8r]

Then you better get ready to pony up to have the states beef up their child-support enforcement divisions. At this point, the efforts to force the non-custodial parents to pay for the children they conceived are woefully inadequate.

They don't have to... have the states' attorney general's office contract with private collection agencies to collect support. Strict contingency fee and/or have legislatures in the states mandate that in addition to child support, if collection actions are necessary to recover child support, the responsible parent is responsible for all collection costs. Give limited immunity to those agencies who collect support and let private enterprise compete to collect the most.

[TexasLidig8r]

Those are kids that are already here. I don't think we need tax breaks (Lid's idea) to encourage people to have kids in the first place. People don't seem to need any fiscal incentive to have sex.

But I do support strong enforcement for child support.

The tax breaks would go to couples who remain married after they have kids. Repeated studies show that children from single parent and/or divorced households have a higher drop out rate and are morely likely to commit crimes.

In essence, the government would be subsidizing marriage and remaining in a marriage relationship.

[FaninAma]

Those are kids that are already here. I don't think we need tax breaks (Lid's idea) to encourage people to have kids in the first place. People don't seem to need any fiscal incentive to have sex.

But I do support strong enforcement for child support.

So what's your proposal to promote responsibility? I have dealt with parents now for 15 years now and I can guarantee you that right now most of the younger parents(less than 22) even if they are married, and nearly all of the single mothers haven't given the smallest amount of thought about how they are going to finacially support the child they are about to bring into this world.

They know that they'll have access to medicaid, WIC, food stamps, free education. They also know that the chances of receiving more benefits go up if the parents aren't married.

None of them are interested in postponing having children in order to get more education or better job training. It's an institutionalized problem in large segmets of our society and the mindset keeps creeping into other hertofore unaffected segments. It's been going on for 6 or more generations in this country.

[mdklatt]

The tax breaks would go to couples who remain married after they have kids.

What about some kind of means testing? I'm not too keen on helping to fund a tax break for the Richy McRichersons so they can buy their kid a Lexus for graduation.

[yermom]

The tax breaks would go to couples who remain married after they have kids. Repeated studies show that children from single parent and/or divorced households have a higher drop out rate and are morely likely to commit crimes.

In essence, the government would be subsidizing marriage and remaining in a marriage relationship.

counselor that seems like legislating morality to me...

[FaninAma]

The tax breaks would go to couples who remain married after they have kids. Repeated studies show that children from single parent and/or divorced households have a higher drop out rate and are morely likely to commit crimes.

In essence, the government would be subsidizing marriage and remaining in a marriage relationship.

It would have to be in the form of an earned-income tax credit because a lot of the parents this would affect pay little to no income tax.

I think it will take much more. I think it will take a sea change in societal mores and attitudes. Having children out of wedlock should not be considered just another lifestyle choice. Society should frown on this behavior not because of religious implications but becuase it is a behavior that is detrimental to society.

Society should promote the idea that it's a good thing to wait to have children and even consider age minimums. Why is it OK to have minimum ages for drinking alcohol but not minimum ages for being a parent? Does it require more maturity and intelligence to drink than it does to be a parent? Is underaged drinking more detrimental to society than underaged parents having kids they can't take care of?

[FaninAma]

counselor that seems like legislating morality to me...

Society has legislated morality since the dawn of time. Only recently, and to the detriment of modern societies, has this become a "bad" thing.

[yermom]

what is the difference if you are married or shacked up?

i'm sure it has more to do with the kid not being taken care of vs. whether or not the parents are married or together

i was raised by a single mother, and i'm not in prison

she had a pretty good support system though

[yermom]

Society has legislated morality since the dawn of time. Only recently, and to the detriment of modern societies, has this become a "bad" thing.

society and government are two different things

but adding the marriage thing seems a bit arbitrary

having a dad that gives a damn is probably more effective than just being married to some d00d

(that's not a shot at my dad, btw)

[royalfan5]

The tax breaks would go to couples who remain married after they have kids. Repeated studies show that children from single parent and/or divorced households have a higher drop out rate and are morely likely to commit crimes.

In essence, the government would be subsidizing marriage and remaining in a marriage relationship.
If the parents are staying together for the tax break, is that really going to create a more healthy enviroment for the kids?

[FaninAma]

what is the difference if you are married or shacked up?

i'm sure it has more to do with the kid not being taken care of vs. whether or not the parents are married or together

i was raised by a single mother, and i'm not in prison

she had a pretty good support system though

Kudos to your family for stepping up and providing your mother with support.

I was the reverse. My parents were married and my Dad skipped out and didn't pay child support. But like your situation my family stepped in until my mother could get back on her feet. The problem is that the government has negated the role of the family in stepping in and assuming their rightful place in these situations. And you probably agree that the government is a poor substitute for family.

And in a lot of situations the the process is entering the 3rd, 4th, 5th and even 6th generations and becoming so ingrained that it's accepted that family has no role or responsibility in these situations. It's can be extremely difficult to break the cycle of government/societal dependence.

[Okla-homey]

Four pages later, I remain unconvinced that the state has any responsibility to conduct free universal child care for four year olds.

Great discussion though. Remarkably civil too.

[1stTimeCaller]

Four pages later, I remain unconvinced that the state has any responsibility to conduct free universal child care for four year olds.

Great discussion though. Remarkably civil too.

go **** yourself!
;)

One of my best friends has a 5 year old. He hasn't had a job in the past two years. I don't think his kid has ever had a job ;). Anyhoo, my buddy just lives with his parents and hangs out watching MTV all day. The baby's momma just had another kid with another person that she isn't married to and she has no plans on getting married. Add another kid to our tax rolls.

It's sad.

[mdklatt]

Four pages later, I remain unconvinced that the state has any responsibility to conduct free universal child care for four year olds.


Did you send your daughter to kiddygarden back in the day?

[stoopified]

Way to go Billary
Backing or Calling for something thats been Going on for a long time .:P
As usual she is just blowin' in the wind.On second thought I don't think she blows anything,that is why Bill had Monica. :D

[TexasLidig8r]

As usual she is just blowin' in the wind.On second thought I don't think she blows anything,that is why Bill had Monica. :D

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Bill_Clinton.jpg

[Okla-homey]

Did you send your daughter to kiddygarden back in the day?

Yes. When she was 5, like the good Lord intended. We paid for it too. Like the framers of the Constitution intended.;)

[mdklatt]

Yes. When she was 5, like the good Lord intended.

So, subsidized daycare is okay for 5-year-olds but not 4-year-olds? That's pretty arbitrary.


We paid for it too. Like the framers of the Constitution intended.;)

She went to private school?

[BU BEAR]

So, subsidized daycare is okay for 5-year-olds but not 4-year-olds? That's pretty arbitrary.



I say we end "free" public education and let parents pay to send them to whatever school they choose. Say good bye to ISD property taxes and the voucher argument becomes moot.

Parents get the freedom to choose where their child is educated and are not forced to subsidize an underperforming product solely because of where they choose to pitch their tent. If you want to bankroll an underperforming school, it will be your choice based on where you send your child rather than where your home is located.

I would also couple this with the freedom of schools to educate only who they choose to admit. Let the schools get rid of the discipline problems, those who are not interested in learning and those who hold the rest of the class back. Some people were just meant to retread tires, some are destined by their choices to wind up in our penal system and others value education and will appreciate it.

[Okla-homey]

So, subsidized daycare is okay for 5-year-olds but not 4-year-olds? That's pretty arbitrary.



She went to private school?

Yes, she went to a private kindergarten. So did I in 1965 in backwoods Ardmore, OK. Frankly, I don't think the gubmint has any business in the kindergarten sector. I also feel there should be means testing for free public school in grades 1-12. But that's just me.;)

[Okla-homey]

I say we end "free" public education and let parents pay to send them to whatever school they choose. Say good bye to ISD property taxes and the voucher argument becomes moot.

Parents get the freedom to choose where their child is educated and are not forced to subsidize an underperforming product solely because of where they choose to pitch their tent. If you want to bankroll an underperforming school, it will be your choice based on where you send your child rather than where your home is located.

I would also couple this with the freedom of schools to educate only who they choose to admit. Let the schools get rid of the discipline problems, those who are not interested in learning and those who hold the rest of the class back. Some people were just meant to retread tires, some are destined by their choices to wind up in our penal system and others value education and will appreciate it.

The world needs ditchdiggers too.:D

[SoonerInKCMO]

I say we end "free" public education and let parents pay to send them to whatever school they choose. Say good bye to ISD property taxes and the voucher argument becomes moot.


Yeah, **** them poor kids; they don't need no schoolin'.

[BU BEAR]

Yeah, **** them poor kids; they don't need no schoolin'.

Good for you.

The market will allow there to be a school for all income strata. Where there is a need there will be product. It might surprise you, but many private schools give need based scholarships.

Coming from one of the poorest school districts in Texas, I can tell you that I am sensitive your argument and I also see that the need could be met.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Children of poor people already get an inferior education when compared to those of wealthy parents. Privatizing all education will only make that disparity greater. I know that many private schools currently give scholarships for some needy students; but shutting down the public schools would, at least in the short term, overwhelm the scholarship resources. Many kids would fall through the cracks - more so than currently.

[TexasLidig8r]

Nonetheless.. and for the most part, as I paint with a very broad brush here, public education may be public.. but, it is not much of an education. Our education system has become a system based on race, teaching at best, to the average kid and truly gifted children, or children from wealthier households, go to private schools.

Our schools are more concerned with "social passing" of students and making sure, that HEAVEN FORBID! God is NEVER mentioned in any way, shape or form and instead, we must make sure that we teach and educate, NOT so our children can necessarily learn but so that they can pass a standardized test enabling the school, and school district, to continue to receive federal funding.

Public education is permanently and tragically broken.. teacher morale is low and there is more a sense of "babysitting" these children than of shaping the minds of our leaders of tomorrow.

I see no sense whatsoever in exposing children at 4 (or 5) years of age, to this broken, bankrupt system.

harruph!

[BigRedJed]

The word is "harrumph." Tier one, my ***.

[Mjcpr]

Don't mind him, he's just wheezing.

[BigRedJed]

HE HAS A FREAKING LAW DEGREE!!

[Mjcpr]

Allegedly. And from a public university.

[Okla-homey]

Nonetheless.. and for the most part, as I paint with a very broad brush here, public education may be public.. but, it is not much of an education. Our education system has become a system based on race, teaching at best, to the average kid and truly gifted children, or children from wealthier households, go to private schools.

Our schools are more concerned with "social passing" of students and making sure, that HEAVEN FORBID! God is NEVER mentioned in any way, shape or form and instead, we must make sure that we teach and educate, NOT so our children can necessarily learn but so that they can pass a standardized test enabling the school, and school district, to continue to receive federal funding.

Public education is permanently and tragically broken.. teacher morale is low and there is more a sense of "babysitting" these children than of shaping the minds of our leaders of tomorrow.

I see no sense whatsoever in exposing children at 4 (or 5) years of age, to this broken, bankrupt system.

harruph!

I agree with the wHorn. However, I would like to state, for the record, I don't favor deep-sixing free public eductaion. Just means testing it. Kinda like free or reduced price school lunch. Below a certain income threshold, no pay. Graduated increments above that threshold where people pay a specified amount per month for every child enrolled.

Oh yeah, about the deadbeats who won't pay? Let the kids stay in school but add the debt to their guardian's tax liability. :D

[BU BEAR]

Children of poor people already get an inferior education when compared to those of wealthy parents.

Like I said, I come from one of the poorest districts in Texas. I stacked up quite well against those from the richest districts in academic competitions in high school and once I got to college.

It has less to do with money than your premise would tend to indicate. While I might agree that there is a correlation, I think causation is in serious doubt.

[royalfan5]

I agree with the wHorn. However, I would like to state, for the record, I don't favor deep-sixing free public eductaion. Just means testing it. Kinda like free or reduced price school lunch. Below a certain income threshold, no pay. Graduated increments above that threshold where people pay a specified amount per month for every child enrolled.

Oh yeah, about the deadbeats who won't pay? Let the kids stay in school but add the debt to their guardian's tax liability. :D
Doesn't linking school funding to property taxes provide somewhat of a defacto means test in and of itself? People tend to pay more for property in well regarded districts, so they end up paying more for their children's education.

[mdklatt]

Doesn't linking school funding to property taxes provide somewhat of a defacto means test in and of itself?

Now this makes perfect sense...which means that's not how it works in Oklahoma. Around here, I believe schools funding is linked to vehicle registration fees or something. Property taxes probably help fund the turnpike authority.

[Frozen Sooner]

I know school funding here is linked to property taxes. However, the state kicks a HUGE portion in for rural communities.

[mdklatt]

However, the state kicks a HUGE portion in for rural communities.

Maybe that's what's funded by registration fees. When you look at the breakdown of what those fees go to, very of little of seems to be related to vehicle usage.

[Frozen Sooner]

Nah, not here. The state is pretty much 100% funded by oil royalties. Sure, we collect registration fees, but a lot of that is the individual community, not the state. For example, my 2005 C240 just cost me $177 to register, but had I lived in another area of the state it would have been like $110.

[royalfan5]

I know school funding here is linked to property taxes. However, the state kicks a HUGE portion in for rural communities.
In Nebraska, schools are funded by property taxes mostly, with a lid of $1.00 of valuation per $1000. The lid can be overrode by a majority vote of the citizens in the district for a certain amount and time frame. The state kicks in a set amount of aid per student, with higher amounts for reduced price lunch students, Native American's and sparsely populated disticts out west. Ag land is taxed at .75 of valuation for these purposes as well. The system seems to work decently.

[Frozen Sooner]

See, here most of the rural communities don't even have property taxes, since they're unincorporated. Tough to argue you should pay property taxes when there ain't no city roads, police, or fire department.

[Sooner_Bob]

My five year-old turned five 4 days after the deadline last fall that would've allowed her to attend kindergarten.

I have little doubt that she would've thrived in kindergarten just like she is now in pre-K.

Will she gain more of an advantage because she's participated in pre-K for the last year? Maybe.

But I'm bettin' she's got more of an advantage because she's got an older sister, a mom who's a teacher . . . and well, she is my kid after all. She can't help but be sharp.

:D




Seriously, the socialization kids get in pre-K is more important IMO than probably anything else they'll get. They learn to play with others and deal with authority.

[royalfan5]

See, here most of the rural communities don't even have property taxes, since they're unincorporated. Tough to argue you should pay property taxes when there ain't no city roads, police, or fire department.
You pay the property taxes to the school district here. Everybody is in a school district. Same for community colleges in Nebraska as well.

[hurricane'bone]

Property taxes help fund Public Schools in Oklahoma.


The property tax provides more tax dollars for local services in
Oklahoma than any other source. Property taxes help to pay for public
schools, city streets, county roads, police, fire protection and many other
services.

http://www.oktax.state.ok.us/oktax/advform/TES-14.pdf

[sooner_born_1960]

See, here most of the rural communities don't even have property taxes, since they're unincorporated. Tough to argue you should pay property taxes when there ain't no city roads, police, or fire department.
In Oklahoma, incorporation doesn't make a difference. You pay your property taxes to the county. Do they have counties in AK?

[mdklatt]

In Oklahoma, incorporation doesn't make a difference. You pay your property taxes to the county. Do they have counties in AK?

I think they call them bouroughs in Alaska, and there's only a handful of them so each one is like the size of Montana.