According to a new 50-state report on child care policies just released by the National Women's Law Center, the Bush administration has successful dismantled government services for children. State funds for child care assistance have fallen for the fifth year in a row. The problem will soon become catastrophic. One person wrote: "Instead of subsidizing health and decency the Administration is subsidizing death, destruction, corruption and decay." Shouldn't US children be a priority?
2006-10-05 11:53:52 · 9 answers · asked by Reba K 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Because the politicians running confuse the issues with mud slinging and the voters are unable to get a clear picture of how the candidate will act and vote in office. What happened to candidates speaking on the issues and not personalities?
I bet the people who voted for Mark Foley are sorry now!
2006-10-05 12:12:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federal Child Care funds have not decreased significantly in the past few years, but child care is only a minor part of assistance for poor children and families. Bush as proposed eliminating a number federal programs that do offer services to the poor--I know as I work in programs to assist the poor, and it has been a struggle the last few years to get adequate funding. Bush also wants to give any $ that do go to the poor to the churches instead of the existing nonprofits that don't discriminate based on religion , or require you practice their religion in order to get food and shelter.
2006-10-05 21:38:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Decent", that's a tough word. I usually vote for more Democrats than I do Republicans but I imagine some Dems have voted for bills that had burried in them, somewhere down the the fine print, the redution of spending on certain programs for poor children. However, it certainly appears that the main thurst of the Republican party is "let's keep government from interfering with people taking care of themselves" and the main thrust of the Dems seems to be the belief that "most people aren't smart enough to take care of themselves so let's let government do that for them." So my question would be "is either party decent?"
2006-10-05 19:03:07 · answer #3 · answered by ScubaGuy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, children should be our priority. But without reading a full scale research on the services, etc I would withhold judgement. Just b/c there were services doesn't mean they were being executed and used effectively or efficiently.
2006-10-05 19:02:28 · answer #4 · answered by Tracy S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not the job/responsibility of the federal government to act as surrogate parents for children. The government already has exceeded it's constitutional responsibilities as it is. If you want someone to look after you, go home to momma.
2006-10-05 23:34:02 · answer #5 · answered by sparc77 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Those poor kids should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go work in a factory if their parents can't provide an expensive education for them. Or at least that is how republicans think.
2006-10-05 19:53:19 · answer #6 · answered by Duffman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You answer is in your question and some of the answers, some Americans don't give a darn about the children.
2006-10-06 11:06:18 · answer #7 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
O brother - did you read what you wrote? The STATE funding has fallen...hmmm hello ..states - you know - they make up the union. I do NOT want the federal govt paying for child care!!!
2006-10-05 19:01:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
US children should be the responsibility of US parents.
2006-10-05 19:02:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋