BF2S Forums Children die in hot car

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I don't give a fuck for what is implied - what is important is what is explicitly stated.

OK.  Why should the government subsidize child care for employees of private businesses?

Remember, be explicit.

SenorToenails wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I don't give a fuck for what is implied - what is important is what is explicitly stated.

OK.  Why should the government subsidize child care for employees of private businesses?

Remember, be explicit.

A company that provides childcare is a good company. People wish to work for and buy products/services from good companies. Good companies do well. Companies that do well are good for the economy. Not all companies can afford to provide childcare.

SenorToenails wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

A company that provides childcare is a good company. People wish to work for and buy products/services from good companies. Good companies do well. Companies that do well are good for the economy. Not all companies can afford to provide childcare.

When I buy a product, I don't think "Gee, does this company provide day care?"  I am sure most people don't.

You propose an argument that says why day care is good.  That does not explain why the government should subsidize day care.  Besides, it will lead to more taxes.  I don't like taxes. 

Like I said before.  Keep your hands out of my wallet.

Because it is good for the economy.

mcminty wrote:

lowing wrote:

To FORCE companies to open up day care centers so you can pawn off your responsibility for your child care is ludicrous.

Any socially responsible workplace would have family-friendly work practices. These include 'flexible working hours' and possibly some daycare facility for its employees children.

Where do you people come from? It is not a companies responsibility or the tax payers responsibility to raise your rug rats. IT IS YOURS!!.

If a company that makes widgets WANTED to open a day care, they woulda GONE INTO BUSINESS as doing so.

You put  "social responsibility" over PERSONAL responsibility, and THIS is exactly why I am a million miles away from you and your ideology.

Last edited by lowing (2007-08-06 02:23:50)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

mcminty wrote:

lowing wrote:

To FORCE companies to open up day care centers so you can pawn off your responsibility for your child care is ludicrous.

Any socially responsible workplace would have family-friendly work practices. These include 'flexible working hours' and possibly some daycare facility for its employee's children.

Precisely. But lowing clearly doesn't do social responsibility.

Yeah there ya go, I'M the asshole because I choose to exercise personal responsibility and don't need or want the govt. raising my kids. Figures.

You forgot to call me a racist, I am sure you can find a way to squeeze that into your argument as well.

You keep saying "personal responsibility" but after a while it just sounds like "Mine! MINE! MINE!!!! I've got mine, fuck you!". Never mind the fact that good, solid healthcare and daycare usually results in more productive employees, greater profits for the company that aren't lost paying for sick days/personal days or overtime or temp workers and an overall stronger company. You're too afraid that somebody might be taking a few measly dollars out of your pocket a year for it.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

You keep saying "personal responsibility" but after a while it just sounds like "Mine! MINE! MINE!!!! I've got mine, fuck you!". Never mind the fact that good, solid healthcare and daycare usually results in more productive employees, greater profits for the company that aren't lost paying for sick days/personal days or overtime or temp workers and an overall stronger company. You're too afraid that somebody might be taking a few measly dollars out of your pocket a year for it.

You are correct, I do mean MINE MINE MINE, as in MY kids, MY responsibility.MY decision, and the problem with that is........?

If a company, CHOOSES to provide such services for its employees because they think it will provide greater profits and productivity, great, they have my blessing and my respect. To FORCE them to do so is wrong. To force the tax payer to raise your kids is equally as wrong. Taking care of YOUR family is YOUR responsibility, no one elses.

Last edited by lowing (2007-08-06 02:52:13)

mcminty wrote:

lowing wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Any socially responsible workplace would have family-friendly work practices. These include 'flexible working hours' and possibly some daycare facility for its employees children.

Where do you people come from? It is not a companies responsibility or the tax payers responsibility to raise your rug rats. IT IS YOURS!!.

If a company that makes widgets WANTED to open a day care, they woulda GONE INTO BUSINESS as doing so.

You put  "social responsibility" over PERSONAL responsibility, and THIS is exactly why I am a million miles away from you and your ideology.

Please indicate, through the use of " tags", where I said that taxpayers should get involved.

Ummmmmmmmm what exactly do you think "government subsidised" means?? I know to the people benefiting from it, it is just FREE services and FREE money, FREE housing, FREE healthcare, FREE retirement, but for those that provide government subsidies, it is OUR money, IE taxpayer money that is providing all this FREE shit to those who refuse to provide for themselves.

SenorToenails wrote:

A few measly dollars for this, a few for that, and it really adds up.  I think it is reasonable to say "If you want it, you pay for it."

Besides, if it is such a boon for the company, why don't they pay for it?  The problem here is the concept of government subsidies for day care programs, not the idea of day care itself.

Well, I guess my dilemma is, why do people balk at a few million in subsidies for healthcare or daycare but don't feel inclined to squawk about a few billion in subsidies for corporations? Individual people get told "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "take responsibility for yourself" and my favorite "winners drive home in the dark". Corporations get told "Oh, you're struggling? Here's some taxpayer money. Congratulations on posting the biggest third-quarter profits in American history.". Welfare for people is wrong and bad and socialist, welfare for corporations is good and righteous even if it's on a scale that makes welfare for people look like the lint you find in the bottom of your wallet.

Now the other part is, a lot of corporations just won't pay for it, whether it's because it just doesn't fit into their cost/benefit picture or they just plain don't fucking feel like it. And before anyone says "Well then work for someone who does", not everybody has the luxury of being able to switch jobs or pick and choose where they're going to work. Of course that'll be more fodder for the "personal responsibility" crowd, who only seem to stop short at the point of suggesting that the worker should have had the foresight to be born under better circumstances.

The sad thing is, this could be of great benefit to society. But because some people have this bizarre pre-programmed response to any talk of government-funded social programs while ignoring much more massive use of taxpayer money in other areas, we're not going to have it. What's really mind-boggling is that people will cut themselves off at the knees over this, ensuring that services they themselves might have need of in the future won't be there if they do. But I can say from personal experience, having chanted the mantra of "personal responsibility" for a good chunk of my life, ending up where I needed to rely on those services was a serious fucking wakeup call.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

Well, I guess my dilemma is, why do people balk at a few million in subsidies for healthcare or daycare but don't feel inclined to squawk about a few billion in subsidies for corporations? Individual people get told "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "take responsibility for yourself" and my favorite "winners drive home in the dark". Corporations get told "Oh, you're struggling? Here's some taxpayer money. Congratulations on posting the biggest third-quarter profits in American history.". Welfare for people is wrong and bad and socialist, welfare for corporations is good and righteous even if it's on a scale that makes welfare for people look like the lint you find in the bottom of your wallet.

Now the other part is, a lot of corporations just won't pay for it, whether it's because it just doesn't fit into their cost/benefit picture or they just plain don't fucking feel like it. And before anyone says "Well then work for someone who does", not everybody has the luxury of being able to switch jobs or pick and choose where they're going to work. Of course that'll be more fodder for the "personal responsibility" crowd, who only seem to stop short at the point of suggesting that the worker should have had the foresight to be born under better circumstances.

The sad thing is, this could be of great benefit to society. But because some people have this bizarre pre-programmed response to any talk of government-funded social programs while ignoring much more massive use of taxpayer money in other areas, we're not going to have it. What's really mind-boggling is that people will cut themselves off at the knees over this, ensuring that services they themselves might have need of in the future won't be there if they do. But I can say from personal experience, having chanted the mantra of "personal responsibility" for a good chunk of my life, ending up where I needed to rely on those services was a serious fucking wakeup call.

Where in there did I say I like the idea of corporate welfare?  I didn't say or imply that, and I certainly don't like it.  The issue brought up was another program that would require more taxes.  If the government would stop subsidizing corporations and maybe applied the currently taxed dollars towards something good for the masses, then what the hell.  I will go for it.  What I don't want is more goddamn taxes.  It really irks me how many people think that tax dollars can just appear out of nowhere to fund whatever it is that is bothering them that day.

My father, an air traffic controller, had a conversation with some woman at an airport the other day.  She wanted to know why there are so many delays with flights, even when the weather is favorable.  A lot of it comes down to there aren't enough runways to allow all the aircraft to land instantaneously.  Her solution: Build more runways.  How to pay for it?  More taxes!  That is the attitude I cannot stand.

I like the idea the Cato Institute suggests for eliminating corporate handouts and subsidies.

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are correct, I do mean MINE MINE MINE, as in MY kids, MY responsibility.MY decision, and the problem with that is........?

If a company, CHOOSES to provide such services for its employees because they think it will provide greater profits and productivity, great, they have my blessing and my respect. To FORCE them to do so is wrong. To force the tax payer to raise your kids is equally as wrong. Taking care of YOUR family is YOUR responsibility, no one elses.

Other taxpayers without children who live in your school district are forced to pay for their schooling.

Other taxpayers who unlike you don't believe we should be in Iraq are forced to finance it.

Hell, other taxpayers were probably also forced to pay for your little jaunt to Iraq.

I guess the coercive taxation power of government is okay when it supports you, eh?

I expect little else from the "born on third and think they hit a triple" crowd besides this "Why should I provide for the lazy parasites of the world" shit. You'll sit in your gated communities and decry the crime and poverty outside while you vote for people who want to build more prisons than schools. You'll scream about people on welfare getting "free money" from the government on your dime but you'll scream even louder when your Social Security check doesn't arrive on time. You'll bitch about people trying to force you to "raise their kids" while your favored politicians pass laws telling other parents what kind of television shows they can watch or what kind of music they can listen to or what kind of games they can play. You think your decisions are the best for everyone because in your arrogance you believe that your way of thinking and living is the best, that somehow you're the apex of thousands of years of human societal development.

Just makes it all the more entertaining watching you fuckers fall from grace. Nobody cracks faster when they fall on hard times than some dumbshit who thought they had it all wrapped up. It's not guaranteed, as a matter of fact you'll probably skate through the rest of your life without encountering any serious hardship until your kids dump you off at the seniors' home. But it's also not an impossibility either, trust me on that one. Nobody's immune to chance. No amount of denigrating the people below you will change the fact that a good twist of fate could put you right where they are.

I've wasted enough time that could have better be spent sleeping on you. Scorpion, mcminty, you can pick this back up if you can stomach it.

Ya got me all wrong there as well, I do not want to pay into Social Security, nor do I expect it when I retire, ( it won't be there anyway). I do not feel it is the govts. job to regulate what my kids watch on TV. All that you mention is MY responsibility. Sorry that word turns your stomach, but try taking an aspirin, then, based on your post, a Prozac.

I think my decisions are best for ME, not for everyone. See, that is the beauty of personal responsibility, I can choose what is best for me and my family and so can everyone else. WITHOUT the govt. telling us what is best. The problem is, there are those that can not make decisions for themselves or make shitty ones and would rather the govt. make them for ALL of us instead. I do not expect to have to pay for someone eles irresponsibility.

Last edited by lowing (2007-08-06 03:53:34)

Here where I live, a couple weeks ago, a man had his routine day changed a little and ended up taking his baby boy (11mos) to work with him not realizing he didn't drop his son off at day care.  Parked in his parking lot at 9am, got calls from his wife who was at the day care wondering where her son was..he ran out to the car in the parking lot (2pm now) and found his baby son dead in the car seat in the 120 degree heat inside the car.

Another woman somewhere went shopping inside Target leaving her child strapped in their car seat.  For 30 minutes this lady was inside shopping and only because one of the shopping cart employees saw the child and acted quickly, they got the child out of the car smashing the window.  When the police showed up and fire department, they rushed the baby off to the hospital because she was heat exhausted...still, the mother hadn't noticed or gone outside..the police went inside the store and eventually found her.

WHO should get WHAT charges?  The man, a dreadful accident?  The woman, complete neglect?  I have 3 little ones and we call police when we see people driving their kids around without car seats let alone finding a child in a car.  Every parent imagines this happening to their own children when we read these things.  We imagine what would/should become of us if we did such a horrible thing?  If we didn't commit suicide or snap and become a nervous wreck trying to die, I could see ourselves doing TIME.  It wouldn't serve ANYONE if we went to jail.  The horror of what we did would be 100x worse than prison.  But what of the people who do it intentionally?  Jail? 

I think there should be parenting classes/licensing of sorts.  We need to be tested and licensed to drive, why not for marriage and for parenting?  At least with an incentive for tax purposes or something since it couldn't be compulsory.  Such a training could cover basics like this;  "Do not dump your babies in dumpsters, drop them off at a hospital."  "If you are not getting along with your spouse, and you're too lazy to try and work things out, think of your kids and the shattered lives they'll have if you divorce."  or "If you're in an abusive relationship, do not put up with it because "he/she's" nice some of the time!"

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-08-06 08:53:25)

voodoosniper7 wrote:

not to be a smart ass but couldn't the 4 year old be able to open the door by him/herself?

My 4 year old son can barely get his car seat unlocked, let alone his 2 year old brother's car seat latch.  They're meant to be pretty hard to open.  it's reasonable to think some can't.