Homeless Mom Arrested After Leaving Kids in Car During Job Interview

[Kythia]

Actually, consortium is very much articulating my assertion.  If the United States were serious about offering subsidies for daycare, there would likely provide a dollar amount subsidy per adult based on earned income.  The adult would then be able to select from a wide variety of private daycare facilities, and choose a price point that worked for their needs (and number of kids).

So, lets assume that the limit you refer to here:

What I would say though, is that as far as free daycare service, there should be some sort of a cap, or limit on this.  While from an ethical perspective, we should offer this even if a homeless person has 6 children, realistically, we must also be fiscally conscious.

is a cap of two kids.  Just to pick a number.  You claim that those two kids should receive the free daycare but not the third.  The third kid costs exactly the same as the first two, why are you willing to pay for the first two but not the third?  If you were going purely on fiscal sense, you'd pay for all of them or none of them, surely, as the costs don't change.  Either its worth paying for or its not.  There has to be another aspect here on top of you avowed fiscal sensibility.

[Iniquitous]

Because if you do not put a cap on the number of children free childcare is provided for you could very well end up with someone who thinks like the Duggar's come waltzing in with 13 children. That's a lot of money used for one family. By saying "here's the cap, any children over this cap you have to pay X amount a year for" you are one, making it clear that some responsibility is on the parents and two, offsetting the cost of providing daycare.

[Valthazar]

I am not sure what you are trying to get at.

Based on someone's income level, they would receive a corresponding subsidy to pay for daycare - which would factor in the number of children they have.  This is generally how subsidy programs work, like the Affordable Care Act.  Depending on one's income, and the number of dependents (children) in your household, the subsidy will vary considerably.  These subsidy rates are preset based on financial analysis.

For example, with the ACA, you can use this calculator to see how subsidies vary based on family size, and earned income:
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

[Kythia]

IO - that's exactly my point.

By putting that limit in you're no longer talking about "fiscal sensibility".  You're making political and moral value judgements.  By necessity, at that point, arguments about monetary and economic efficiency are playing second fiddle.  People make political and moral value judgements every day, there's nothing wrong with it.  But we should be open about when we're doing it.

Val - as above, really.  There's no justification for putting the cut off after two children instead of after three beyond what "feels right" is my core point.  The situation doesn't change unless the cap is either zero or infinity.  Solely how much money you're prepared to give to the program. 

[Valthazar]

It is very much a financial issue.  For example, if the subsidies for the ACA were higher, more people would have affordable healthcare coverage.  They aren't higher though, because more federal subsidies would mean greater expenditure by the federal government.

[Kythia]

I didn't say it wasn't a financial issue.  You are putting that cap in to encourage people to have less children.  That's why you want it in, right?  That was why you said you wanted it in in the first place, but I'm not sure if that has changed.

That cap could go in after one, two, three, etc children.  With steadily escalating costs.  By putting it in after x children not x+1 you are making a value judgement on how many children is "ok" and how many "too much".

[Valthazar]

As I said earlier, our philosophical basis in evaluating policy is likely why we hold different views on many other topics as well.  I can explain to you my perspective on this issue, but realize that we simply hold two equally valid, but different views.

I work in the field of business, and I'm a strong believer that economic limitations drive behavior.  As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare.  In contrast, a subsidy rate (in $ amount) is determined through a calculation no different from one used for the ACA, which takes into account earned income and family size.  This subsidy is provided to the parent to purchase daycare services.

The parent has a variety of private daycare plans to choose from - extremely cheap to extremely expensive, giving the parent the ability to choose how many of their children are covered under the subsidy.  As with the ACA, the decision making is in the consumer's hands.

The ACA offers higher subsidies for larger families, but it operates on a curve, factoring in earned income.

[Kythia]

I work in the field of business, and I'm a strong believer that economic limitations drive behavior.  As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare. 

No, but it does place a limit on how many will be funded.

Once the subsidy is extinguished, the remainder of the cost (for instance, beyond the maximum children per adult permitted via subsidy)

Since you asked what I meant by negative feedback, I was referring to daycare facilities having caps on the number of children per adult that were subsidized in full via the social aide program. 

Which is implicitly the government saying how many is appropriate - you say it yourself in that last post with "economic limitations drive behaviour".  You are basing your policy on a desire to change/regulate behaviour.  That's fine (actually, I disagree with it but that disagreement is waaaaaaay outside the scope of this conversation). 

My sole point is to make clear that claiming a program explicitly designed to regulate behaviour from someone who "<tends> to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in <their> view of any policy" is bordering slightly on the disingenuous.  In this policy, the one we were discussing when you made the claim, fiscal sensibility is not your primary consideration.  Controlling behaviour is.   Consortiums comments don't apply because the aim here isn't to manage money efficiently, it's to give "negative repercussions" to people who have more children than you think they should have.

Fine.  All of that is fine, if that's the argument you're making.  But be honest about it.

I'm not sure we're going to get any further on this though, are we.

Have a good Easter.

[Valthazar]

I appreciate the validity of your perspective, but please realize that mine is not disingenuous.  Milton Friedman was at the polar extreme of this view - that the natural decision-making behaviors of men and women are regulated by the economic conditions they face.  In other words, these economic conditions are not drivers of behavior modification, but simply the natural external factors influencing mankind's decision-making at the truest level.  I am not at his end of the spectrum, I am much more of a moderate, since I encourage the implementation of subsidies, as well as several programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 

However, in my perspective, I think his view of economics driving the natural behavior of people is a valuable one.  You are certainly entitled to disagree, but suggesting that these views are disingenuous is failing to at least acknowledge the merit of libertarian perspectives on the role of economics on personal behavior.

[Kythia]

I appreciate the validity of your perspective, but please realize that mine is not disingenuous.  Milton Friedman was at the polar extreme of this view - that the natural decision-making behaviors of men and women are regulated by the economic conditions they face.  In other words, these economic conditions are not drivers of behavior modification, but simply the natural external factors influencing mankind's decision-making at the truest level.  I am not at his end of the spectrum, I am much more of a moderate, since I encourage the implementation of subsidies, as well as several programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

However, in my perspective, I think his view of economics driving the natural behavior of people is a valuable one.  You are certainly entitled to disagree, but suggesting that these views are disingenuous is failing to at least acknowledge the merit of libertarian perspectives on the role of economics on personal behavior.

This is not remotely related to what we were discussing. 

I'm out.

[Zakharra]

No, but it does place a limit on how many will be funded.

Which is implicitly the government saying how many is appropriate - you say it yourself in that last post with "economic limitations drive behaviour".  You are basing your policy on a desire to change/regulate behaviour.  That's fine (actually, I disagree with it but that disagreement is waaaaaaay outside the scope of this conversation).

  At some point there does need to be a limit on what is the appropriate number and the government should -not- spend any more money on people who do things like keep producing children. Honestly, it's rare fort many women to have more than what, 2-4 children now?  The government should not be seen as a source of revenue for those people, especially not the sole source and there should be a point when that revenue is cut off (not counting Soci Sec or MediCare/Aid) because the person is sponging off the government. At some point the person themselves needs to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves and their families. I'm not against the government giving some help, but not to an excess. There needs to be an arbitrary limit at which financial aid is cut off.

[Kythia]

  At some point there does need to be a limit on what is the appropriate number and the government should -not- spend any more money on people who do things like keep producing children. Honestly, it's rare fort many women to have more than what, 2-4 children now?  The government should not be seen as a source of revenue for those people, especially not the sole source and there should be a point when that revenue is cut off (not counting Soci Sec or MediCare/Aid) because the person is sponging off the government. At some point the person themselves needs to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves and their families. I'm not against the government giving some help, but not to an excess. There needs to be an arbitrary limit at which financial aid is cut off.

For the purposes of this conversation, I agree.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that Val was trying to pretend his policy wasn't based on that.

[Zakharra]

 He is correct that at some point there does need to be a disincentive to stop or slow the behavior. Some people (many) will in fact abuse the system if they can get something from it. Financial disincentive is one of the most effective methods though in curbing excess. No many, people tend to stop doing it. you might call it a tax (which you did I think), but I fail to see how requiring people to start paying for services is a tax when they are using it excessively.

[Kythia]

He is correct that at some point there does need to be a disincentive to stop or slow the behavior. Some people (many) will in fact abuse the system if they can get something from it. Financial disincentive is one of the most effective methods though in curbing excess. No many, people tend to stop doing it. you might call it a tax (which you did I think), but I fail to see how requiring people to start paying for services is a tax when they are using it excessively.

He may or may not be correct.  Once again, that's not the point.  The point is that there is a game changing difference between supporting a policy because it makes good financial sense and supporting one because it encourages society to be the way you think it should be.  Regardless of whether you think society should be "good" or "bad", pretending you have reasons for supporting a policy that you actually don't is sinister.

Again, as I have said repeatedly, I don't care if his argument is in favour of changing society, I care about the deception in pretending its not.

[Oniya]

If there is a cap, regardless of how much it is, there needs to be a way for people to limit their ability to conceive - one that is accessible to women (or men) of any socioeconomic background.  Accessible not solely as far as cost, but also as far as moral judgement.  As long as birth control and abortion are stigmatized, then women will get pregnant above this 'cap', feel that they have no option other than to carry the child to term, and will therefore have to deal with the (far greater) costs of raising the child and having to deal with child care. 

The lower on the socioeconomic scale you go, the less accessible contraception becomes - ergo, the more likely it is that people in that strata will have children (wanted and otherwise) above the arbitrary cap.  It is far easier for a middle-class or higher individual to maintain their family size under the cap, since they have access to condoms, birth control pills, etc.  With the religious right's vendetta against things like Planned Parenthood, the people with low income don't.

As a result, any cap without free and unstigmatized access to birth control for everyone is going to put the burden squarely on those who can't afford it.  We've all seen how successful 'abstinence only' education is.

[Kythia]

As a result, any cap without free and unstigmatized access to birth control for everyone is going to put the burden squarely on those who can't afford it.  We've all seen how successful 'abstinence only' education is.

Thank you, Oniya.  And so placing that cap, given all of that, is inherently a value judgement on how many children you think people should have.

You're entitled to make value judgements, you're not entitled to pretend your value judgements are objective truths.

[Kythia]

And incidentally, Zakharra, now I think of it:

How the hell will people take advantage of the program?  Are you saying that people will have children they otherwise wouldn't have purely because they can get free childcare for them?  Seriously?  I'd suggest that was unlikely.  Abuse doesn't seem to be a factor here.

[Iniquitous]

For the purposes of this conversation, I agree.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that Val was trying to pretend his policy wasn't based on that.

Considering that this topic is something Val and I have discussed outside of this thread, I know for a fact that he wasn't trying to pretend what he was saying wasn't based on this exact thing. I honestly think you are pushing for an argument with him because all I've seen from you is constant baiting to try and start one.

[Kythia]

Considering that this topic is something Val and I have discussed outside of this thread, I know for a fact that he wasn't trying to pretend what he was saying wasn't based on this exact thing. I honestly think you are pushing for an argument with him because all I've seen from you is constant baiting to try and start one.

I stated earlier that while from an ethical perspective we should offer subsidies even if a homeless person has 6 or 7 children, realistically, we must also be monetarily sensible.  I tend to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in my view of any policy, as well as in my own life - and perhaps that's simply a value difference between us.  That value difference is not something we can debate.

I obviously have no idea what you two have discussed outside the thread.  If he indeed has claimed something different outside the thread I can only advise you confront him to find out why he's saying one thing in one place and another in another.  *shrug*  That's entirely up to you though.

[Iniquitous]

Kythia, not trying to be rude or uncivil here, but what is your issue with Val? I read what he says here and it matches up perfectly with what we've talked about in IM. In all honesty, it really does seem that in every thread you and Val debate in, you zero in on him and you pick away at every little thing he posts. Hell, he's told you numerous times that he AGREES with you in this particular topic and you still go out of your way to nitpick and try to create controversy out of his words.

[Kythia]

Reread, IO.  You're mistaken.  Consortium made a series of points about efficiency.  I said, in essence, "sure, but Val isn't talking about economic efficiency, he's talking about punitive measures."  Val said "no, consortium has expressed my views correctly."

Valthazar specifically stated he was talking about economic efficiency, specifically reecting my suggestion he was talking about changing behaviour.  The entire conversation is public record, claiming he didn't just makes it clear that you haven't read it.

As to the meat of your question - my issue with Valthazar - a lot of the time he avoids direct questions.  Take his claim that

As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare.

This is outright dishonest.  It stops short of a lie, but barely.  I provided the quotes above, I can requote them if you like.  I have no problem with him in the abstract, but would you allow such blatent dishonesty to go unchallenged?  If so then kudos to you, I guess, but I won't.

However, I suspect the remainder of this should be taken to PM if you (and Val) want to discuss it further.

[Mithlomwen]

However, I suspect the remainder of this should be taken to PM if you (and Val) want to discuss it further.

Yes please. 

[RainyHigh]

Man she could have rolled the windows down some more. Me being from Arizona and having been left in car by my mother (she wan't even interviewing for the a job, she was buying crack for her drug addiction) in the heat of the summer more times than I count know how unbearable it is. Especially for younger children. My baby brother and I would have something to drink a few of the times and I would even open the door to cool us down. It was still unbearable. I know this wasn't really in the hottest time of the year though, and that the mother was trying to get a job, I applaud her for that. But leaving the windows up and leaving nothing for the kids to drink is ... harsh.


edit: I think she should be given another chance though. My mom was given numerous chances even after CPS got on her case several times.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

For comparison, another mother in Arizona got high and forgot she had put her baby's seat (with baby strapped inside) on the roof of her car and drove for 12 miles before realising what she had done. Too late. The seat was not there where she stopped, it had fallen in the middle of the freeway.

The baby was recovered unharmed, but it was a much more dire endangerment. She got sentenced recently, and got... probation. Source

It's mind boggling.

Hmmm... I don't want to jump any conclusions, but my mom also got let off easy too. She's Caucasian--my mum that is, and this woman I'm assuming she is too. The mom arrested for leaving her children in the car during an interview is African American. Arizona does have it's ... ummm.... prejudices to put it lightly. Just saying.

[Valthazar]

Kythia, I would really appreciate you not accuse me of lying.  I respect your perspective, and can respects its validity based on your world view.  But there is no need to call me a liar, claiming that I am using value judgements instead of simply using an affordable allocation of the budget.

My views are based on libertarian notions of laissez-faire economics, and how the economic realities people naturally face drive their personal behavior.  I am aware that we hold a difference of perspective, and that is completely fine, but realize that most libertarians also tend to be fiscal conservatives - with a notion of a limited budget.  I am not at this end of the spectrum, though I do find value in this perspective.  That is why I am advocating limits on the extent of subsidies (no different from every other subsidy the United States provides), based on affordability, and balancing the budget.

Also, I do fully agree with you - we do need free birth control and abortions before any of this takes place.  It will be an uphill battle for sure.

I am confused, I'm agreeing fully with you.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Kythia, I would really appreciate you not accuse me of lying.  I respect your perspective, and can respects its validity based on your world view.  But there is no need to call me a liar, claiming that I am using value judgements instead of simply using an affordable allocation of the budget.

My views are based on libertarian notions of laissez-faire economics, and how the economic realities people naturally face drive their personal behavior.  I am aware that we hold a difference of perspective, and that is completely fine, but realize that most libertarians also tend to be fiscal conservatives - with a notion of a limited budget.  I am not at this end of the spectrum, though I do find value in this perspective.  That is why I am advocating limits on the extent of subsidies (no different from every other subsidy the United States provides), based on affordability, and balancing the budget.

It was suggested this conversation continue in PMs.  Please do so and keep this side-bar issue out of the main thread.