We should change the rules, and make every home with children: a daycare center. Of course, they don't look after 20 kids - just two, three, and BONUS: a financial incentive will encourage more babies.
All deserving kids get their mum to look after them at home - and paid $$$$. Doesn't have to be millions per mum, even. And mums can even go and visit other mums - at -gasp- church, or the swimming pool, ot the library - let's get creative.
It is time the country recognizes mums, and pays them to look after their own kids. It seems that billions was spent NOT looking after kids, just scammy adults. Bastard-ghosts.
Only half joking about paying mums, BTW.
The current Total Fertility Rate for the USA is 1.6 children per average couple.
That is below replacement rate.
Surely, something must be changed.
Maybe there is an idea that population that is dropping in fertility is not a bad thing - for eugenicists, or global warming depopulation peeps, but there are several countries who are thinking very hard about that replacement rate. One such recently-made apparent issue is that boomers have to be supported in their lowered ability years, by a much smaller demographic -What happened? A horde of foreign health workers, because there simply are not enough of them within the nation.
Governments should at least try and manage the replacement rate, and not let the population drop precipitously off the planet, at least at national levels. A dropping population means a dropping tax-take - and I think it is now pretty obvious that importing some random bodies into the country only costs money, it doesn't make faithful taxpayers. Ergo: It's a losing game, in every aspect.
Create a policy to pay for every kid in the country (means-tested, birth certificate and all that verification - so less scamming). Bonus, one can avoid large capital investment, without paying for special 'centres'- that turn out to be empty - LOL.
The point is - those centres need lots of real estate and 'outsourcing', or one could call it 'de-centralizing' that real estate cost to the very house lived in by the mum and kids, will actually be so much easier and cheaper. Also, in today's environment of home-schooling and online learning, it could quickly work.
Does everyone agree that little kids need their mums? Also, that not supporting mothers makes people not wanna have kids?
One could even throw in some money for laptops, and internet connections, given the savings in the system from that ugly, useless renting of empty barns.
By all means have some playcentres, but the more money given to the mums, the more kids there will be. Currently it appears that everyone seems to be realizing that there aren't as many kids, and there are too many day-care centres. That is actually a sign that the demographic is decreasing. Like a bust in the market. And of course, it's ripe for fraud.
I am just spit-balling, thinking about all that money that has been stolen. And trying to be more fair. I mean: successive governments were happy to send that money to empty barns and grubby hands. NOT children.
This guy is a piece of shit, but that article is crazy, it says in the time they've been open there has been a total of $480m distributed, and the writer just assumes his wife got 40% of the total states funding over all those years? The writer's math was assuming that they took care of 32,000 children per year for $15,250 a year? That assumes 87 kids per day every day of the year, even weekends and holidays?
Also in the article they say she isn't accredited, but then directly in the article it says the daycare isn't listed on some website for a special needs accreditation which is harder to earn. But if you just google the name of the daycare, it shows up on a few accredited day care lists and says they operate a small daycare.
If anyone pocketed 40% of an entire states funding and claimed to care for 87 kids per day would have massive hoops to jump through.
I'm not saying there isn't fraud, but what the author claims is just insane.
These corrupt bastards can't hang soon enough for me!!!
^^^^THIS^^^^
That is what you call a payoff.... for murder.
We all need to quit our jobs and open daycares.
Q should have replaced book deals with daycares lol
Apparently if you're not high profile enough for a book, you get a daycare, lol.
We should change the rules, and make every home with children: a daycare center. Of course, they don't look after 20 kids - just two, three, and BONUS: a financial incentive will encourage more babies.
All deserving kids get their mum to look after them at home - and paid $$$$. Doesn't have to be millions per mum, even. And mums can even go and visit other mums - at -gasp- church, or the swimming pool, ot the library - let's get creative.
It is time the country recognizes mums, and pays them to look after their own kids. It seems that billions was spent NOT looking after kids, just scammy adults. Bastard-ghosts.
Only half joking about paying mums, BTW.
The current Total Fertility Rate for the USA is 1.6 children per average couple.
That is below replacement rate.
Surely, something must be changed.
Maybe there is an idea that population that is dropping in fertility is not a bad thing - for eugenicists, or global warming depopulation peeps, but there are several countries who are thinking very hard about that replacement rate. One such recently-made apparent issue is that boomers have to be supported in their lowered ability years, by a much smaller demographic -What happened? A horde of foreign health workers, because there simply are not enough of them within the nation.
Governments should at least try and manage the replacement rate, and not let the population drop precipitously off the planet, at least at national levels. A dropping population means a dropping tax-take - and I think it is now pretty obvious that importing some random bodies into the country only costs money, it doesn't make faithful taxpayers. Ergo: It's a losing game, in every aspect.
Create a policy to pay for every kid in the country (means-tested, birth certificate and all that verification - so less scamming). Bonus, one can avoid large capital investment, without paying for special 'centres'- that turn out to be empty - LOL.
The point is - those centres need lots of real estate and 'outsourcing', or one could call it 'de-centralizing' that real estate cost to the very house lived in by the mum and kids, will actually be so much easier and cheaper. Also, in today's environment of home-schooling and online learning, it could quickly work.
Does everyone agree that little kids need their mums? Also, that not supporting mothers makes people not wanna have kids?
One could even throw in some money for laptops, and internet connections, given the savings in the system from that ugly, useless renting of empty barns.
By all means have some playcentres, but the more money given to the mums, the more kids there will be. Currently it appears that everyone seems to be realizing that there aren't as many kids, and there are too many day-care centres. That is actually a sign that the demographic is decreasing. Like a bust in the market. And of course, it's ripe for fraud.
I am just spit-balling, thinking about all that money that has been stolen. And trying to be more fair. I mean: successive governments were happy to send that money to empty barns and grubby hands. NOT children.
INb4: giving money to mums with kids = communism.
LOL
Pay-to-play
OMG…it’s habbening!
How the fuck do you have $190,000,000 and you still work as an LE Captain??
Sell his house and give his money to the people he stole it from, we the taxpayers.
This should be PINNED AND HIGHLIGHTED
This guy is a piece of shit, but that article is crazy, it says in the time they've been open there has been a total of $480m distributed, and the writer just assumes his wife got 40% of the total states funding over all those years? The writer's math was assuming that they took care of 32,000 children per year for $15,250 a year? That assumes 87 kids per day every day of the year, even weekends and holidays?
Also in the article they say she isn't accredited, but then directly in the article it says the daycare isn't listed on some website for a special needs accreditation which is harder to earn. But if you just google the name of the daycare, it shows up on a few accredited day care lists and says they operate a small daycare.
If anyone pocketed 40% of an entire states funding and claimed to care for 87 kids per day would have massive hoops to jump through.
I'm not saying there isn't fraud, but what the author claims is just insane.
Well, to me, that is a surprise. Not unexpected though.
It's a Big Club.....and you ain't in it!
190 million is not going to save him. When they arrest him, he will squeal like a stuck pig naming names and the entire J6 playbook.
Do any of us think Nanzi Pelozie was behind it? Remember her daughter interviewing her. Pelosi some cahunas to admit that.
Wonder how long it'll be before we see missing children's names on their child care list.