Sanders announces $1.5 trillion universal child care plan

The birth rate is currently under the rate of reproduction, so encouraging some more folks to have more kids isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Cell theory, already...

Ignoring costs, in order of difficulty of with regard to providing a basic necessity would be: food, medical care, and housing. Certainly, it looks like housing should be in front of health care, but housing is the majority of most people’s net worth and that can be affected by who lives in the hood.

Food stamps are easy. Even medical care is just a card for basic preventative office visits and maybe a training hospital like Grady (Atlanta) for major stuff. Housing though is mostly local laws, fraught with zoning problems, and that has historically resulted in government housing projects, poor apartment complexes, run down neighborhoods, SEGREGATION, and trailer parks… Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation, well, what happened there? Look at the problems of zoning, and ignore what previously happened with HUD and the community reinvestment…: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-07-16/pdf/2015-17032.pdf

Food stamps and health care do not have zoning laws and land use plan problems.

Universal Child Care, or education, has always been affected by the hood it is located in.

Regardless of whether I think the socialist utopia is possible, or it is better to have a more conservative approach that works to create jobs before government benefits, the hurdles to actually fixing things is huge.

Tax the rich without thinking much about it, sounds good; he does not give up golf, he subsistence farms and jobs die on the vine.

 

To be fair, that already happens and society is advancing just fine. The "ideal" scenario would just adjust those proportions at the margins.

So long as the needs of the society are met, I would imagine that such an economy would last for a while.

 

There are three main universal tenets.

This post confirms your denial of science.

 

It's going to be interesting to watch all these union Leftists lose their excellent healthcare plans.

 

"Haiti: Water of Sorrow." Lady had like 15 kids and was pregnant. Open Borders... Do I have to lend you my copy of Population Bomb?

 

I agree that the analogy has flaws, like all analogies; however, I would suggest that drawing the line of what you are willing to contribute to help fix or maintain at, "what benefits me personally" or "what responsibility I have for that situation," would still leave the community woefully underserved and would result in a net harm to society.

And that's before you take into account the fact that this specific proposal could very much result in a net revenue stream for society as those parents would then be given the freedom to work or volunteer and thereby contribute to society.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory#Modern_interpretation

Seven.

And again, I see zero aspect of that post that denies science. It was a reaction to someone arguing that women should not be able to get an abortion even if they could not afford the kid.

 

It would be a tax on income so they would be unable to shift this overseas. If there are loopholes that allow them to do so they should be closed.

That is why terrifies all these billionaires that are raiding the pockets of Americans about these programs — once they are enacted there is virtually no way we will return to this current system because it will be so popular.

Just like with Social Security, public safety and infrastructure.

Their cash cow will be closed.

 

You are in a very small demographic then.

So you don’t think virtually everyone would benefit from having access to healthcare, having child care costs eliminated, having college costs eliminated? Not only on the individual level but on the societal level as well?

 

You should read your own link. You guys crack me up. There are three main tenets of cell theory. They can be parsed in different ways to come up with 7-10 components. But the original three remain the foundation.

Presentation of a false dichotomy between sex/abstinence and procreation is outright denial of science. Doesn’t matter who or what you are responding to.

 

People like Bloomberg would without doubt fall into the bracket of extreme wealth

 

And feminism was about "empowering women" right?? Had nothing to do with attacking the family

And welfare was about helping the poor?? Had nothing to do with attacking the family unit; creating millions of single parent homes, and millions of fatherless children that would perpetuate the dysfunction and increase every metric of poverty and lawlessness??

Perhaps you should try reading the underlying literature?? I have.

 

My wife and I had lots of sex and never did she get pregnant until we wanted to. But if abstinence is the method they want to use fine. Why should others be forced to pay for other people's poor decisions?

 

So, it's still work, work, work for your 'free' benefits? Are you sure you want to go there? I thought the idea of providing for basic needs means some people will not work period.

 

People who choose not to work, and instead seek support from taxpayer funded programs are committing a crime. That should never change, and those that seek to do it held accountable for their actions.

There is no 'ideal' program where some people work solely for the support of others as an voluntary action. Your 'ideal' would collapse as people who work in the beginning, realize that they don't have to. There will be demands to expand the programs, better and higher quality goods, as the system implodes when there are no funds to support the programs. Government workers find themselves let go as programs collapse from lack of funding, and people are enslaved to work at jobs that are necessary to supply all the 'freebies' demanded in your 'ideal'.

Gee, it sounds like so much fun. So, how about you be the worker, and pay for my food, clothing and housing today? And I would like a Mercedes 450 SL convertible to go with that. Thanks!

 

Nice to see Bernoe is still scraping the bottpm of the give-away barrell and finding more stuff he can buy votes wih -- with other people's money. And I am 100% certainty that the fact that pre-school / Head Start has been shown by every credible study, including about 4 extensive analyses by the federal government IIRC, to be completely ineffective, except for the very first two in the 60s which were not scientific studies In that they did not look at the recently instituted head start program. Politicians who promise free stuff don't really care if the stuff works or not.

Watching out for and raising young children does not contribute to society, you say????.

 

Which do you think is going to be more harmful? Republican tax cuts that usually last at most 8 years or Sanders ideas that's going to cost over 100 trillion in 10 years and is going to be a lot harder to change than tax cuts/raises?

 

Sander's spending is going to be the worst by far. But he's very popular among the voters because he is going to address two issues that are top of the list of important issues: education and healthcare. This idea of child support is just icing on the cake.

 

It just doesn't seem to matter to many people that debt exceeds the GNP. Or occur to many that debt is bad Karma.

 

Other than "free" higher education and vocational school how is he actually going to address education? Education definitely needs address but he's not, afaik, going to address it the way it needs to be addressed.

 

The costs aren't in any way eliminated.

When you say things that aren't true that really limits what i can respond with.

I don't think it's beneficial for someone who doesn't go to college to have their taxes increased to pay for others to go to college. Same for childcare. How is it beneficial for someone with no kids to pay more in taxes to pay for childcare for others? And these tax increases are forever. Sorry, I'd rather pay for my own college and be done with paying for college rather than pay for college forever. Same with childcare.

 

And there is where you lose the left

 

We do not have enough resources for the almost 8 billion people on the planet, much less the 10 billion we will have soon. The birth rate is lower than reproduction, and that is exactly where you want it. Lets like change anything. I'm also afraid that immigrant families that come into the US will just use government services to raise a large family.

 

There are smaller scale experiments where every citizen was provided a guaranteed income. Those people continued, and in some regions worked at even greater rates than before.

So yes, I think it's a justifiable position.