• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie offers voters "free" childcare

Axe Cap said:
Don't have 2-3 kids if you're making minimum wage...
Click to expand...

Less educated, lower earnings are far more likely to have more kids than the inverse.
 
eman623 said:
Because if he doesn't then the taxpayers will have to pay.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are absolving decision makers from the negative consequence of decisions, in other words you are encouraging negative behavior.
 
tacomancer said:
Then even if they make more, its still going to suck because there is still not quite enough money to go around, leading back to my point. The only way I can see my point not being true is that someone truly doesn't believe that it is possible to better themselves. If that is the case, that person probably needs therapy or at least a good friend.
Click to expand...

Neither of those is supplied (or required) by the "safety net" system. That is precisely my point, only personal behavior changes are going to offer a way out of poverty (break the cycle of dependency).
 
eman623 said:
Because if he doesn't then the taxpayers will have to pay.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why "job creators" favor the "safety net" system - why pay 100% of low wage workers more if you can pay a bit more in taxes and let the government pay (only a carefully selected) 12% to 15% of them more?
 
tacomancer said:
Then even if they make more, its still going to suck because there is still not quite enough money to go around, leading back to my point.
Click to expand...

I can see the appeal to lower-income families already facing rising costs in rent, utilities, food, healthcare etc.

According to a new survey, 70% of families are paying rates the government defines as unaffordable, and nearly half of families spend 15% or more of their household income on care.

National Average Weekly Rates
2018

After-School $244
Child Care Center $213
Family Care Center $199
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is precisely why "job creators" favor the "safety net" system - why pay 100% of low wage workers more if you can pay a bit more in taxes and let the government pay (only a carefully selected) 12% to 15% of them more?
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand you. Where do you get those numbers from? And why would an employer need to pay 100% of workers more? I'm just talking about the ones with 2-3 (or more) kids.

I remember a few years back there were some study that found people who worked at Walmart could not afford to shop at Walmart. Don't people have the right to shop where they work?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Having a choice between the candidate for a bigger federal government and the candidate for a huge federal government, both beholden to those supplying them campaign cash, is not a choice that I am willing to make.
Click to expand...

That's fine but it's still a wasted vote. Yes, it's your choice to waste it.

eman623 said:
I remember a few years back there were some study that found people who worked at Walmart could not afford to shop at Walmart. Don't people have the right to shop where they work?
Click to expand...

People have the right to shop wherever they want. Whether they have a right to "AFFORD" something at a place of their work the answer is of course not. You think all Tesla employees can afford Teslas? How about all jewelry store employees?
 
DamnYankee said:
I wonder how many people out there are thinking to themselves...why in the Sam hell do I have to pay for "free" childcare when I don't have any children that need care?
Click to expand...

IDK man. Why do the American people have to shell out trillions of dollars to pay for wars that don't make us any safer or accomplish anything?
 
eman623 said:
Not sure I understand you. Where do you get those numbers from? And why would an employer need to pay 100% of workers more? I'm just talking about the ones with 2-3 (or more) kids.

I remember a few years back there were some study that found people who worked at Walmart could not afford to shop at Walmart. Don't people have the right to shop where they work?
Click to expand...

My point, which is not hard to understand, is that only a minority of "needy households" (about 12% to 15% of the population) get "safety net" assistance. Employees are paid based on their job duties (employment positions) not based on how many kids they have (or lack).

Rest assured that most Walmart associates can and do shop at Walmart (and/or other lower priced stores) - it's not as if SNAP (or a meager paycheck) goes further by shopping at a (higher priced) convenience store.
 
Ikari said:
While I don't agree with Sander's methods, these are things that he does ponder and the questions that come up revolve around the issues he is most passionate about.
Click to expand...

Here’s a hint, or something to ponder. Doubling the tax burden for working Americans of all tax brackets and the doubling of the size of government spending over the next ten years isn’t going to give anyone a better quality of life other than for those that manage it.

Combine that with the not ready for primetime Green-Deal implemented you could see your utility cost at least double and all goods relying on transit increase, that means everything you purchase.

If you take the Sanders plans or even the liberal plans and work the numbers every working American takes a huge hit. Again, as stated in my original post in this thread as snark, Bernie knows that supplemented/free childcare will be necessary. I messed up part is it will probably cost more per family than what we have now with tax credits. Welcome to the free cake crew.
 
woodsman said:
Posts like this are amusing but saddening to think it could be a legitimate opinion.

It’s also notable that posts like this show up on BS threads, Bernie Sanders. It shows how clueless the free cake crew with Bernie voters are.
Click to expand...

Makes me sad, too. However, this plan would fully utilize the kid cages and make money for rich people.
 
Drawdown said:
I am fine with free child care as long as the parent is employed.
Click to expand...



So an unemployed single mother who most needs the childcare doesn't get it. So much for what society is all about.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
IDK man. Why do the American people have to shell out trillions of dollars to pay for wars that don't make us any safer or accomplish anything?
Click to expand...

Right?

I mean, DJT is getting us out of those things.

MAGA 2032.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How, exactly, are people free from working more productive?
Click to expand...

I didn't merely say free from working. I said free from having to work for necessities.

I make far more money than I need for necessities. If I only cared about necessities, I would work part-time.

To answer your question, how can a single mother go to school if she had to work to feed her children? Freeing her from a need to work to feed her children, she can go to school and get a job that will allow her to be more productive.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point, which is not hard to understand, is that only a minority of "needy households" (about 12% to 15% of the population) get "safety net" assistance. Employees are paid based on their job duties (employment positions) not based on how many kids they have (or lack).

Rest assured that most Walmart associates can and do shop at Walmart (and/or other lower priced stores) - it's not as if SNAP (or a meager paycheck) goes further by shopping at a (higher priced) convenience store.
Click to expand...

My point, which is also not hard to understand, is that if a person is working full time, they should not require public assistance. The job should pay them enough to meet their needs.
 
eman623 said:
My point, which is also not hard to understand, is that if a person is working full time, they should not require public assistance. The job should pay them enough to meet their needs.
Click to expand...

See, the problem is "meet their needs".

The definition of that has slipped so far over the last 100 years it is comical. When welfare programs were created they were for basic medical care, housing, and sustenance. Now they are for cell phones, AC, automobiles, etc.
 
How about churches pay taxes?
 
ecofarm said:
How about churches pay taxes?
Click to expand...

While I am not religious, I am not sure that this is a meaningful or even reasonable point of view honestly. First off, they are non-profits, and like other non-profits they don't pay taxes. Now, I suppose you could start taxing all non profits, but then you have a whole other ball of wax don't you? So, let's play that one out for a moment.

We begin to tax non-profits, meaning all the universities and public institutions that run a surplus, or have endowments, now have to pay taxes. Further, they are going to engage in bad fiscal management as an attempt to avoid taxes. All the while, the truly non-profit institutions, are going to still pay nothing since their expenses and incomes are usually pretty close to one another.

This is just ideological silly-bait.
 
Want to gaurantee the cost of something will go up? Have the government offer to pay for it. Worked well for student loans, of course it will work for child care, healthcare, this or that care.. What could go wrong? :)

Socialist and those that support them have no freaking idea how bad socliaism is, and more importantly how they are being led along becuase THEY, could use this or that free stuff at this point in time in their lives. News flash young soclialists. YOU WILL grow up and eventually have a rewarding career, and family to take care of. I wonder how you will feel about all this free stuff when you're the one flipping the bill.


Tim-
 
bave said:
While I am not religious, I am not sure that this is a meaningful or even reasonable point of view honestly. First off, they are non-profits, and like other non-profits they don't pay taxes. Now, I suppose you could start taxing all non profits, but then you have a whole other ball of wax don't you? So, let's play that one out for a moment.

We begin to tax non-profits, meaning all the universities and public institutions that run a surplus, or have endowments, now have to pay taxes. Further, they are going to engage in bad fiscal management as an attempt to avoid taxes. All the while, the truly non-profit institutions, are going to still pay nothing since their expenses and incomes are usually pretty close to one another.

This is just ideological silly-bait.
Click to expand...

Churches have been violating the laws of their non-profit status for generations. One can't sit through a sermon without hearing reference to a politician. As churches are in blatant and constant violation of the law, it's readily apparent they have no right to tax-free status.

The only place you have to go is, "let churches violate the law".
 
ecofarm said:
Churches have been violating the laws of their non-profit status for generations. One can't sit through a sermon without hearing reference to a politician. As churches are in blatant and constant violation of the law, it's readily apparent they have no right to tax-free status.

The only place you have to go is, "let churches violate the law".
Click to expand...

Oh puhlease. Almost every non-profit entity has an "opinion" about politics. So, let's schwack Planned Parenthood then, right? They have an obvious and apparent political bias, so they get it too, right? Harvard obviously does along with the entire U-Cal system? Smack! Right?

More importantly, even if you got your way, you aren't taxing anything. Churches don't really have profits, but PP and universities do.
 
bave said:
See, the problem is "meet their needs".

The definition of that has slipped so far over the last 100 years it is comical. When welfare programs were created they were for basic medical care, housing, and sustenance. Now they are for cell phones, AC, automobiles, etc.
Click to expand...

Gee, 100 years.....that would be 1920. I guess the country and the world for that matter has not changed in 100 years. There is going to come a day when no American will be able to do a thing without a smartphone. Eventually what tasks they will be able to complete without one will by more costly to complete without one than with one.

Similar arguments though not as straightforward can be made for AC and automobiles in the 21st Century. It ain't 1920 anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom