Bernie offers voters "free" childcare

[bave]

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.

Are you going to die without a smartphone? Are you going to die without a car or AC? How are these things *necessities*? That is what welfare is, to provide the means to survive, not thrive or be happy, but survive.

 

[Drawdown]

So an unemployed single mother who most needs the childcare doesn't get it. So much for what society is all about.

She doesn't "most need it" if she doesn't have a job

 

[jnug]

Are you going to die without a smartphone? Are you going to die without a car or AC? How are these things *necessities*? That is what welfare is, to provide the means to survive, not thrive or be happy, but survive.

Actually there are two components to the safety net. One is the ability to survive. The other is the cost to the taxpayer. It is not at all hard to figure out that there will at some point be a time when virtually any task you can think of is more cheaply done using a smartphone than any other conceivable method.

As for AC, the way Climate Change is effecting weather and given the amount of particulates in the atmosphere you are darned right AC is becoming a necessity, not a luxury. The term is "Air Conditioning" which is not exactly the same thing as Air Cooling which is the common colloquialism regarding Air Conditioning. This is particularly true for older Citizens though I am sure a whole bunch of you are anxiously to just toss them off a cliff edge.

Automobiles is a tougher argument to make. Then again since we have essentially allowed the Auto and tire industry to utterly dynamite any serious efforts to upgrade or even make ubiquitous public transportation systems, the downside to that is .....automobiles. Perhaps people can use their smartphones to call up an Uber. Does that satisfy you or will you not be satisfied until folks simply toss themselves off a cliff edge?

 

[Logical1]

Bernie is all for free shi-------stuff. Out and out pandering to people too stupid to know it will never happen because the money isnt there.

 

[bave]

Actually there are two components to the safety net. One is the ability to survive. The other is the cost to the taxpayer. It is not at all hard to figure out that there will at some point be a time when virtually any task you can think of is more cheaply done using a smartphone than any other conceivable method.

As for AC, the way Climate Change is effecting weather and given the amount of particulates in the atmosphere you are darned right AC is becoming a necessity, not a luxury. The term is "Air Conditioning" which is not exactly the same thing as Air Cooling which is the common colloquialism regarding Air Conditioning. This is particularly true for older Citizens though I am sure a whole bunch of you are anxiously to just toss them off a cliff edge.

Automobiles is a tougher argument to make. Then again since we have essentially allowed the Auto and tire industry to utterly dynamite any serious efforts to upgrade or even make ubiquitous public transportation systems, the downside to that is .....automobiles. Perhaps people can use their smartphones to call up an Uber. Does that satisfy you or will you not be satisfied until folks simply toss themselves off a cliff edge?

I find this comical. You *need* a smartphone? Or it is convenient? You can use a $20 prepaid flip phone for 99% of necessary purposes. The smart phone part is just a luxury.

AC is now necessary because it is hot? It wasn't hot in Arizona in the 50's?

GMAFB. If you want to pay for all this **** for people be my guest, but leave my money out of it.

 

[ecofarm]

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.

Well, if you wanna talk about reality, let me know.

 

[bave]

Well, if you wanna talk about reality, let me know.

Which part of my statement was inaccurate?

 

[Jason Warfield]

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?

I am one of those people who don't have kids but have no problem with paying for the education of others through my taxes. I feel the following sums it up for people like me:

 

[Jason Warfield]

Leftists want our children under their control early. Easier to brainwash.

One could say that of those who are not educated, or under-educated.

One could say that of those who want God brought back into school; forced indoctrination to one faith only.

Why are you against educating children?

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

That (bolded above) certainly implies otherwise. Getting married or simply having a roommate, friend or relative help care for their children is an option. If multiple single parents are in that position then most could work outside their homes and pay others to provide the needed childcare. The idea that some have a "right" to publicly funded childcare (and more schooling without working?) while most do not is simply bad public policy.

 

[Jason Warfield]

One thing I wish to point out about paying taxes for things so that they become "free". While in the strictest sense it IS true that what Sanders is proposing isn't really free, what no one is taking into account is that when taxes are paid, the tax burden is so spread out that the actual cost is ALMOST free because the average citizen is only paying in cents for a few dollar apiece for said education out of their total tax bill. As opposed to the thousands of dollars that some pay out of pocket for certain schools. When you look at relative cost...it IS almost free education per individual for their child or children.

Second thing that I wonder about is...why are people against educating our children? Don't want the future of America to be educated? Even if you don't have children, don't you want to be in a nation NOT filled with idiots as Josh Green suggests? Don't you want America to be great? And in doing so, wouldn't you be willing to pay for it with just a small portion of o=your overall tax bill?

Or are you too greedy and worry more about the wealth you keep than the nation that allows you to build wealth?

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

Nonsense - not all full-time jobs pay enough to support a family of 3 or 4. The federal government does not even do that - the bottom 4 GS (step 1) pay rates are at or below $15/hour. To get a GS 4 job also requires an associates degree.

GS-4 Pay - 2020 Federal GS Payscale

 

[aociswundumho]

One thing I wish to point out about paying taxes for things so that they become "free". While in the strictest sense it IS true that what Sanders is proposing isn't really free, what no one is taking into account is that when taxes are paid, the tax burden is so spread out that the actual cost is ALMOST free because the average citizen is only paying in cents for a few dollar apiece for said education out of their total tax bill. As opposed to the thousands of dollars that some pay out of pocket for certain schools. When you look at relative cost...it IS almost free education per individual for their child or children.

Is this satire?

 

[bave]

One thing I wish to point out about paying taxes for things so that they become "free". While in the strictest sense it IS true that what Sanders is proposing isn't really free, what no one is taking into account is that when taxes are paid, the tax burden is so spread out that the actual cost is ALMOST free because the average citizen is only paying in cents for a few dollar apiece for said education out of their total tax bill. As opposed to the thousands of dollars that some pay out of pocket for certain schools. When you look at relative cost...it IS almost free education per individual for their child or children.

Second thing that I wonder about is...why are people against educating our children? Don't want the future of America to be educated? Even if you don't have children, don't you want to be in a nation NOT filled with idiots as Josh Green suggests? Don't you want America to be great? And in doing so, wouldn't you be willing to pay for it with just a small portion of o=your overall tax bill?

Or are you too greedy and worry more about the wealth you keep than the nation that allows you to build wealth?

1) It's not free at the societal level, but it is appealing to those whom it is free to at the individual level. IE: Promising to forgive student loans means it is free if you have student loans. All these new services and programs he is promising and the fact that the vast bulk of the taxes to pay for them, in theory, would be levied on someone else makes them free to the recipient.

2) I don't think anyone has a problem with education, I think the problem is how we spend our money in that pursuit. We have the second highest per student educational cost in the world for some of the worst results. Some of the most expensive places have the highest costs and lowest results. Money isn't the issue honestly.

3) It is easily able to be backed up that higher taxes, even far lesser than what Sanders is proposing will result in a stifled economy causing *significant* long term underperformance and harm. This is yet another example of people wanting their cake today and not realizing the long term results of the ensuing diabetes.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

That (bolded above) certainly implies otherwise. Getting married or simply having a roommate, friend or relative help care for their children is an option. If multiple single parents are in that position then most could work outside their homes and pay others to provide the needed childcare. The idea that some have a "right" to publicly funded childcare (and more schooling without working?) while most do not is simply bad public policy.

Bad public policy is a system where the mothers are forced to stay home and care for the children instead of going to school and gaining skills.

Obviously, the mothers wouldn't be able to afford the cost of child care. It's really expensive. Not sure how it would be much cheaper with your plan.

It's actually good public policy that helps end the cycle of poverty and improves life for everyone.

I feel that conservatives neglect to consider the benefit to the entire society of social programs. The rich man may complain that his tax dollars are paying for the poor kids education but the result is a better pool of workers for his company. Some rich guy may complain about welfare but maybe welfare lowers crime and prevents him from being robbed at gunpoint.

When you invest in people you get great returns. The money doesn't just disappear.

 

[poweRob]

Bernie is going to raise the minimum wage to $15.

More free money to people.

You know a wage is "free money" right?

 

[joko104]

I am fine with free child care as long as the parent is employed.

Nothing is "free." It just means Sanders is promising that we will pay for other people's childcare costs.

 

[poweRob]

Sanders reveals free childcare plan for preschoolers - Axios



Once again, Bernie is trying to bribe the voters with their own money. Won't be too long before he offers everyone a free new car in exchange for voting for him.

This unrelated part I found to be hilarious:



So Sanders will gladly support a person like Bloomberg who implemented a "horrifically racist" policy for 12 years.

What a hypocrite.

Trump nation attacking Bernie early in the primaries. Stay scared. You should be.

 

[joko104]

Sanders is the true communist. His goal is that the government will raise and indoctrinate all children starting at birth beginning with government daycare parenting and indoctrination. This government indoctrination will continue as a government expense from birth to at least age 22 thru a bachelor's degree.

None of this is free, of course. We pay for Socialist Senator Sander's quest to turn the USA into the utopian communist country of his dream, after destroying the destroying the Democratic Party. All will serve the state.

 

[vegas giants]

Sanders reveals free childcare plan for preschoolers - Axios



Once again, Bernie is trying to bribe the voters with their own money. Won't be too long before he offers everyone a free new car in exchange for voting for him.

This unrelated part I found to be hilarious:



So Sanders will gladly support a person like Bloomberg who implemented a "horrifically racist" policy for 12 years.

What a hypocrite.

Wow....that is great to help working families. Right?

 

[vegas giants]

Sanders is the true communist. His goal is that the government will raise and indoctrinate all children starting at birth beginning with government daycare parenting and indoctrination. This government indoctrination will continue as a government expense from birth to at least age 22 thru a bachelor's degree.

Communist. Hilarious

 

[vegas giants]

Nothing is "free." It just means Sanders is promising that we will pay for other people's childcare costs.

That is great for working families

 

[Drawdown]

Nothing is "free." It just means Sanders is promising that we will pay for other people's childcare costs.

Arguing semantics instead of addressing the issue is a gimpy position.

 

[joko104]

Arguing semantics instead of addressing the issue is a gimpy position.

No, it is pointing out Sander's lie. It is not "free childcare" just because he refuses to even state the annual price tag or the costs - nor any details whatsoever.

 

[vegas giants]

No, it is pointing out Sander's lie. It is not "free childcare" just because he refuses to even state the annual price tag or the costs - nor any details whatsoever.

Free at point of service