• 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!

Free Childcare

noonereal said:
With all respect, ROTFLMAO.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you implying, noonereal? That there are not opportunities for education and wealth creation for younger generations? Or that there are so many that veterans do not need government provided benefits for risking their lives and limbs in service to the homeland?
 
Last edited:
noonereal said:
With all respect, ROTFLMAO.
Click to expand...

Are you now asserting that the GI bill (and other perks for past military service) are not effective? It certainly seemed like you were arguing just the opposite, thus those ‘unfair advantages’ should be removed.
 
Felis Leo said:
By what principle is it our collective obligation to risk our lives and limbs without any benefit whatsoever, but not our collective obligation to pay for the care of one another's children, or medical care, or anything else?
Click to expand...

Two falaises in such a brief utterance, well done!
 
Felis Leo said:
veterans do not need government provided benefits for risking their lives and limbs in service to the homeland?
Click to expand...

We have a volunteer army. That makes it a job.

Don't wave this welfare program at me suggesting it holds some great valor.

It is about time we looked at military service objectively.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you now asserting that the GI bill (and other perks for past military service) are not effective? It certainly seemed like you were arguing just the opposite, thus those ‘unfair advantages’ should be removed.
Click to expand...
These benefits should never have been limited to service men and women.
 
noonereal said:
These benefits should never have been limited to service men and women.
Click to expand...

So your desire is that all Americans should have the equivalent of the GI Bill and VA Health Benefits?
 
Felis Leo said:
Childcare costs have gone up more than twenty-fold in the last forty years while wages have remained stagnant until only just recently, noonereal. And while I have no doubt you worked your fingers to the bone to take care of your kids, if you paid for childcare costs in 1980s, 1990s or even early 2000s your bills were far lower than parent's now even when adjusted for inflation. When you combine that with student loan debt that so many young people have, you are basically saying that most of an entire generation (specifically Millennials) should remain permanently childless. I think that will be far more damaging for our country and lead to our economic stagnation and decline at the very least than having government-supported childcare like that of Scandinavian countries.
Click to expand...

An excellent summary of why many young couples are choosing to remain child-free.
 
noonereal said:
Or that no one does.

I am about equality not welfare.
Click to expand...

The distinction between equality and welfare isn't as clear as you think. It's basically, what the private sector can't or won't provide, government should. There are "welfare trap" issues where people are punished with less overall value if they work more hours or get a better-paying job. These can be dealt with by reducing support by cents in the dollar: they're still working extra hours (or the other job) at a lower rate of total income, but at least they aren't outright worse off.

However you are right on all or nothing. Universal health care (to the VA standard) is a right, and there's no harm in letting people who can afford better, do so.

You might expect me to call for the highest standard for everyone. But I'm practical: that's not going to happen. Leave something to wish for.
 
Phys251 said:
An excellent summary of why many young couples are choosing to remain child-free.
Click to expand...

It was a good post sure. Women can't be counted out until their mid-40's, however. And men practically never.
 
Rexedgar said:
I have the same position on student debt forgiveness…………what about all the ones that paid their bills?
Click to expand...
What matters more to you..the economic stability of the country.?
Making someone " pay their debt"?
 
highroller said:
That depends on what you value as a society.
Click to expand...

Yep, and many seem to value the concept of equal pay for equal work. That concept is violated if worker A (with three dependents in their household) is paid more than worker B (with one dependent in their household) for doing (exactly) the same job.
 
Felis Leo said:
It is a reasonable concern. But all government programs are subject to fraud and waste, but the money, overall, gets where it is supposed to go.

I am against taxpayer-funded childcare for this reason: It seems like a way for companies to keep wages depressed, so that working families must choose between one parent going to work and remaining forever impoverished OR both parents working low-paying to middling jobs while their young children are raised by strangers before they are finally old enough to go to school. These firms take the burden off themselves to offer good-paying jobs* and instead shift the burden of taking care of the working poor on the American taxpayer.

*And by "good paying jobs" I mean a full-time job where one parent earns enough to comfortably provide for all the living expenses of the family with enough left over for savings/investment and non-exorbitant leisure, while the other parent is able to stay home to raise and care for the children.
Click to expand...
There is something to this.
At some point we do have to recognize that the us will have to deal with the fact that a good portion of jobs are going to go away. And so the only way to stay economically viae is to less people work..but those that do make much more.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, and many seem to value the concept of equal pay for equal work. That concept is violated if worker A (with three dependents in their household) is paid more than worker B (with one dependent in their household) for doing (exactly) the same job.
Click to expand...
It is not if the boss wants to pay that worker more because he realizes they have children and HE values that.

There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work.
 
jaeger19 said:
What matters more to you..the economic stability of the country.?
Making someone " pay their debt"?
Click to expand...
The country has had plenty of “economic stability “ when everyone was responsible for the debts they incurred.
 
Rexedgar said:
The country has had plenty of “economic stability “ when everyone was responsible for the debts they incurred.
Click to expand...
Until the rich took on too much debt.
 
highroller said:
It is not if the boss wants to pay that worker more because he realizes they have children and HE values that.

There is no such thing as equal pay for equal work.
Click to expand...

Unions seem to disagree with you.
 
jaeger19 said:
What matters more to you..the economic stability of the country.?
Making someone " pay their debt"?
Click to expand...

Allowing folks to borrow and forcing others to repay their ‘loans’ (at that point converted to gifts) is certainly not going to produce “economic stability”.
 
jaeger19 said:
There is something to this.
At some point we do have to recognize that the us will have to deal with the fact that a good portion of jobs are going to go away. And so the only way to stay economically viae is to less people work..but those that do make much more.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely correct. We cannot keep eliminating jobs and expect our economy to be robust.

Unfortunately most of those remaining jobs are service jobs and Americans don't value and won't pay for that kind of work. The history of trash collection shows the way out of this problem. At some point they realized their power, unionized and are now paid somewhat close to their worth. It's a fact that 90% of the CEOs of this country could drop dead and very few economic, social or environmental problems would arise. If 90% of all trash collectors dropped dead it would take only a week before the social, environmental, medical and economic problems started particularly in big cities. Unions are the reverse side of the capitalism coin.


The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy: neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. John W Gardner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom