31–40 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free at the point of use is how it's usually expressed.
Sure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.
US actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…
Our politicians are unpopular because they do nothing to help us, and when they explicitly help us it's framed as lazy poor people looking for handouts. It makes no sense.
Medicare should cover children. Then we'd be covering children and the elderly. I think that seems fair--children deserve healthcare (just like education) as a fundamental right. It shouldn't be dependent on their parents.
It should cover everyone. No body goes to the doctor because they want to. I'll dare say it would be a net positive to even expand this to the undocumented. Many of them have dependents, it's not going to be great if your dad can't afford his insulin and is thus unable to work to provide for you. This includes a large percentage of our farm workers who are literally getting sprayed with pesticides all day. That's ano…
Of course, nothing is truly “free.” It comes at a significant cost that must be carefully understood and balanced for the future. It hinders market dynamism and credit flow, which can easily stifle innovation over time. Calling it “free” is a mere emotional appeal, not a rational justification for its long-term sustainability. It’s no wonder that business in Europe, despite being more regulated and restrained than any other part of the world, is so vilified by the youth. We must stop conflating prosperity with corporate misgivings if we are to progress at all.
US actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…
It was done so mothers could work building tanks and airplanes, not out of any concern for the children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Land price will adjust accordingly in response to any positive economic news. If you want an unalloy good to come out of these programs, tax lands. Otherwise, any welfare program will just get some of its value captured by landlords.
Land value tax won't help unless you greatly reduce the zoning and regulation over what can be built on the land. Putting the land to its most efficient use isn't possible if all you're allowed to build is a two-story detached single family house.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free at the point of use is how it's usually expressed.
Sure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.
If it’s free then you’re the product …