Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 540 posts

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#351

Post by paradox460 »

jameslk wrote: post #143

It’s good that it’s a state policy, not a federal one. We need more policies to stay at the state level, regardless of the policy. Federalism is how we can test the effects of competing policies under the same house. If the policy is a problem for you, it’s a lot easier to vote with your feet and move to a different state than to move to a different country

Too many people aren't satisfied with the policies they want affecting only them and their communities. They want to impose their will on people thousands of miles away

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#352

Post by insane_dreamer »

WalterBright wrote: post #206
macintux wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget the "1% of the recipients are fraudulent, therefore the other 99% must spend 10 hours on paperwork and 6 months waiting for the benefits to start, with a 30% chance of rejection" approach.

> 1% of the recipients are fraudulent Google sez: "The total amount of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) improper payments for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 was an estimated $10.5 billion, or 11.7% of total benefits paid."

That doesn't mean 11% of recipients are fraudulent.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#353

Post by Workaccount2 »

hammock wrote: post #222
dafelst wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some places (esp those with low access to birth control and sub-par sexual health education), there are too many unplanned children being born to people who do not have the means to comfortably raise a child without being in poverty. Free/low-cost birth control and better sex ed are proven to reduce these instances substantially.

If someone has the means to comfortably raise a child without being in poverty do they still need free childcare then?

Having an extra $2k/mo per child laying around puts you in a pretty high income bracket.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#354

Post by trollbridge »

monero-xmr wrote: post #309
chaostheory wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every modern economy, socialism included, requires a growing population. You’re right about the main benefit of population decline though. It gives Nature a needed break

It does not, because productivity can increase. You have a very common misunderstanding

Doesn’t work if all of the productivity gains are captured by the wealthy owners of most of the capital though.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#355

Post by coryrc »

ponector wrote: post #181
bparsons wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the big reason other countries have free or cheap childcare. People who have kids want to continue earning money, and people who earn money want to have kids. It can be easily justified using only an economic productivity argument.

In which country there is a cheap childcare, especially if we are talking about children under 3? Also even if it is cheap, children can attend it few days a week, staying sick at home almost every week for a day or two. Not every employer can tolerate such worker.

> In which country there is a cheap childcare, especially if we are talking about children under 3?

France AFAICT

https://www.newsweek.com/us-mom-unpacks-costs-child-care-par...

https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/explainer-how-childcare...

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#356

Post by Braxton1980 »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #24
yndoendo wrote: post #6

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.

Only one political party rallies against "government handouts" and blames the individual for their problems.

Why would you generalize your opinion to all when this is extremely clear?

How can things get better if you can't even be bothered to criticize at a granular level? Since we are a Democracy this matters.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#357

Post by trollbridge »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #147
Workaccount2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of the incessant focus on billionaires/1%/.1% people are totally unaware that most wealth is tied up in the 70-95% group. Any kind of "funded by the rich" program will mostly come from that group. That's why it's hard to pass these thing.

by all means, it is a positive redistribution from the "70-95%"...

Which means even more wealth concentration in the 1% and 0.1%.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#359

Post by crazygringo »

gfiorav wrote: post #314
crazygringo wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. What else are you going to call it, but free? That's literally the word for it. Everybody understands that anything which is free is ultimately paid for by someone . And everybody understands that things provided for by the government come from taxes. We don't need new words for basic concepts everyone already understands.

I hope you were right, but I strongly suspect you are mistaken. Most people fail to understand: - Social welfare programs come at the expense of reducing everyone’s income. - The extent of the social welfare overspending is significant; we have long surpassed the point of helping those in dire need and are now funding numerous programs that, if fully understood in its long-term cost, would likely not be supported. -…

What's your source for saying that most people fail to understand that social welfare programs come from taxes? The concept of where government money comes from is such an obvious fact, I don't understand how you can claim most people don't understand it. People go to work for a paycheck, they pay taxes, and they understand money doesn't grow on trees. This is adulting 101.

And no, "subsidized" means a portion of something is covered by someone else, but not necessarily all of it. E.g. a subsidized cafeteria at work may mean all the food is 50% of cost. Subsidized can mean fully subsidized, but that's a special case.

So subsidized is not more precise, it's actually much less precise. "Free" continues to be the accurate and correct term.

You're taking a right-wing political stance against current levels of social spending, which is your prerogative, but there's no need to change perfectly fine language to do so. Even if we called it the mouthful of "fully subsidized childchare", that's not going to make it any less popular.

Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All

#360

Post by Braxton1980 »

terminalshort wrote: post #125
macintux wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather suffer 5-10% fraud if 100% of the eligible recipients are able to receive the benefits. With the current system, far fewer than 100% of the people intended to benefit will actually make the cut.

But you're not going to get 5-10% fraud. Already there is significant disability fraud way past your 1% number even in our strict system. e.g. there are counties in the US where almost 1 in 5 working age adults is on disability because they are supposedly too disabled to work. Most people won't commit fraud in an honest system, but that flips rapidly when they see fraud being tolerated. You make it easy to defraud th…

That $200billion means about 17% fraud in a program with minimal checks
Post reply on HN