Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could do that but with the increasing partisanship only one or the other will happen. So now we just get tax cuts and if the DEMS take over the white house and both branches of congress we may get child care but along with it tax increases. We need leadership in Washington that is actually interested in the common good but instead we are increasingly electing those who are simply good at attacking the other side.
The corporate democrats have the same big money donors as Republicans. These donors want to stave off any real challenge to their power and wealth so they control both parties and push policies that harm the ordinary everyday American. Its a myth that there is such great differences, when the donors are the same.
Sanders and his tuition free college, Kamala and her $500 monthly check proposal to families, Warren and her free universal childcare to families who make less than $50,000 and of course Medicare for All which they have no way to pay for it just a campaign statement to get liberals to go to the polls.
Wonder how many goodies they are going to propose between now and election time.
{snip}
It would be funny as hell, if this were not so tragic for the nation. The contest for Democratic Party presidential candidates, to see who can be the one to promise the most ludicrous and irresponsible list of free stuff, has begun. "My promise of Utopia are much bigger than my opponents."
I'm waiting for them to start calling out each other as heartless, mean spirited, meanies, just because candidate A's Utopia doesn't offer as much free stuff as candidate B's.
It's what they do to Republicans all the time. remember in 1995, when the Republicans were going to increase school lunch funding by 5% a year, and the democrats accused them of wanting to "starve children" because the dems wanted to increase funding a little more? It will be interesting to see if the dems use these same dirty tricks against fellow dems.
Never mind the fact that the federal government should not be involved in dictating school lunches at the state and local level in the first place.
Sanders and his tuition free college, Kamala and her $500 monthly check proposal to families, Warren and her free universal childcare to families who make less than $50,000 and of course Medicare for All which they have no way to pay for it just a campaign statement to get liberals to go to the polls.
So far, Kamala is proposing a $500 gift a month for families and Warren is proposing universal childcare that is free for families who make less than $50,000 and no more than 7% of income for those above $50,000
They have also proposed Medicare for All but there is no viable way to pay for it, so they want people to trust them that they know what they are doing.
Sanders explains how medicare for all can be paid for on his website, in specific detail. It's been up maybe 4 years already. You and everyone who says there's no way to pay for it might want to read his proposal, LOLOL.
The corporate democrats have the same big money donors as Republicans. These donors want to stave off any real challenge to their power and wealth so they control both parties and push policies that harm the ordinary everyday American. Its a myth that there is such great differences, when the donors are the same.
All you need to do is look at Clinton's 2016 presidential, she had heavy hitters like Goldman Sachs and hundreds of millions of dollars from the richest of the rich donating to her campaign. I think Trump's campaign had less than half the amount Hilary had.
OK, so you make $85,000 together, which means she's earning only $25k - the cost you claim it would be for daycare.
So let her stay home. You're saying, instead, that WE should pay for the costs of daycare so she can work at her $12/hr job. Move into a cheaper apartment for a few years, and then when the kid is in first grade, she can go back to work and you all can move to a better place.
you're the poster child for what's wrong with liberalism: other people, even those who earn less than you, should pitch in to pay for your expenses.
That is exactly what many are doing now. The lower income earner stays home until the kids are school age. Lost wages generally are about what daycare, travel, etc is going to cost plus it reduces stress levels. In the last few years we lost two employees due to them having an additional child. It just made better financial sense for them to stay home not to mention it made for a happier home life for everyone.
All you need to do is look at Clinton's 2016 presidential, she had heavy hitters like Goldman Sachs and hundreds of millions of dollars from the richest of the rich donating to her campaign. I think Trump's campaign had less than half the amount Hilary had.
Trump appointed a Goldman Sachs guy as his campaign finance chief and rewarded him with the secretary of the Treasury. Goldman supports both the establishment democrats and the Republican party heavily precisely to stave off any opposition to their agenda. They dont want the working class to get any ideas that could empower the workers. Then they play those two parties they control off each other, pretending there is some great division going on so the people get all riled up and feel they should vote for Goldman 2.0 instead of Goldman 1.0.
Screw that, I'd rather remain childless than put up with that type of commute
So you don't want to make the sacrifice to move to the exurbs in order to afford children? Taxpayers should chip in for your daycare costs so you can afford to live closer in and still have children?
I wanted to buy a house, but I couldn't afford it in the close-in neighborhood I was renting. My choice was to either continue renting close-in or buy 20 miles out. I chose the latter, even with the godawful commute. So you can make the same type of choice - continue living close-in while childless, or move 20 miles out where you can afford to raise a child.
Screw that, I'd rather remain childless than put up with that type of commute
Millennial logic. You all complain that boomers have too much but they did these commutes for years which you refuse to do. Boomers earned what they have.
Millennial logic. You all complain that boomers have too much but they did these commutes for years which you refuse to do. Boomers earned what they have.
Agree. He's basically saying he wants taxpayers to subsidize a more convenient commute. IOW, if we cover his daycare costs, he can afford a close-in house, rather than move further out where homes are more affordable.
He is single-handedly demonstrating what is wrong with the "entitled" liberal mindset.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
