6 ms·
I’m a bit surprised by these comments. This seems like data driven evidence of a government policy working quite well. Yet there are people complaining about
by SomaticPirate 5y ago
I’m a bit surprised by these comments.
This seems like data driven evidence of a government policy working quite well.
Yet there are people complaining about this causes inflation and is “printing money”. The article clearly points out that most of the spending is on essentials and directly contributing to the children’s quality of life.
Not the article I would expect to see fiscal hawks on.
- Synaesthesia 5y agoWhat about the trillions airdropped on Wall Street? That was surely also "printing money" ... And it was a lot!
- listless 5y agoIt’s not that it’s not working. It’s that it’s not a sustainable model. Or if it is, we need to cut a LOT of other stuff.
- jeffbee 5y agoOur $2000 per capita annual war budget would be a reasonable starting place.
- dillondoyle 5y agoOr raise taxes among the top earners, corps, cap gains. Seems worth it to me.
- grecy 5y agoIt works very well and has been sustainable for many decades in a handful of other countries around the world. It's simply a question of priorities, and evidently that is not high on the list.
- karaterobot 5y agoMaybe. Hard to say what "a lot" means. But anyway, assuming there is some connection between things like child poverty, later life income, incarceration, taxes, welfare usage, entrepreneurship, etc., etc., it's entirely reasonable to hope this could be a net benefit even in purely monetary terms, which of course is not the only way to measure its success.
- maxerickson 5y ago"fiscal hawks" probably isn't correct.
- UncleMeat 5y agoA lot of people don't care much about the poor and instead care primarily about their own wallet. Whether it works or not is irrelevant to some folks.
- tastyfreeze 5y agoI care enough about the poor to donate my time and money voluntarily. But I absolutely despise government welfare which amounts to theft and forced donation for something the government is not chartered to do. Most people's protest of federal welfare has nothing to do with insensitivity to the plight of our fellow man.
- imtringued 5y agoWould you accept work sharing so that people who would do charity simply work less and those who would receive charity work in a job opportunity that pays them as much as they demand from the economy? I bet you would be against this because you want to defend your right to private property even though money is just a promise that someone works for you, it's a relationship. It's absurd that people want to own relationships as if the other person is a slave. As long as you hold onto that promise, the other person doesn't get to work so blaming others for the inability to work (often rebranded as "laziness") you created is hipocritical. As I said before, the best solution would be to simply work less, so that the promise to work doesn't end up in the hands of those who have no intention to let others work.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- president 5y agoA bug fix can still work well even if you don't address the root cause. But sooner or later it will reveal itself again.
- imtringued 5y agoBy root cause you mean the fact that some people work more than they demand in work back, leading other people to demand more work than they do work. If people do not spend their full time income then they do not create demand for a full time job on the other side. If everyone insists on working full time while demanding less than full time, then there must be people who are simply unemployed. It's like household chores. The number of chores goes up with the number of family members but there aren't enough chores to let everyone do the chores as a full time job. So if you assign all the chores to a single person others will get to do nothing. Leading to jealousy and the desire to call others lazy. If every single person did as much chores as they create the need for chores then everyone would have a fair share of the chores. You take out the garbage you produce.