Zone1 What do Dems mean by their promises of “affordability”?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, it’s 20 hours a week. The 80 hours is the monthly minimum. I’ll correct it, so thank you.

And that’s only if she doesn’t have pre-school children.

P.S. too late - can’t correct it. But good catch.

No worries, thanks for the verification.

 

[DGS49]

When the Government subsidizes behavior that is, on the whole, bad for society, it is a recipe for unwanted results.

If a woman or small family CANNOT AFFORD to support children with their own resources, then they should not have children. Every "middle class" human knows this intuitively and emphatically. If you are newlyweds and want children, but are struggling on two incomes to simply pay the rent, then you defer having children until your financial circumstances improve.

My wife and I had our first (and only) child when I was 32.

The government paying for and providing "free" child care for people who could not have children otherwise........why? What is the benefit to society? None. These kids will be brought up by strangers, lacking many of the good experiences that the society has to offer, because their parents are - and will likely remain - impecunious, for their entire lives. Who benefits from this policy, paying for babysitting poor kids? Not the parents, not the kids, not society.

 

[Lisa558]

When the Government subsidizes behavior that is, on the whole, bad for society, it is a recipe for unwanted results.

If a woman or small family CANNOT AFFORD to support children with their own resources, then they should not have children. Every "middle class" human knows this intuitively and emphatically. If you are newlyweds and want children, but are struggling on two incomes to simply pay the rent, then you defer having children until your financial circumstances improve.

My wife and I had our first (and only) child when I was 32.

The government paying for and providing "free" child care for people who could not have children otherwise........why? What is the benefit to society? None. These kids will be brought up by strangers, lacking many of the good experiences that the society has to offer, because their parents are - and will likely remain - impecunious, for their entire lives. Who benefits from this policy, paying for babysitting poor kids? Not the parents, not the kids, not society.

This is why many middle class families, who have to support their own children, limit themselves to one or two children.

Those on welfare keep having four, five, and six children because someone else will pay to support them.

 

[JoeB131]

Because pettiness is a sacrament to her kind.

She seems a pretty bitter person.

Someone blew out the candles on her menorah once, and she's never gotten over it.

 

[JoeB131]

This is why many middle class families, who have to support their own children, limit themselves to one or two children.

Those on welfare keep having four, five, and six children because someone else will pay to support them.

Conservatives: We should ban abortion.

Also Conservatives: Why are poor people having so many kids?

Seriously, you can't make this shit up.

 

[JoeB131]

When the Government subsidizes behavior that is, on the whole, bad for society, it is a recipe for unwanted results.

If a woman or small family CANNOT AFFORD to support children with their own resources, then they should not have children. Every "middle class" human knows this intuitively and emphatically. If you are newlyweds and want children, but are struggling on two incomes to simply pay the rent, then you defer having children until your financial circumstances improve.

The problem with "Middle Class" people is that they do put this off, and that's why we see so many white women going to fertility clinics in their 30s before their biological clocks run out, because they were too busy doing college and establishing a career.

What we should be doing is making it easier for women to have babies when they are fertile, and then put the career and such off until later.

You see, it used to be, before republicans fucked up everything, a young man could join a union and afford to raise a family in his 20s. He didn't have to put it off until his 30s or 40s.

My wife and I had our first (and only) child when I was 32.

The government paying for and providing "free" child care for people who could not have children otherwise........why? What is the benefit to society? None. These kids will be brought up by strangers, lacking many of the good experiences that the society has to offer, because their parents are - and will likely remain - impecunious, for their entire lives. Who benefits from this policy, paying for babysitting poor kids? Not the parents, not the kids, not society.

Do you have this level of venom for rich people who hire immigrant nannies to raise their kids?

The reality is, we start kids in "Preschool" the minute they are out of diapers. Not sure if it has that much value, as test scores haven't improved because of it.

 

[Mr Natural]

You see, it used to be, before republicans fucked up everything, a young man could join a union and afford to raise a family in his 20s. He didn't have to put it off until his 30s or 40s.

And Mom could stay at home and take care of the kids and house.

All the while poor Mr Businessman had to pay outrageous wages and all kinds of taxes and worry about how he was going to get by on a lousy few million dollars a year.

 

[DGS49]

"Women's liberation" was the worst thing that ever happened to the American nuclear family. It not only put women into the workplace, but convinced them that they had to have a successful career.

The result was exploding real estate prices (because most households then had two F-T incomes), and kids being brought up by government employees.

We will never recover.

The effective death of unions played a part, but one union salary was still not enough to keep up with two-income households.

 

[beagle9]

A good hint might be the actions the new Democrat Governor of VA has made just a few days into her role, following her promises of making things more “affordable” for Virginians.

Among others, she (and the new Democrat legislature, so they’ll go through) are to;

1) Add in a 4.8% tax on investment income

2) Rejoin some green initiative, which will increase electric bills an average of $1100 a year per family

3) Add a tax for deliveries by Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Uber, etc.

4) Reverse Youngkin’s direction for local police to work with ICE, and turn VA into a sanctuary state, thereby placing more of a tax burden of Virginia earner,

So…my sense of what Dems mean by “affordable” is to raise money on the backs of the middle class in order to keep up welfare programs for people who can’t or refuse to support themselves.

Democrats Pounce On Virginia Taxpayers - Americans for Tax Reform

Under unified Democrat control, Virginia is poised to become a tax-hiking outlier in a region full of states that are phasing out their income taxes.

atr.org

It's all about buying votes or rather trying to keep their illegals handy in case they somehow win an election in some way or another. This way they will have them ready to be given amnesty too, and this so they will vote Democrat the rest of their day's.

If Trump botches this war waged by Democrats to undermine this country, then Republicans can forget ever winning an election again. Retribution will be off the chain when it comes to Democrat resolve as opposed to Republican resolve.

Democrats will go to any extreme in order to arrest, attack, harass, and jail Republicans as opposed to Republicans never dropping to their level, and never targeting Democrats for retributional purposes.

Republicans should join Trump in total, and this in order to win the war that the Democrats are waging against them, and not shockingly because the left is using Trump as the excuse for them to do exactly what they are doing in order to bring the republicans down with him.

 

[JoeB131]

"Women's liberation" was the worst thing that ever happened to the American nuclear family. It not only put women into the workplace, but convinced them that they had to have a successful career.

Why is this a bad thing? Afraid of the competition. Some of the best co-workers and bosses I've ever had have been women.

There are a bunch of reasons why women went into the workforce. Feminism was one of them. So was the utilization of women in the workforce during WWII. Once you took them out of the bottle, some didn't want to go back. So was the Hyperinflation that started under Nixon. So was the death of unions, requiring two-income families.

The result was exploding real estate prices (because most households then had two F-T incomes), and kids being brought up by government employees.

Actually, two issues here.

The main reason why real estate prices "exploded" was that people were no longer happy with small homes.

We will never recover.

No, we will do what we've always done. Adapt.

Check this out. This is a picture of the home my grandparents lived in from 1930 until 1958.

It's in a pretty run-down neighborhood now, but even back in the day, it was nothing to brag about. Only two bedrooms. Less square footage than my Condo has. Now compare that to houses that are being built today out in the suburbs. Yes, they go for up to $400,000. Much nicer.

The effective death of unions played a part, but one union salary was still not enough to keep up with two-income households.

Again, let's look at this.

First, who "killed the unions", exactly? Oh, wait, that would be big businesses with the tacit support of Republicans, with Ronnie Ray-gun being the worst offender.

Although, to be fair, unions in many ways have become obsolete. They made sense when you had company towns or neighborhoods, people didn't have mobility, and most people ended up working at the plant they could walk to.

Now people can commute to their jobs, those factory jobs have been largely automated or outsourced.

 

[beagle9]

40% of people on welfare have jobs, just not jobs that pay well enough. Most of the rest are elderly and disabled.

The problem with these work requirements is that when the job market sucks (usually when Republicans get in) there are no jobs to be had.

It's like the old saying, "you have to have money to make money."

To hold down my current job, I have to have a car to get to it, I have to spend a certain amount on haircuts and dry cleaning to be somewhat presentable in the office. This is why so many people loved working from home after Covid; it made their lives easier. What's the thing big companies are pulling back on now? Work from home.

You say when Republicans get in the job market it sucks ???

Yeah well maybe for the low lifes that want to take their government hand out card to a jobsite, and this because they want the card signed claiming that they were looking for a job, but then get out of there as fast as they can before they actually are offered a job.

 

[JoeB131]

You say when Republicans get in the job market it sucks ???

Yeah well maybe for the low lifes that want to take their government hand out card to a jobsite, and this because they want the card signed claiming that they were looking for a job, but then get out of there as fast as they can before they actually are offered a job.

Frankly, I haven't seen that done since the 1980s... Didn't even know that was a thing.

The reality is, I've talked to people who have sent out hundreds of resumes and haven't gotten one interview.


The reality is, when you have Republicans, you have recession and increases in unemployment. It's why 10 of the last 11 recessions have been under Republicans (Three for Ike, One each for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Poppy Bush, Two for Dubya, and one so far for Trump. Soon to be two for Trump.)

It's not a bug, it's a design feature.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

She seems a pretty bitter person.

 

[JoeB131]

View attachment 1210760

That's all you got, Captain Incel?

 

[beagle9]

Frankly, I haven't seen that done since the 1980s... Didn't even know that was a thing.

The reality is, I've talked to people who have sent out hundreds of resumes and haven't gotten one interview.


The reality is, when you have Republicans, you have recession and increases in unemployment. It's why 10 of the last 11 recessions have been under Republicans (Three for Ike, One each for Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Poppy Bush, Two for Dubya, and one so far for Trump. Soon to be two for Trump.)

It's not a bug, it's a design feature.

No it's just that Republicans don't force companies to hire idiots that endanger the hiring companies "employee standards", and it's hiring practices as seen with this inclusivity BS that ends up costing companies millions trying to appease Democrat social experimentation.

Companies actually are relieved when Republicans get control, because the BS ends for at least 4 year's for them.

Democrats are only interested in the numbers, and they don't give a dam what exist within the numbers, but only that the numbers are high so they can equate it to retaining power at any cost.

Some labor intensive companies love the Democrats, and this is because if the experiment back fires on them, then the Democrat run government will take hardworking taxpayer's money and bail out the company that was hurt by the inclusivity practice that was forced on them.

 

[JoeB131]

No it's just that Republicans don't force companies to hire idiots that endanger the hiring companies "employee standards", and it's hiring practices as seen with this inclusivity BS that ends up costing companies millions trying to appease Democrat social experimentation.

Companies actually are relieved when Republicans get control, because the BS ends for at least 4 year's for them.

Democrats are only interested in the numbers, and they don't give a dam what exist within the numbers, but only that the numbers are high so they can equate it to retaining power at any cost.

Some labor intensive companies love the Democrats, and this is because if the experiment back fires on them, then the Democrat run government will take hardworking taxpayer's money and bail out the company that was hurt by the inclusivity practice that was forced on them.

I'm trying to understand your bizarre logic here. YOu want "them welfare people" to get jobs, but then you are perfectly fine with businesses having hiring standards that exclude them.

Companies love when Republicans get in, because they can screw their workers with impunity. Then Republicans **** up the economy and they lose money.

 

[Greenbeard]

If you are newlyweds and want children, but are struggling on two incomes to simply pay the rent, then you defer having children until your financial circumstances improve.

People have gotten the message.

The result will be the coming automatic cuts to current Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in 4-5 years.

 

[Lisa558]

People have gotten the message.

The result will be the coming automatic cuts to current Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries in 4-5 years.

I guess we’ll need to cut the food stamps and Medicaid, too.

 

[Greenbeard]

I guess we’ll need to cut the food stamps and Medicaid, too.

We already are, where have you been?

 

[Lisa558]

We already are, where have you been?

No, we cut who gets it - no more illegals and no more lazy, able-bodied adults.