And don’t those things (daycare, healthcare, Medicare) have high returns on value too? Because the workers benefitting from them are then more productive, so government recoups the investment in its people via taxes. Health issues can be tackled earlier when they’re cheaper. I’d assume less property crime as people are less desperate, etc etc. Funding domestic social programs is always the right move
There was a saying I heard a while back that keeps popping up. A version of “Democrats would rather feed 100 people in case one was hungry, Republicans would rather withhold food from 100 people in case one didn’t deserve it.”
Just in case, this is Democratic and Republican voters. Democratic politicians mostly agree with Republicans on this but in a pinch will means test 100 hungry people to find and feed the hungriest of them.
That is not even accurate, their leaders, the ones controlling the party, want to starve all the poor, they want nothing but harm to the poor, because that’s what the party wants, and they believe in nothing other than self interest.
While you are absolutely right, you’re also out of your mind if you think the president gives even one shit about high returns on value to anyone other than himself.
You don’t have to appeal to financial incentives to say that these are good programs. In fact, I would say that our tendency to frame situations in that manner is a huge part of why we are a society with an empathy problem. You should just say that providing these services to people is a moral imperative. If someone disagrees with that then you know right off the bat that they suck and you shouldn’t waste more time talking with them.
And don’t those things (daycare, healthcare, Medicare) have high returns on value too? Because the workers benefitting from them are then more productive, so government recoups the investment in its people via taxes. Health issues can be tackled earlier when they’re cheaper. I’d assume less property crime as people are less desperate, etc etc. Funding domestic social programs is always the right move
There was a saying I heard a while back that keeps popping up. A version of “Democrats would rather feed 100 people in case one was hungry, Republicans would rather withhold food from 100 people in case one didn’t deserve it.”
Just in case, this is Democratic and Republican voters. Democratic politicians mostly agree with Republicans on this but in a pinch will means test 100 hungry people to find and feed the hungriest of them.
That is not even accurate, their leaders, the ones controlling the party, want to starve all the poor, they want nothing but harm to the poor, because that’s what the party wants, and they believe in nothing other than self interest.
While you are absolutely right, you’re also out of your mind if you think the president gives even one shit about high returns on value to anyone other than himself.
Literally setting cash on fire has a higher return on value than war.
You don’t have to appeal to financial incentives to say that these are good programs. In fact, I would say that our tendency to frame situations in that manner is a huge part of why we are a society with an empathy problem. You should just say that providing these services to people is a moral imperative. If someone disagrees with that then you know right off the bat that they suck and you shouldn’t waste more time talking with them.
Yeah but those are incompatible with billionaires getting richer. At least in the short term. Which is all that matters to the leeching class.