politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.