Anonymous OP 4w

ooooh i can't wait to drop the "if [public good/service] is communist then so are the police" on some dingdong

15

Anonymous OP 4w

I DONT WANT NO SATANIC COMMUNIST ROADS IN MY COUNTRY! ONLY PRIVATE BUILT STREETS LIKE JESUS INTENDED🤬

12

Anonymous OP 4w

Fr ppl benefit from aspects of socialism everyday, like idk PUBLIC SCHOOLS

5

Anonymous #4 4w

Or alternatively how you’re going to find $2 trillion in additional tax revenue

-1

Anonymous #4 4w

stop holding back from taxing the rich. impose consequences on pentagon leadership who can't account for roughly 63% of their $4 trillion in assets. stop funding israel's genocide. there are so many means of raising revenue and i'm 1000% positive you'd accept absolutely none of them

3

Anonymous #4 4w

first off, how did we go from “this isn't communism” to “how do we pay"??? not the same argument. cost doesn’t determine whether or not something is communism, ideology does. you can dislike the policy on fiscal grounds if you want, but that’s a budgeting debate, not evidence that childcare is communism.

3

Anonymous #4 4w

second, your $2 trillion framing is misleading. you don’t fund a program by cutting one giant chunk of the budget, and gross cost isn’t net cost. universal childcare increases labor force participation, raises tax revenue, and reduces spending on other social programs. that’s why other capitalist countries have adopted it.

6

Anonymous #1 4w

Sure, consequences for pentagon leadership could be a good idea but I’m not sure how realistic your expectations are. That 63% is mostly improper documentation on assets we already purchased. This isn’t a realistic strategy to recover any tax revenue. The most we’ve sent to israel in a year is a hair over $20 billion. It doesn’t make a dent when you’re talking about trillions. I’m not sure exactly how you would raise taxes on the rich, but I’m doubtful you would be able to generate $2 trillion

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

I agree that it’s not communism. I’m pointing out that there are other, more reasonable objections.

-1

Anonymous OP 4w

Sure, I’m simplifying the very complex world of economic modeling but I’m doubtful of the claim that any increases in revenue would even remotely come close to making up for the increased spending. The countries that have programs like this in place, also have much higher taxes on the middle class because its the only way they can pay for it.

-1

Anonymous #4 4w

this is what i'm talking about - i'm saying there are virtually limitless places where we can pull money from and you're acting as if we can only pick one. if we saved $20B on israel we'd only need to do that like 100 times to hit $2T. we waste well over $2T on stuff that can be reallocated

5

Anonymous #4 4w

but like i said, it doesn't matter how many combination of options i show you because you would accept none of them

3

Anonymous #4 4w

also did you pull $2T out of your ass? i'm seeing numbers in the billions when i look it up

3

Anonymous #4 4w

the highest number i'm seeing is $350B over 10 years from a budget model. where the hell are you getting $2T?

6

Anonymous #1 4w

There are not virtually limitless places to pull money. This is the problem with the concept of DOGE. Most of federal spending is from only a few programs that no one wants to cut.

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Read my earlier comment, universal childcare would be a few hundred billion. We’re already overspending by $1.72 trillion every year

1

Anonymous #1 4w

You’re likely looking at an estimate for either subsidized (not fully free) childcare or for a limited age group like preschool.

1

Anonymous #4 4w

oh so it would only take like 20 israels... you're acting like this is unachievable. we found like $150B to end child poverty (through the tax credit expansion during the pandemic) for most children in 2021 also this chart is misleading. not all of those expenses are on-budget. like social security. the structure is way more complicated than a pie chart can show, which goes to show your oversimplification of the process and explains why you approach it from an all-or-nothing position

1

Anonymous #1 4w

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Israel. The vast majority of that $20 billion isn’t even cash. You can’t pay for childcare with old fighter jets. We still pay for social security, no matter how you structure the budget. It would be misleading to *not* include mandatory spending.

0

Anonymous #4 4w

my point is not that we can get rid of multiple israels. my point is that the number is much more feasible than you're leading on. we continue sending money (in various liquid forms) every year to israel. i have no clue why you think we'd have to sell old fighter jets

1

Anonymous #4 4w

and my point about the pie chart is that it's not reflective of the complexity of our tax/revenue structure and doesn't show how much is spent in various forms unnecessarily. it's a very simple chart i'd expect to see in a middle/high school class, not a discussion between (i assume educated) adults about funding things like free atpos childcare or healthcare

3

Anonymous #4 4w

but like i said, you won't accept anything because you don't want to. if that allegation isn't true then i'd ask you if you think it's possible - and how

1

Anonymous #1 4w

Bizarre to suggest that pie charts are for grade school. They’re a useful way to visualize data. I’m not sure what you want, should I write a thesis paper in yikyak comments? Has there ever been a yikyak discussion that wasn’t a simplification of the issue?

-3

Anonymous #4 4w

i didn't say pie charts are for grade school. read what i said again carefully. i said this pie chart is not reflective of the complexity and is too elementary for the topic at hand. i 100% agree that yy is not a great place for complex topics with lengthy explanations which is why i find your use of the pie chart a bit odd - especially since you agree. i don't expect a dissertation, i expect intellectual honesty and a touch of rigor

3

Anonymous #4 4w

you don't have to agree with me to admit the pie chart isn't the best graphic but tbh i don't care about it enough to continue talking about it. regardless, i take it you don't actually want to accept that there are funding mechanisms because you entirely glossed over that

1

Anonymous #4 4w

it's rather clear that you're coming from an oppositional standpoint, not a pragmatic one

6

Anonymous #1 4w

It’s an imperfect graphic, but a great one for making my point that spending is concentrated in a few areas. There are lots of funding mechanisms. The point I’m trying to make is that it would come with significant tradeoffs.

0