Merge said:

What do you mean? Trump answered on child care - Was this not clear?

"Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so, uh, impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. Couldn't, you know, there's something, you have to have it — in this country you have to have it."

Now that's a plan.

Click to expand...

SHUSA said:

who ends up paying into social security? you need a new crop of humans for that.

right now nobody can afford to have a child. if not having a child was the result then the birth rates would be insanely low. people (like myself) go from financially stable to walking a fine line once you have a child. more so than before. you need the second income, hostage by daycare price, etc. we still lag woefully behind on standard things like giving a mother a realistic time off after giving birth. just general human stuff .

the problem is, where does the money come from. we can at least discuss these things with kamala. which you cant do for the other candidate

Click to expand...

SPK145 said:

No, absolutely not, the real measure of this so-called price gouging would be to measure gross profit margin, not net margin. Look at the publicly traded grocery stores, their gross profit margins were essentialy flat, or slightly up or down.

Click to expand...

SPK145 said:

It's not government money, it's borrowed taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

SPK145 said:

How about personal responibility? You want to have kids, that's great, but everyone else shouldn't have to contribute.

Click to expand...

Merge said:

Did grocery store profits not surge in 2020 and 2021 well above what a normal margin would have been for the industry?



It doesn't. Your issue is really that the tax credit should have been in section 2.
I'd agree with that.

I get why you as a libertarian would be against it, but a birth year tax credit to help with the related costs during that first year would be a huge help for new families and wouldn't cost that much relative to the current child tax credit. There is also always a fairly strong ROI when the government gives lower to middle class families more money.

I do understand the argument that if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. That's what I did, but it doesn't change the fact that many people do have children who can't afford them and longer term impacts of helping those families will be beneficial to the children and the country overall. Longer term, the birth rate in the US is too low a tax credit would help there as well.

Click to expand...

SPK145 said:

So if you choose not to have children or can’t have children, sorry you’ll have to subsidize those who do or can?

Click to expand...

Merge said:

Part of running for office and being president is a sales pitch getting people to understand why your polices are good and why the public should support them. Harris is really bad at the sale.

That's why Trump isn't offering any specific policies. He's good at selling a narrative, but he's horrible talking about the details.
Tariffs are a great example there. He still doesn't understand how they work and if his campaign outlined a full policy - he would be completely lost.

Click to expand...