Well, of course, free stuff is great for the people that get it. However, it is another way of rewarding the non-frugal. Think of a person who slugged it out for a decade -- I'm one of them - paying that damn loan back, month in, month out, even when it hurt. Get that thing paid off, and then the government says - no worries - don't have to pay it. I'm sure I won't be getting a refund.hadespussercats wrote:But my original comment (lest this get lost in the shuffle) was two different points-- one was picturing possibilities that Obama's proposal would open up for my family, and another that was about economic incentives.hadespussercats wrote:Still, once those children exist, they're part of society, and have needs and rights that a lawn does not.hadespussercats wrote:Yup.Coito ergo sum wrote:Arguably, and I've heard a lot of folks arguing this, having kids is detrimental to the planet, including environmentally, and especially given the fact that we're at about 7 billion people.hadespussercats wrote:And by the by-- taking care of a kid is different from grooming a lawn. Society does have a stake in its citizens being kept safe, raised well, educated...
(But no-- I'm not asking the government to pay for it. Still, it could be good for society if it did.)
The grooming the lawn is just another life choice. You chose to have a child, someone else might choose not to, in order to not have that responsibility, or because they feel it's better for society that they don't contribute to the population problem. It is not "objectively" better for society that more people have children - it may well be argued, and is argued by some, that it would be better if we halved the population of the world....
That picture isn't real. Someone has to pay, and the bills don't go away because the government doesn't make you pay them. And, when the person utilizing a service doesn't have to pay for it, there is no incentive to worry about how much is used, or how much it costs. And, when the customer doesn't care how much it costs, and the bills are going to the government, then the provider of the service is much more free to raise prices. It destroys accountability. And, that's why what the klr was saying happened in Ireland happened. They got free college tuition - yay! rah! - then a few years later there are all these side-fees and costs that now add up to several thousand Euro. It also is demonstrated in the high cost of public high school in the US. The amount of money spent per pupil would buy a person a nice college education at a pretty good school - for high school (and they graduate borderline idiots half the time.hadespussercats wrote:
I've never maintained that other people should pay my bills so I don't have to have a job.
But when I picture my life if my husband and I didn't have loan debt, the first thing I thought of was that I wouldn't have to worry so much about daycare, etc., etc., because I could afford to stay at home and only work gigs as it made sense schedule-wise. I like the picture, I have to admit.
Government does not make things less expensive. Insurance does not make things less expensive, it invariably makes things more expensive because it removes the incentive to control costs from the person utilizing the service.