Patrick Bet-David highlights the severity of the number of illegal immigrants crossing the U.S. border. The situation is worse than ever before.Connect one-o...
They can’t build homes quick enough, let alone upgrade infrastructure
Isn’t that something th liberals complain about here? Not enough housing and it’s to expensive. Yet their solution is bring in more people to strain the system.
They want living wages then complain the price went up. They want feee healthcare then find out nothing is free. I just can’t imagine living my life so clueless of consequences.
Nobody left of center has ever nor will ever assume that Federal Healthcare is “free”. We could fund healthcare for a tenth of what we’re spending on failed DARPA projects and fighter jets that are .00001% faster than their previous generation.
Healthcare for All is the fiscally responsible option.
Finally, someone who has a point. I agree with you. I fully support a two-tiered system like Australia. I think it is fiscally smart, will save money and make the workers more healthy. It also makes sure everyone has coverage and people don’t have to decide food or medicine.
That’s where you’re incorrect. Ending a government program hurts those at the bottom, ultimately removing them from becoming earners. They either become homeless or die. This takes away from their potential contributions to society. This lack of support unravels the social fabric and reduces the taxes to the government.
In a modern society, a weak government means no negotiating power on the world stage. It means no group alliances, and no benefits from those alliances.
Isn’t that something th liberals complain about here? Not enough housing and it’s to expensive. Yet their solution is bring in more people to strain the system.
Oh it very much is what they complain about. I think they want to suffer more
It’s why I can’t take them seriously.
They want living wages then complain the price went up. They want feee healthcare then find out nothing is free. I just can’t imagine living my life so clueless of consequences.
Nobody left of center has ever nor will ever assume that Federal Healthcare is “free”. We could fund healthcare for a tenth of what we’re spending on failed DARPA projects and fighter jets that are .00001% faster than their previous generation.
https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check-medicare-for-all-would-save-the-u-s-trillions-public-option-would-leave-millions-uninsured-not-garner-savings/
In fact, the government would save money. To that effect, it would be like instituting “free” healthcare.
Healthcare for All is the fiscally responsible option.
Finally, someone who has a point. I agree with you. I fully support a two-tiered system like Australia. I think it is fiscally smart, will save money and make the workers more healthy. It also makes sure everyone has coverage and people don’t have to decide food or medicine.
And ending Medicare would be a far more effective cost saver
That’s where you’re incorrect. Ending a government program hurts those at the bottom, ultimately removing them from becoming earners. They either become homeless or die. This takes away from their potential contributions to society. This lack of support unravels the social fabric and reduces the taxes to the government.
In a modern society, a weak government means no negotiating power on the world stage. It means no group alliances, and no benefits from those alliances.
Social safety nets just make sense.