The term “living wage” is used a lot in discussions on affordability, wages, etc.
What would a “living wage” cover for an individual or family of four?
MIT also made a calculator to see what a “living wage” is for various parts of the country, by individuals and households.
Thoughts on the accuracy of this calculator and other such projections that tell people how much they should be making?
Is that a focus of the administration?
Is there any quantifiable evidence to show reductions?
If there are initiatives that should reduce healthcare costs, how will they do that?
John Adams famously quoted this:
“Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”
And Madison said similarly:
“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”
— James Madison, *Federalist No. 55*, February 15, 1788.
Are we a “religious and moral people” as a whole in the U.S.?
Do you disagree with their positions?
If you agree with the idea and we’re not actually a moral and religious people, how do we get there from here?
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5929977-second-amendment-firearm-ruling/amp/
From the article:
“The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday the government can’t criminally prosecute a man for possessing a firearm simply because he regularly smoked marijuana, rejecting the government’s comparison to the disarmament habitual drunkards in the founding era.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that it violates his right to keep arms under the conservative justices’ expanded Second Amendment test. It requires gun control measures be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Do you agree with this decision? If not, why?
Could this precedent open up other gun control SC challenges?
Do you think this is a good decision for the country as a whole and long term?
For context, what I’m asking is how much the leftwing framing of various topics is accurate regarding material conditions.
For instance, the left often argues that implementing free healthcare, social safety nets, welfare, parental leave, etc would cut down on abortion more than banning it. Except we have examples of countries in Europe that have all of those things and still have higher abortion rates than the U.S.
Another is low birthrates. The left argues it is because we need universal healthcare, parental leave, safety nets, etc. Except countries have all those and still have low birth rates. Oddly enough, there is one developed country with above sustainment birthrates, Israel.
As another example, homelessness is often treated as a material issue. If a homeless persons material conditions are changed, as in a free house, or free healthcare, then that will fix the issue.
Crime is often treated the same way as well.
While I understand that individually, material issues can matter to an individual, on a macro level, do you think the “material conditions” argument holds any real merit?
If there is a better one, what is it and where does JROTC rank in terms of molding the youth?
Should programs like this be encouraged or have higher funding?