The problem with the Republican Party is the same as with the Democrat Party. They play to the extremes and so any attempt by a politician to moderate to the middle gets hijacked.
For example, another problem with IVF is that it produces embryos, which to the "pro-life" crowd means more abortions. So it's a nonstarter for two reasons for the religious right: the money issue and the abortion issue. Trump recent reconciled that by suggesting that six weeks is too early to set an abortion ban, and you should have seen the comments on Twitter. Losing their minds. Trump is now "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Never mind that 80% of the country thinks six weeks is too early for a ban. These people are their own worst enemy.
And it’s so important to point out that the issue is whether to BAN. People can still feel that an abortion before 6 weeks is morally wrong, harmful to the mother, has potential dangers to the mother, etc. but this issue is whether government has the right to ban it, which is a very active stance. So true about playing to extremes.
Zaid, nice piece, and I think you are right. Two small objections: it's hard to say that buying something that one does not have is a "tax." I'm typing wearing fancy eyeglasses. A tax? Other people have better eyes . . . inequality, even differential impact, are not enough to call something a tax. Second, and more importantly, while it is nice for government to work "for" people like your friends, I think Trump was making a different point: society, the nation, has trouble forming families. The reason to support IVF in these situations is that families, young children are a public good, perhaps the ultimate public good (without which the polis dies). I would venture that at least some of the resistance to supporting IVF is that it seems like another at best transfer to individuals, feeding at the trough, etc. The actual dollar cost, as you point out, isn't driving this. Framing the issue more publicly might garner more support. As always, keep up the good work.
I agree about the framing as a tax. I also wonder how influences DT was by Elon Musk on this. I listened to part of an interview between him and Lex Friedman and population numbers was a big thing for him.
"Not only do they not endorse the single-payer Medicare-for-All solution that progressives support, they don’t really support anything — including fairly conservative, market-oriented universal health care systems that exist in Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, or Japan."
A normal center-left candidate would respond to Donald Trump's proposal by arguing in favor of universal health care that would cover all expensive medical procedures which can stand in the way of forming a family, but of course Kamala Harris has just decided to abandon past support for both of the systems you describe above.
Free IVF? $25K to first time home buyers? All these politicians do is pander pander pander, buy votes, lie...
We're already $33 T in debt. No one is interested in doing anything about it, and it's going to ruin us.
It's not the government's job to keep handing shit out to people. The government's job is to run the country responsibly. And they have been failing at that job for decades.
I agree, but I can also hope the Republicans will do more to reduce spending in other areas and grow the economy to reduce (or at least slow) the deficit. Unfortunately no one wins votes by promising to take perks away. But so much of our spending goes to questionable foreign aid, bloated government departments, and military that’s important but may not need to have all the missions they have, I think there’s a lot of room to reduce spending in other ways
Americans not having kids (1.6 per mom and dropping) is recipe to destroy our economy more than any policy is able to repair. We need able-bodied workers. Can also see this as Trump olive branch to suburban women vote. Like the Wall and Fracking, give it a minute and Harris will also come out in support.
Well there’s a bit of virtue signaling here. D party all about anti-life, with on-demand vasectomy and abortion vans parked outside the DNC. IVF is about promotion of life, which signals the opposite.
The anti-life Democrats are also the party of the child tax credit and Medicaid expansion, which drastically reduced infant and child poverty. Yes, by taxing the rich and middle class: that’s the tradeoff Democrats make.
The problem with the Republican Party is the same as with the Democrat Party. They play to the extremes and so any attempt by a politician to moderate to the middle gets hijacked.
For example, another problem with IVF is that it produces embryos, which to the "pro-life" crowd means more abortions. So it's a nonstarter for two reasons for the religious right: the money issue and the abortion issue. Trump recent reconciled that by suggesting that six weeks is too early to set an abortion ban, and you should have seen the comments on Twitter. Losing their minds. Trump is now "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." Never mind that 80% of the country thinks six weeks is too early for a ban. These people are their own worst enemy.
And it’s so important to point out that the issue is whether to BAN. People can still feel that an abortion before 6 weeks is morally wrong, harmful to the mother, has potential dangers to the mother, etc. but this issue is whether government has the right to ban it, which is a very active stance. So true about playing to extremes.
Zaid, nice piece, and I think you are right. Two small objections: it's hard to say that buying something that one does not have is a "tax." I'm typing wearing fancy eyeglasses. A tax? Other people have better eyes . . . inequality, even differential impact, are not enough to call something a tax. Second, and more importantly, while it is nice for government to work "for" people like your friends, I think Trump was making a different point: society, the nation, has trouble forming families. The reason to support IVF in these situations is that families, young children are a public good, perhaps the ultimate public good (without which the polis dies). I would venture that at least some of the resistance to supporting IVF is that it seems like another at best transfer to individuals, feeding at the trough, etc. The actual dollar cost, as you point out, isn't driving this. Framing the issue more publicly might garner more support. As always, keep up the good work.
I agree about the framing as a tax. I also wonder how influences DT was by Elon Musk on this. I listened to part of an interview between him and Lex Friedman and population numbers was a big thing for him.
Zaid - great piece 👍
"Not only do they not endorse the single-payer Medicare-for-All solution that progressives support, they don’t really support anything — including fairly conservative, market-oriented universal health care systems that exist in Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, or Japan."
A normal center-left candidate would respond to Donald Trump's proposal by arguing in favor of universal health care that would cover all expensive medical procedures which can stand in the way of forming a family, but of course Kamala Harris has just decided to abandon past support for both of the systems you describe above.
Free IVF? $25K to first time home buyers? All these politicians do is pander pander pander, buy votes, lie...
We're already $33 T in debt. No one is interested in doing anything about it, and it's going to ruin us.
It's not the government's job to keep handing shit out to people. The government's job is to run the country responsibly. And they have been failing at that job for decades.
I agree, but I can also hope the Republicans will do more to reduce spending in other areas and grow the economy to reduce (or at least slow) the deficit. Unfortunately no one wins votes by promising to take perks away. But so much of our spending goes to questionable foreign aid, bloated government departments, and military that’s important but may not need to have all the missions they have, I think there’s a lot of room to reduce spending in other ways
I lost hope on R's being the responsible spending party years ago. The last president to preside over a balanced budget was Clinton, 25 years ago.
Americans not having kids (1.6 per mom and dropping) is recipe to destroy our economy more than any policy is able to repair. We need able-bodied workers. Can also see this as Trump olive branch to suburban women vote. Like the Wall and Fracking, give it a minute and Harris will also come out in support.
Other countries have tried paying for fertility and it doesn't work as promised.
Well there’s a bit of virtue signaling here. D party all about anti-life, with on-demand vasectomy and abortion vans parked outside the DNC. IVF is about promotion of life, which signals the opposite.
The anti-life Democrats are also the party of the child tax credit and Medicaid expansion, which drastically reduced infant and child poverty. Yes, by taxing the rich and middle class: that’s the tradeoff Democrats make.
Good point.
The pandering is so triggering for me. As is the continued increase of our total debt.