Hullabaloonatic said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Sooooooo 500,000 kids 18 or under in NM roughly….apparently parents pay $12,000 a year for care according to this story….so that's $6 Billion annually. The states budget is $10 Billion for 2025…..something isn't jiving.

(Yes I realize a number of those kids are covered under public ed funding)

---

The program is for babies and toddlers. Read before you comment.

---

I did. Then I researched….shocking I know. 4.7 B is already set aside for public education in newest budget not counting this new program.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

Great! Now end it and apply those savings to paying down our debt. Then cut taxes.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Sooooooo 500,000 kids 18 or under in NM roughly….apparently parents pay $12,000 a year for care according to this story….so that's $6 Billion annually. The states budget is $10 Billion for 2025…..something isn't jiving.

(Yes I realize a number of those kids are covered under public ed funding)

---

The program is for babies and toddlers. Read before you comment.

---

Let's get more people sucking from the government's teet. What could ever go wrong? It's not like welfare has created an entire class of people who live off of food stamps and commit horrendous crimes at rates that far exceed any other group.

Is that a fancy way of saying democrat funded message board agitator?

Pretty muchly.

One of the poorest states in the country. How about fixing your roads?

Hank the Grifter said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

And will be insolvent in just a few years.
You're batting 1.000 today buddy!

---

There is a difference between Social Security (the program) and the Social Security Trust Fund. The Fund is basically an account that was created to hold all the surplus money the government collected in FICA taxes above what they had to pay out in benefits for a given year. That money is used to cover any deficits for years where the government doesn't pull in enough taxes to cover the existing benefits.

Once the Fund is depleted (what you're referring to), it means the only money that can be paid out is the money brought in that same year. So if benefits exceed income, there will be a shortfall; the government won't be able to pay all the benefits it owes. To distribute this shortfall "fairly," the government would cut everyone's benefit by about 20%. If you were entitled to $1k per month, you'd receive only $800 per month. You'd still get something, but not as much as you're entitled to under the current formula.

Again, SS will still exist.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

National (Federal Government) Debt
As of 2025, the U.S. national debt exceeds $37 trillion, driven by persistent budget deficits and rising interest payments

1. Mandatory Spending Programs
These are legally required expenditures and include:

• Social Security
• Medicare and Medicaid
• Federal retirement and disability programs

These programs are the largest and fastest-growing components of federal spending
.

And somehow they do it plugged into the same profilic shale field that Texas is.

Quote:

---

A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

BWAHAHAHHWWBBAHWHAHAHAHAHWBWHAHAHAHAH



.......WAIT....BREATHE....



BWAHAHAHHWWBBAHWHAHAHAHAHWBWHAHAHAHAH

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Sooooooo 500,000 kids 18 or under in NM roughly….apparently parents pay $12,000 a year for care according to this story….so that's $6 Billion annually. The states budget is $10 Billion for 2025…..something isn't jiving.

(Yes I realize a number of those kids are covered under public ed funding)

---

The program is for babies and toddlers. Read before you comment.

---

I did. Then I researched….shocking I know. 4.7 B is already set aside for public education in newest budget not counting this new program.

---

What is the purpose of bringing in all children under 18 when this program only applies to children under the age of 5? The cost savings is applying to pre public education children only.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

So if benefits exceed income

---

Wanna know when the benefits first began to exceed the amount paid on by a particular recipient?

With the first recipient.

Bernie Madoff was a genius. Until he wasnt.

I'd rather the SS money deducted from my check remain in my possession where I can invest it and receive 100% of what I'm entitlted to rather than 80% of what I'm entitled to that the government will tax me on again.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

And will be insolvent in just a few years.
You're batting 1.000 today buddy!

---

There is a difference between Social Security (the program) and the Social Security Trust Fund. The Fund is basically an account that was created to hold all the surplus money the government collected in FICA taxes above what they had to pay out in benefits for a given year. That money is used to cover any deficits for years where the government doesn't pull in enough taxes to cover the existing benefits.

Once the Fund is depleted (what you're referring to), it means the only money that can be paid out is the money brought in that same year. So if benefits exceed income, there will be a shortfall; the government won't be able to pay all the benefits it owes. To distribute this shortfall "fairly," the government would cut everyone's benefit by about 20%. If you were entitled to $1k per month, you'd receive only $800 per month. You'd still get something, but not as much as you're entitled to under the current formula.

Again, SS will still exist.

---

Yay we all get to put way more into it then we will ever get out of it. Yup that sounds like a good investment on my part. It's the worlds largest ponzi scheme run by the idiots that run our country.

Just want to rehash what has most likely already been said on this thread.

Universal "Free" Daycare is an abject horrible, terrible, garbage thing for a state to provide.

1) Increases reliance on the nanny state (Yes, this is a purposeful double entendre)

2) Increases the ability of the state to indoctrinate children

3) Increases demand of children from people who can not afford children

4) Decreases parent / child relationships which is essential for proper development

5) Increases strain on the state budget thus decreasing services for more important and/or appropriate state functions

6) Increases tax rates and taxes the state government will confiscate from it's residents

7) Etc, etc, etc...


-- I will now read through the replies

Couple of things...

1. 60% of children under age 5 are in child care. New Mexico has 140k children under 5. ~84k kids in childcare.
2. There is already a shortage of childcare providers/slots. With 3 waitlisted for every slot in NM currently.
3.. How are they going to pay for this extra billion? 140,000 x $12,000 = 1,008,000,000/yr.

The percentage of childcare will only go up after this.

I want to hear how the USSR should have worked by OP. I guarantee there's a hypothesis in that noggin

The worst and least efficient versions of anything are government run, and yet some people love it and call it "free" when the government takes it over.

Why would you want that? I mean seriously? What about government f'ing something up permanently and irrevocably is so appealing?

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

Guess who's paying for that?

You seem like you don't know.

You can't constantly have the government pay for your personal decisions. "Free stuff" is never free.

I'm all for people getting some help here and there I really need it but what this does is the same thing with welfare. They just never get off it because why should they?

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Sims said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

War on Poverty...somehow we've spent over $30,000,000,000,000 to help people take care of themselves and here we are still...

---

In the history of our nation, no program has lifted more people out of poverty than Social Security. By almost every metric, SS is arguably the most successful government policy the nation has ever created. A program that by design funds itself through FICA and has no impact on the deficit, budget, or debt.

---

National (Federal Government) Debt
As of 2025, the U.S. national debt exceeds $37 trillion, driven by persistent budget deficits and rising interest payments

1. Mandatory Spending Programs
These are legally required expenditures and include:

• Social Security
• Medicare and Medicaid
• Federal retirement and disability programs

These programs are the largest and fastest-growing components of federal spending
.

---

ChatGPT is right that it is mandatory spending, but worded in a misleading way. SS is 100% funded through FICA payroll tax (as is some Medicare). FICA taxes are raised separately and spent separately from the pool of normal income tax (which is how the budget is divvied up).

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

Then you don't understand conservatives at all. Not a surprise.

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

I'm shocked that the left thinks this is free childcare.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

carl spacklers hat said:

---

I never celebrate Socialism. There are no freebies, somebody, somewhere is paying. Bad New Mexico.

---

You don't celebrate Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid?

---

You mean the three things bankrupting America?

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Libs get excited over communism

---

Ah yes, communist countries such as Belgium, Denmark, Lithuania, Norway and Slovenia who also offer free childcare.

---

There's NOT A SINGLE European Country I want to the US to emulate.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Sooooooo 500,000 kids 18 or under in NM roughly….apparently parents pay $12,000 a year for care according to this story….so that's $6 Billion annually. The states budget is $10 Billion for 2025…..something isn't jiving.

(Yes I realize a number of those kids are covered under public ed funding)

---

The program is for babies and toddlers. Read before you comment.

---

I did. Then I researched….shocking I know. 4.7 B is already set aside for public education in newest budget not counting this new program.

---

What is the purpose of bringing in all children under 18 when this program only applies to children under the age of 5? The cost savings is applying to pre public education children only.

---

What "cost savings". Who is saving?

And I bring it up because the state is now apparently increasing spending for those under 18 to the point just education and child care is going to eat up 50% or more of its annual budget for less than 25% of the population.

will25u said:

---

Couple of things...

1. 62% of children under age 5 are in child care. Nevada has 215k children under 5. ~133k kids in childcare.
2. There is already a shortage of childcare providers/slots. With 3 waitlisted for every slot in NV currently.
3.. How are they going to pay for this extra 2 billion? 133,000 x $12,000 = 1,915,200,000/yr.

The percentage of childcare will only go up after this.

---

Ummm, might want to calibrate your location meter.

So New Mexico had a surplus of $3.4B in 24. This year they are projected to have a surplus of $850 million. There are roughly 525,000 residents 19 or younger in New Mexico. Typical break out of this would be 30% ages 7 or under. That's your non-school going children. Assuming you aren't paying for after school care at $12,000 per child that means an annual cost of $1.9B. So this will go swimmingly if they can rely on extraordinarily high O&G revenues like in '24 and then none of the rest of the time. Good luck with that.

Slicer97 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

Then you don't understand conservatives at all. Not a surprise.

---

None of them do.

Quote:

---

The average NM will save over $12,000 per kid in child care. Sure they will. As if that money won't immediately go directly to taxes, etc. to pay for this "free" government program

---

No it won't. It will go to things like tattoos and rims. Liberals and low class leaches want to spend all their money on fun stuff. Adult stuff like child care, education, health care, etc. need to be paid for by other people. Successful white people or corporations or something.

MelvinUdall said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

I'm shocked that the left thinks this is free childcare.

---

To them everything is free. They just say make the rich "pay their fair share". Of course they never say what percentage that should be to make it fair and of course they don't think that they should have to pay only the mean rich people that do not align with their beliefs.

I was going to say it's because they don't understand much at all, but that might be perceived as rude so I won't say it.

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

If I wanted to make something super expensive and lower the quality of something as quickly as possible, the only thing I would have to do is have it become a government provided service.

CDUB98 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

ETFan said:

---

Good bull.

I'm shocked to see conservatives up in arms over post-birth [literally anything to help American families].

---

Then you don't understand conservatives at all. Not a surprise.

---

None of them do.

---

I would think they'd learn, especially on F16 but it's like toddlers who want to only eat chicken nuggets in shapes... there's no reason behind it besides it seems cool

Slicer97 said:

---

I was going to say it's because they don't understand much at all, but that might be perceived as rude so I won't say it.

---

Who are you and what have you done with Slicer?