|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!"
|
On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around.
You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage.
On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!"
It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week.
|
On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there.
You could also spend a whole lot of public funds supporting family planning services to reduce the amount of single mothers. Most women choose to raise children in families when they can. You know, we could have federal funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood.
|
On March 03 2016 04:53 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:22 strongwind wrote:
Clinton has been winning by ridiculous margins in red states, which will probably stay red in the general election. That's concerning because it's what largely has been propping up Hillary's campaign so far. Bernie has been tying or winning in blue states. I don't understand how people don't see this as a problem for Hillary in the general election.
Plus, more Republicans are turning out to vote than Democrats. We all know Democrats suffer when turnout is low, and I don't see that changing much in the general. If people are expecting an Obama-like surge for Hillary in the general, they are smoking some good stuff.
Barring a huge misstep from Trump (which is always a distinct possibility), this will be a lot more competitive than people think. Using your line of thinking, "blue" states hardly matters either. In reality though, it's the battlegrounds that matter, specifically Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida (North Carolina, Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, and New Hampshire are of secondary importance to the above). Clinton has already won Virginia, and has a very strong lead in both Ohio and Florida based on current polls. In Florida in particular, her popularity with Hispanic voters (or at least, their indifference to Sanders), will be critical, given that Florida in the 2016 elections is now increasingly a "must-win" state for the Republicans to have a prayer of winning the White House. I'm talking about the general election, not the primaries. I'm assuming Hillary wins the nomination.
First, I find his analysis of the electoral college lacking. He's posited a scenario where Trump COULD win, but he's basing it all on current polling, when pre-convention polling on candidate matchups is notoriously bad, and gives away the top three battlegrounds (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida) as well as several others (North Carolina is likely highly competitive in a Trump v. Clinton campaign) to Trump immediately, based on aforementioned polling that is within margin of errors, when demographics have increasingly driven the aforementioned three towards the Democrats.
I can post random articles too. And mine tends towards a more reasonable breakdown of the demographic challenges the GOP faces.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/06/the-gops-2016-problem-in-3-maps/
|
United States43598 Posts
On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem."
Privilege isn't a hammer to hit people with. It's an understanding that your experiences may not be universally applicable. And that's all it is. If you were to call me a nigger I'd give absolutely no shits because I'm as white as snow and the word means nothing to me. However I understand that other people have a different relationship with the word to me and therefore if I were to start telling black people that they're overreacting, based upon my own experience of what a normal reaction was, I'd be guilty of not understanding my own privilege. Make sense?
As for this idea that single mothers only exist due to incentives to be single mothers, I seriously doubt that that's really what's going through their heads. If it was the Republican party wouldn't have to fight so hard to shut down abortion clinics that service all those pregnant teens desperate not to become a single mother.
|
On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:
It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week.
Can you tell me then why the US has significantly higher divorce rates than almost any country in the world, even the ones that provide almost universal benefits to single mothers in every way, shape or form
|
On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:02 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". A lot of the problem has to do with the perceived ineffectiveness of these subsidies and welfare programs. But we should base the decision on if the programs are effective or not. Perception is something that can be fixed without altering an effective program. Cutting the program all together is not a solution. The problem also has to do with trust of the government. Any expansion of any program always means giving more money to the government. The inherent distrust of government's ability to handle tax payer money is a very real problem for a majority of people. Don't get me wrong, these programs are necessary, but the problem is willingness to hand money over to a middleman, who's been notorious about mishandling money. I distrust banks and the government. I still a have a checking account and mortgage. I find the argument that we can’t trust government to be weak at best, since oversight is easier than just not addressing the problem. And not addressing these problems costs us more long term because these children will grow up and become adults.
Yes, but I'm saying these are also the kind of people who limit their bank account usage, and have their money invested in gold, or hidden in their mattresses.
I just think it's pretty disingenuous to frame their arguments as "oh all conservatives hate poor people", or anything along those lines.
On March 03 2016 05:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:
It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. Can you tell me then why the US has significantly higher divorce rates than almost any country in the world, even the one's that provide almost universal benefits to single mothers in every way, shape or form
You mean the same countries that offer better benefits and base education to all it's citizens?
|
On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week.
As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population.
|
On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 04:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". Some twentysomething professional talking shit about hard work while opposing systems that promote hard work loses me. Especially if that same person chooses to blame people and ignore their own privilege that exempted them from the consequences of the same mistakes. A mistake that in a black kid results in a record and ineligibility for scholarships and government jobs could just be a warning for a white kid for example. It basically comes down to what that Jesus guy said about judging others. The vast majority of successful people did not succeed in a vacuum, I know from my own life that I was insulated from the consequences of some of my educational mistakes by my parents. I don't depend on them, I'm independently successful but had they not had my back earlier on smaller mistakes could have snowballed and changed a lot in my life today. I got lucky to have the background I have, not everybody gets so lucky. The government should be better at promoting strong family structure so that it gives more incentive to stay as a couple than to break up. Ignoring the host of mal-incentives is where the soft-heart soft-head types lose me. Single mothers deserves this and that welfare program on the road back, so let's get to work creating more single mothers and increasing the numbers of those stuck in poverty and the list goes on. There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it. Another issue is the patronizing view that one must first chose to acknowlege "their own privilege." It's an abrupt switch from compassion for the poor to own up to your evil you hateful, prejudiced sob. Well, if you can't have an educated discussion on welfare assistance policies without resorting to bashing your opponents, I can see why the debate remains stuck on stupid. It's usually paired with the even more sanctimonious, "I'd like to see your point of view, but I just can't look past your own privileged viewpoints, which would honestly be the first step to solving the problem."
1: Attack the opponent "soft -heart soft-head types"
2. Insist that the debate remains stuck on stupid because of people attacking their opponents
3. Refuse to actually say anything of substance at all, and literally nothing at all to add to the debate, just using sarcastic over reactions and and insulting words directed at anyone who disagrees.
Nicely done
|
|
|
On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:
You mean the same countries that offer better benefits and base education to all it's citizens?
Yes, those countries. Seems like offering public benefits and education is a good thing to keep families happy
|
On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population.
Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples?
On March 03 2016 05:16 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:
You mean the same countries that offer better benefits and base education to all it's citizens? Yes, those countries. Seems like offering public benefits and education is a good thing to keep families happy
so you admit you're comparing apples to oranges, and disingenuously comparing single parenthood in America vs European states?
|
On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:02 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem? Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". A lot of the problem has to do with the perceived ineffectiveness of these subsidies and welfare programs. But we should base the decision on if the programs are effective or not. Perception is something that can be fixed without altering an effective program. Cutting the program all together is not a solution. The problem also has to do with trust of the government. Any expansion of any program always means giving more money to the government. The inherent distrust of government's ability to handle tax payer money is a very real problem for a majority of people. Don't get me wrong, these programs are necessary, but the problem is willingness to hand money over to a middleman, who's been notorious about mishandling money. I distrust banks and the government. I still a have a checking account and mortgage. I find the argument that we can’t trust government to be weak at best, since oversight is easier than just not addressing the problem. And not addressing these problems costs us more long term because these children will grow up and become adults. Yes, but I'm saying these are also the kind of people who limit their bank account usage, and have their money invested in gold, or hidden in their mattresses. I just think it's pretty disingenuous to frame their arguments as "oh all conservatives hate poor people", or anything along those lines.
I don’t think they hate the poor, but don’t feel their taxes should go to support the poor. I view them as exactly like the people who voted against building a new school in my town because “it was good enough for them.” Of course, all these people didn’t have kids. They didn’t hate kids. The just don’t want to pay for them through taxes.
Then the state condemned the school for building violations and forced the town to build a new one.
Its cool the don’t want to pay. There are lots of things in government I don’t like, like the development of fighter jets. I deal with it.
On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples?
Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship.
|
Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California.
|
On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:
so you admit you're comparing apples to oranges, and disingenuously comparing single parenthood in America vs European states?
No, I am saying that social service of any form aren't ruining marriages or creating more single mothers and that on the contrary, keeping people out of financial peril is what keeps families intact.
|
On March 03 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California.
That doesn't make those numbers inaccurate.
|
On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship.
No perks for families staying together, despite evidence suggesting a much more well-off population base when families stay together?
I mean, there are already built in perks of marriage in the government, such as tax deductions, legal representation, etc etc.
I'm actually of the opinion Government should leave the business of marriage all together, but I think there's a pretty good point regarding government assistance to promote 2 parent households.
On March 03 2016 05:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:
so you admit you're comparing apples to oranges, and disingenuously comparing single parenthood in America vs European states? No, I am saying that social service of any form aren't ruining marriages or creating more single mothers and that on the contrary, keeping people out of financial peril is what keeps families intact.
While failing to account for the base level of services for families that stay together in those welfare states; all without accounting the lack of base level of services for family that stay together in America.
|
On March 03 2016 05:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote:Already proven to be inaccurate because different states voted in 2008. Like New York and California. That doesn't make those numbers inaccurate.
It just makes the information poorly presented, lacking information and deceiving. But you are right, they are accurate if you ignore those things.
|
On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:11 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:02 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 04:57 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 04:53 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:41 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 03 2016 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2016 04:18 BisuDagger wrote:
[quote]
And more interestingly, who do those people expect to fix that problem?
Me personally, I have loans, debt, and cost of living. I don't blame anyone for that. I took out loans to get an education and even if it takes me ten years to pay them off I understood those risks. And let's assume I'm working at a company where my wage does not reflect the value of my work. Then it is my responsibility to bring that to the attention of my company and request that my wage is adjusted accordingly. If that does not occur, job searching begins. At no point do I blame anyone for my debt or pay but myself. And I only rely on myself to fix my problems. I don't need someone to level my playing field, I can handle that myself. Now let's assume I don't get paid well, but my wage does reflect the value of my work. I can bitch all I want that I need more money, but the only way I expect to make more is to raise the value of my work by either taking on more responsibility at my current job or getting a better job. Personal responsibility is great at making the best from a shitty situation but does nothing to address systematic shitty situations. It's also very easy to speak from a position of privilege and preach that people simply fix all their own problems but just because you can solve all your issues does not mean that those issues are trivial for others. Often when the "why don't you just solve all your own problems" argument is applied more closely to real people facing real problems it just turns into blaming. Sure, the single mother who got pregnant with a deadbeat baby daddy and didn't graduate made some dumb fucking decisions but unless there are structures in place that actually allow her to fix her own problems the condescension of others does little to help her. I fully support the idea of people working hard and improving their lot but too many people who argue that narrative then go on to argue against programs that help people to fix their problems and instead prefer to smugly blame people for their mistakes. That's where the "work hard, help yourself" crowd lose me, it's too often a cover for "fuck you, I got mine, you deserve to suffer for your sins" being cried by people who, in general, never had to pay for their own sins. Tbh there aren't a lot to help single mothers if they can't sustain the life style. The only possible way is to promote abortion or promote adoption. Unless there is a quote of how many single mothers to get welfare support, there are many ways of abusing the tax dollars. And sending the father to jail isn't the best course of action either, more tax dollar spent to feed him there. My point is that I'd really like to see more "We believe in personal responsibility and individuals working hard to improve their own situation and that's why we're introducing these childcare subsidies for low income single parents who go back to work and a tax credit for businesses who offer single parents flexible working hours to allow them to both be a productive member of society and a parent to their children, instead of choosing between the two". A lot of the problem has to do with the perceived ineffectiveness of these subsidies and welfare programs. But we should base the decision on if the programs are effective or not. Perception is something that can be fixed without altering an effective program. Cutting the program all together is not a solution. The problem also has to do with trust of the government. Any expansion of any program always means giving more money to the government. The inherent distrust of government's ability to handle tax payer money is a very real problem for a majority of people. Don't get me wrong, these programs are necessary, but the problem is willingness to hand money over to a middleman, who's been notorious about mishandling money. I distrust banks and the government. I still a have a checking account and mortgage. I find the argument that we can’t trust government to be weak at best, since oversight is easier than just not addressing the problem. And not addressing these problems costs us more long term because these children will grow up and become adults. Yes, but I'm saying these are also the kind of people who limit their bank account usage, and have their money invested in gold, or hidden in their mattresses. I just think it's pretty disingenuous to frame their arguments as "oh all conservatives hate poor people", or anything along those lines. I don’t think they hate the poor, but don’t feel their taxes should go to support the poor. I view them as exactly like the people who voted against building a new school in my town because “it was good enough for them.” Of course, all these people didn’t have kids. They didn’t hate kids. The just don’t want to pay for them through taxes. Then the state condemned the school for building violations and forced the town to build a new one. Its cool the don’t want to pay. There are lots of things in government I don’t like, like the development of fighter jets. I deal with it. Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship.
Because religion encourages something doesn't mean its automatically bad. There are other reasons, sound economic and social reasons for keeping families together.
Doesn't mean there should be incentives, but don't rule them out because they sound vaguely like something religious people would like.
|
On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:08 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:
Attempting to create loving families through financial incentive has proven to be a really dumb plan and lead to a lot of the results Kwark talked about. It also prohibits the creation of naturally loving families that come from single parents finding partners they want to be with for more than just a few extra dollars monthly. It’s a terrible plan all around. You're not serious are you? You make it sound as if financial security in a marriage isn't part of the decision process in marriage. On March 03 2016 05:07 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2016 05:06 Danglars wrote:
There's like a tacit acknowledgment that the numbers of single mothers will remain constant through all this therefore my policies are the best ones fo fix it.
You think women will leave their husbands because of social policies? Like "nope John, gotta divorce you if I get that 50$ coupon from the government!" It is if John doesn't even bring in 50 dollars a week. As someone who is going to be married, it is the last think I think about. Its nice, but it should never be the deciding factor. Lots of very unhappy marriages exist due to financial reasons. No reason for the government to promote that further in the most vulnerable sections of the population. Isn't that a good argument that the government should be looking to relieve some financial burdens for couples? Not more than a single parent. There should be no perks for families staying together. That is some judo-Christian bullshit creeping into law. Knocking someone up does not create a family or even a functional relationship. No perks for families staying together, despite evidence suggesting a much more well-off population base when families stay together? I mean, there are already built in perks of marriage in the government, such as tax deductions, legal representation, etc etc. I'm actually of the opinion Government should leave the business of marriage all together, but I think there's a pretty good point regarding government assistance to promote 2 parent households.
Sounds like there are enough perks already. Why add more when there are clear downsides like people entering horrible relationships just to try and make ends meet? Do you have a desperate need to see the numbers of people who stay in bad relationships for a little extra monthly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
