|
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 06:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:00 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:56 oneofthem wrote:
this family stuff is not productive unless you have some good policy solutions. it's more like a blame game that lets you discard a group of people as deserving of all the bad stuff.
unless you want to argue for more spending on schools and such. if so then go ahead No one here is discarding an entire group, and we are talking about policy solutions such as financial incentives for married couples (that are targeted more at the poor demographics), along with perhaps some government message encouraging families to stay together. I would point out that during this discussion, you have completely ignored the pitfalls of that policy, which is unhealthy relationship remaining together due to that incentive. Shouldn’t we just reward people for living in larger households? Since that is the real thing that provides stability, not the people being married.
Wait, do I really need to quote you on this, AGAIN?
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.
Thus removing some financial burdens, the marriage won't become unhappy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
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.
this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could.
|
On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could.
I mean, wanna give some examples?
I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this, and the lack of financial stability, being key parts of the breaking of the household for lower income families.
All of which are addressed by financial incentives for staying in a family.
Also, I'm also not saying there shouldn't be welfare for single parent households, but the gap for financial incentives for the poor communities between two parent households vs one parent households should be closed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this.
you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems.
family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless.
|
On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless.
Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless?
DING DING DING
You've guessed it, a two parent household!
|
So you believe that you can pay people to be a family? That you can create the stability that is caused by functional 2 member house holds through extra monthly payments. Are there not sufficient incentives already to having a second person raising a child? Is a little extra money going to tip the scale? Do you really believe that will happen?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you are way deep in the ass end of the cart. there are two separate causal questions here. first, what was the original cause of the situation. second, what to fix first. you are wrong on both.
|
On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household!
I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:19 Plansix wrote:
So you believe that you can pay people to be a family? That you can create the stability that is caused by functional 2 member house holds through extra monthly payments. Are there not sufficient incentives already to having a second person raising a child? Is a little extra money going to tip the scale? Do you really believe that will happen?
He's not saying that exactly (although he appears to be heading more in that direction) he's saying that you shouldn't be given a financial incentive to leave a family, or not start one, which i agree with.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
we need the endogeneity police here
|
On March 03 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you.
It doesn't have to be straight money, we could talk more about job placement programs that heavily prioritize people with family, scaling welfare to include two parent house hold income, instead of a flat household income. Better low income housing options for two parent households, etc etc.
Financial incentives doesn't just mean straight money. It includes a variety of programs that relieve financial burdens for two parent households.
On March 03 2016 06:24 oneofthem wrote:
we need the endogeneity police here
These are the kinds of quality comments we need here for discussion in this thread. Thanks for contributing!
|
United States44385 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household!
Statistically being wet is linked to shark attacks. Dry people are almost never attacked by sharks. We should hand out umbrellas, that'll solve everything.
|
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! Statistically being wet is linked to shark attacks. Dry people are almost never attacked by sharks. We should hand out umbrellas, that'll solve everything.
I never thought about it like that.
You should be in charge of stuff, you're proper clever.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you. It doesn't have to be straight money, we could talk more about job placement programs that heavily prioritize people with family, scaling welfare to include two parent house hold income, instead of a flat household income. Better low income housing options for two parent households, etc etc. Financial incentives doesn't just mean straight money. It includes a variety of programs that relieve financial burdens for two parent households. These are the kinds of quality comments we need here for discussion in this thread. Thanks for contributing! it's a good comment yea. so you should turn yourself in.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing.
Why not offer incentives for pregnant women to have abortions?
|
On March 03 2016 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you. It doesn't have to be straight money, we could talk more about job placement programs that heavily prioritize people with family, scaling welfare to include two parent house hold income, instead of a flat household income. Better low income housing options for two parent households, etc etc. Financial incentives doesn't just mean straight money. It includes a variety of programs that relieve financial burdens for two parent households. These are the kinds of quality comments we need here for discussion in this thread. Thanks for contributing!
There is literally zero reason to not provide those to single parents.
And I agree with Kwark. Zero people skydiving have been killed by sharks. Time to provide people with parachutes at the beach.
|
On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing.
This as well, but the poor populations also tend to be far more socially conservatives and religious (though this could definitely be blamed on racism driving poor minorities into the safe spaces of curches).
On March 03 2016 06:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 05:16 wei2coolman wrote:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you. It doesn't have to be straight money, we could talk more about job placement programs that heavily prioritize people with family, scaling welfare to include two parent house hold income, instead of a flat household income. Better low income housing options for two parent households, etc etc. Financial incentives doesn't just mean straight money. It includes a variety of programs that relieve financial burdens for two parent households. On March 03 2016 06:24 oneofthem wrote:
we need the endogeneity police here These are the kinds of quality comments we need here for discussion in this thread. Thanks for contributing! There is literally zero reason to not provide those to single parents. And I agree with Kwark. Zero people skydiving have been killed by sharks. Time to provide people with parachutes at the beach.
You know, the whole moynihan reports, and the constantly expanding welfare state for single parent households, all with the increase of minority incarceration rates despite the overall lowering of racism throughout the nation in the past decades...
On March 03 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing. Why not offer incentives for pregnant women to have abortions? They should get a bonus for having one, to make sure people get them if they don’t want the kid. What could go wrong with handing out checks for getting abortions?
I mean, everyone here seems to love the European system of government...
|
On March 03 2016 06:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing. Why not offer incentives for pregnant women to have abortions?
They should get a bonus for having one, to make sure people get them if they don’t want the kid. What could go wrong with handing out checks for getting abortions?
On March 03 2016 06:31 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing. This as well, but the poor populations also tend to be far more socially conservatives and religious (though this could definitely be blamed on racism driving poor minorities into the safe spaces of curches). Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:31 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:28 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:17 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:15 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 06:13 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:10 oneofthem wrote:On March 03 2016 05:23 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 05:17 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. this is based on a superficial understanding of the family problem. lack of marriage and stable family is pretty much a symptom of many other factors, depriving the possibility of stable families rather than people choosing not to form families when they could. I mean, wanna give some examples? I already mentioned the welfare state for single parent household for lower income households as a contributor to this. you can't be serious. incarceration rate and joblessness. historical and contemporary cultural problems. family is also a particular form of enterprise. where the will or culture is lacking the marriage certificate will be meaningless. Guess whats the single best predictor of a child not to be incarcerated and jobless? DING DING DING You've guessed it, a two parent household! I don't think paying people extra money monthly is going to recreate that data point for you. It doesn't have to be straight money, we could talk more about job placement programs that heavily prioritize people with family, scaling welfare to include two parent house hold income, instead of a flat household income. Better low income housing options for two parent households, etc etc. Financial incentives doesn't just mean straight money. It includes a variety of programs that relieve financial burdens for two parent households. On March 03 2016 06:24 oneofthem wrote:
we need the endogeneity police here These are the kinds of quality comments we need here for discussion in this thread. Thanks for contributing! There is literally zero reason to not provide those to single parents. And I agree with Kwark. Zero people skydiving have been killed by sharks. Time to provide people with parachutes at the beach. You know, the whole moynihan reports, and the constantly expanding welfare state for single parent households, all with the increase of minority incarceration rates despite the overall lowering of racism throughout the nation in the past decades...
Hence, fat checks from the goverment for having abortions. Easy problem.
|
United States44385 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On March 03 2016 06:29 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
A whole lot more abortions and free birth control could really help with this whole single mother thing. Why not offer incentives for pregnant women to have abortions? They should get a bonus for having one, to make sure people get them if they don’t want the kid. What could go wrong with handing out checks for getting abortions?
Stem cell research would probably benefit from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
