|
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. |
Carson's campaign has ended
Source
edit: I'm interpreting "I see no path forward" as him calling the end, although I'm sure he'll stick around doing something cuz money
|
United Kingdom10011 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?
Even if they do want the kid just offer em shitloads of money until they agree to abort.
|
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? Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:31 wei2coolman 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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.
It's what the Swede's did...
Also, it doesn't have to be a fat check, just lower barrier to entry.
|
On March 03 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote: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? On March 03 2016 06:31 wei2coolman 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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. It's what the Swede's did... Also, it doesn't have to be a fat check, just lower barrier to entry.
But as you said, the way we encourage this favorable behavior is with money. So we provide the women with a check once they leave. Then people now its good and they will do this. Its just like people becoming families through increased subsidies.
The government should just pay kids for good grades in school too. Any behavior we want to encourage should be rewarded with a check.
|
On March 03 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote: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? On March 03 2016 06:31 wei2coolman 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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. It's what the Swede's did... Also, it doesn't have to be a fat check, just lower barrier to entry. But as you said, the way we encourage this favorable behavior is with money. So we provide the women with a check once they leave. Then people now its good and they will do this. Its just like people becoming families through increased subsidies. The government should just pay kids for good grades in school too. Any behavior we want to encourage should be rewarded with a check.
I mean, if you're going to disingenuously represent what I've said, I see no point in continuing this discussion with a party that won't honestly discuss these issues.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sure, welfare that is contingent on being below a certain income level discourages work and self investment. this is the primary effect, not 'disincentive to marry.'
what creates the disincentive to marry is harsh enforcement of welfare restrictions by racist and conservative states. in places like missouri in the 70's, state government would go into projects and catch men in the households to enforce the 'man in the home' rule.
but to say this independent choice of harsh enforcement is part and parcel the effect of a 200 dollar a month aid is just delusional.
|
Nah handing women fat checks for abortion is just asking women to abuse that system.
There must be better incentives.
But if you got pregnant with the condom on and the guy specifically said that he doesn't want to keep the baby prior, you've fucked up anyways.
|
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?
Ohhhh yeah. I am pro-abortion. I would be fine with my tax dollars being spent to save a whole lot more tax dollars. I would be concerned about potential abortion milling, but that could be addressed by having diminishing returns on the payment.
Keep in mind that abortions are unpleasant. The women who would abuse this system are going to be very rare, and totally nuts. Diminishing returns would be sufficient. A few abusers slipping in would be worth the benefit of all the good cases getting the abortions they wanted without having to suffer the travel expenses.
I would also support a tax credit for being on the pill.
|
Norway28911 Posts
how did you fuck up if you got pregnant while having sex with a condom?
|
On March 03 2016 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
how did you fuck up if you got pregnant while having sex with a condom?
Because it isn't suppose to happen.
The most subsidy women should be getting for abortion is for the guy to pay 1/2 of operation cost.
|
United States44385 Posts
Externalities exist. It's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to live in a society with unwanted children.
|
Norway28911 Posts
Also, most girls actually find abortions extremely negative experiences (and painful) even if it's an early stage abortion and even if they are not religious and even if they are surrounded by people who support them. I'm not saying it's impossible to find girls who don't really mind, but they are going to be a very, very small minority. Worrying about 'abortion milling' doesn't sound like a fruitful endeavor.
|
On March 03 2016 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:37 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2016 06:35 wei2coolman wrote:On March 03 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote: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? On March 03 2016 06:31 wei2coolman 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. 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: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:
[quote]
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. It's what the Swede's did... Also, it doesn't have to be a fat check, just lower barrier to entry. But as you said, the way we encourage this favorable behavior is with money. So we provide the women with a check once they leave. Then people now its good and they will do this. Its just like people becoming families through increased subsidies. The government should just pay kids for good grades in school too. Any behavior we want to encourage should be rewarded with a check. I mean, if you're going to disingenuously represent what I've said, I see no point in continuing this discussion with a party that won't honestly discuss these issues.
Personally, I don't see anything must more disingenuous than how you have presented your argument and ignored the flaws people have suggested. I do agree there is little point to continuing the discussion.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:44 CannonsNCarriers 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? Ohhhh yeah. I am pro-abortion. I would be fine with my tax dollars being spent to save a whole lot more tax dollars. I would be concerned about potential abortion milling, but that could be addressed by having diminishing returns on the payment. Keep in mind that abortions are unpleasant. The women who would abuse this system are going to be very rare, and totally nuts. Diminishing returns would be sufficient. A few abusers slipping in would be worth the benefit of all the good cases getting the abortions they wanted without having to suffer the travel expenses. I would also support a tax credit for being on the pill.
I think I was joking. Taking the argument to its extreme for comedic effect.
I think.
Mind you, I do hate people and there would be less of 'em if this were a thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wei2 in case you are not just posting heritage foundation propaganda look up the history of these various qualifications placed upon welfare programs by southern conservatives and how they were rather efficiently enforced, in the face of rising technological unemployment.
|
On March 03 2016 06:48 KwarK wrote:
Externalities exist. It's cheaper to pay for someone's abortion than to live in a society with unwanted children.
Right? Where are the Pro-Abortion voices out there? Sure I am Pro-Choice with all the women's rights and choice and all that autonomy business, but I am also Pro-Abortion. I think they do good work of preventing a lot of ruined lives and improve societal outcomes. Nothing will clean out cesspits of poverty like women only having the children they can afford to raise.
|
On March 03 2016 06:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Also, most girls actually find abortions extremely negative experiences (and painful) even if it's an early stage abortion and even if they are not religious and even if they are surrounded by people who support them. I'm not saying it's impossible to find girls who don't really mind, but they are going to be a very, very small minority. Worrying about 'abortion milling' doesn't sound like a fruitful endeavor.
There are also morning after pills just to prevent abortion from happening.
|
Norway28911 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:46 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2016 06:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
how did you fuck up if you got pregnant while having sex with a condom? Because it isn't suppose to happen. The most subsidy women should be getting for abortion is for the guy to pay 1/2 of operation cost.
But it does. Sometimes condoms break. The fact is, if you have sex enough times with a condom, it will break, and then whether a pregnancy happens or not is fully outside your control.
Note that I don't actually advocate paying people money for having abortions. That makes no sense to me. But making them free-ish and available to anyone anywhere during the first trimester without any judgment similarly makes a whole lot of sense.
|
WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said Wednesday that he won't vote for Donald Trump, even if he becomes his party's presidential nominee.
"I’m not going to vote for him in November," Baker told reporters, according to the Boston Globe, noting that he also didn't vote for Trump in the state's Super Tuesday primaries. Trump still easily won Massachusetts, capturing nearly half of the vote.
Baker is the latest in a growing list of Republican officials who say they won't back Trump in the general election, which could cause problems for a party looking to unify and defeat the Democrats.
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, chair of the Republican Governors Association, hasn't gone quite as far as Baker, but on Tuesday, she refused to say whether she would back Trump in November if he becomes the nominee. She clarified, however, that she won't be voting for the Democratic nominee either.
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) also recently came out in recent days and said there's no way they'll be backing Trump this cycle. Rep. Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) ruled out backing Trump late last year.
And on Tuesday, the chief strategist for Republican Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign said he believed Democrat Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Trump.
Source
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
Yeah it was a joke guys subsidizing abortions would be fucking mental-o insania.
Free Plan B Pills though, that's a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
