EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3130
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:44 CannonsNCarriers wrote: 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. Or Perhaps incentives for family euthanasia if the parents have been unemployed too long. (or individually for children that don't do well in elementary school/ get in trouble with the law before they are actually sentient ie ~25 or so.) | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would become negligible and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. Crime would go way down. | ||
KwarK
United States44385 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:57 Krikkitone wrote: Or Perhaps incentives for family euthanasia if the parents have been unemployed too long. (or individually for children that don't do well in elementary school/ get in trouble with the law before they are actually sentient ie ~25 or so.) I think killing people is going too far. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
A bold stance, let me tell you. Bold. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I love how while debating these topics especially regarding families everyone here is skirting around the issue they either don;t want to endorse or have never heard of. Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would become negligible and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. Crime would go way down. Hush you socialist commie!  | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
Yeah, same here | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I love how while debating these topics especially regarding families everyone here is skirting around the issue they either don;t want to endorse or have never heard of. Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would disappear and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. it is good yea. actually a rightwing idea but since rightwing is beholden to elements that don't really want to give out 'handouts' it's a no go. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6604 Posts
Paul Ryan said he'll "support the nominee." | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
If you combined the euthanasia idea with some form of reality TV competition we could really be on to something. That could even MAKE money. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 03 2016 06:51 ErectedZenith wrote: There are also morning after pills just to prevent abortion from happening. These aren't 100% effective, and their success % diminish quickly overtime. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On March 03 2016 04:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: So how come the 'be self-reliant' group coincides heavily with the 'abortions are wrong' group? Well, the same ones that are against abortion are also very against dead beat dads, and irresponsible teens/ young adult guys impregnating girls and taking off... as much as abstinence before before marriage is mocked in general society, you can't separate one set of beliefs from the other. The value system includes as part of the package a strong emphasis on marriage for life. It's an unfair portrayal to separate that out, and you are in effect wanting those against abortion to go for an 'ends justify the means'. And I don't think self-reliance is valued that highly to think in terms of an 'ends justfiy the means'. According to anti-abortion line of thinking, single mothers is an effect, so abortion would not even tackle the root problem... having said all that, if it truly is a money issue, I would way rather pay for more welfare for single parents if it meant less abortions so to at least mitigate the reality of either broken or non-existent families. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
 | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I love how while debating these topics especially regarding families everyone here is skirting around the issue they either don;t want to endorse or have never heard of. Basic Income. The economy would thrive, unemployment would become negligible and as a result benefits would no longer ot be needed, nor medicaid needed to be such high funding. Crime would go way down. While I'm in favor of the idea, its not a hunky-dory utopia maker. Essentially its a way to combine social security, the welfare/minimum wage the poor get, and the tax credits/unemployment the middle class gets into one simplified program. That makes the system more efficient (increased unemployment for civil servants), but the money still has to come from taxes. So the taxes will hurt the economy, about as much as the increased spending from people will help it. Whatever the level, people will still make self-destructive choices. If the level is too high they will also make society-destroying choices (not contributing to society when they really could) If the level is too low, then you are leaving people who got special consideration before behind. It would be an overall improvement on our system, but not by any means would "unemployment become negligible" "benefits no longer needed" (unless you are talking about welfare type benefits, even then you would need a lot of money to replace all the welfare type benefits available in some states) "crime go way down" Those factors might get better.. or they might get worse On March 03 2016 07:07 farvacola wrote: A little birdie who personally knows Paul Ryan told me that there is discussion among the Republican establishment as to Ryan's nomination should Trump be the presumptive nominee come convention time. Should be fun I could see the three non-Trump candidates supporting him (after like the 3rd or 4th round) (one gets to be VP, the other 2 get important roles). I would not put it as likely though. If the convention is contested, then I think its more likely they would decide to unite behind one of the three than a previous non candidate. (and it would look really bad) | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
by the by a great opportunity for 'basic income day loan' enterprises. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On March 03 2016 07:33 oneofthem wrote: you are not funding this through tax, just bonds. accounting for displaced programs it's not going to cost a whole lot. by the by a great opportunity for 'basic income day loan' enterprises. If it doesn't cost a whole lot (displaced programs), then it wouldn't have that much effect. And funding it through bonds would be just as damaging as through taxes (although different sectors would take the damage) If you are just reorganizing existing programs into one unified one, then you won't get some massive benefit. The only real benefit is a lot of civil servants/tax attorneys out of work. While that would be good for the economy and more efficient, its not magical. Most people's finances wouldn't change that much, they would just have less paperwork to keep those finances. A good idea but not as good as some people describe it (although this is true of all good ideas) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
According to NBC News, that graphic that has been passed around is accurate in that it already accounts for California and NY not being included. In other words, only the same 9 states in each election were included. I have yet to see anyone post a competing year over year tally. So are we really sure that it's inaccurate? | ||
| ||
