|
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. |
Feral (not wild) horses are a pest/invasive species in the US.
So its more like ridiculous environmentalism, than productivism.
|
Why does he still bother? He is, and has been polling abysmally in the black population, and the more crappy shit like this he pulls, the worse it'll get (although, it's already rock bottom, so not sure it can get worse). Focus that energy on somewhere it might have some effect instead of lying about what a pastor did...
|
On September 15 2016 23:19 amazingxkcd wrote: i approve of this. healthy families having kids is important!
Married != non healthy family.
Hell 4 of my friends are happy with girlfriends + kids and are not married.
|
On September 15 2016 23:19 amazingxkcd wrote: i approve of this. healthy families having kids is important!
Expect that it punishes those who are not married, including widows. Or spouses leaving abusive relationships. Or rape victims that end up pregnant and decide to raise the child alone. Anyone that would truly need and deserves assistance will be denied.
Another attempt for law to mandate people enter lifetime binding legal contracts to receive government benefits, even if the relationship they are in is not healthy. The classic GOP small government approach. Just big enough to fit in your bedroom.
|
So much for Trump improving his image with the black community. The blatant lie about the audience chanting to let him speak it's hilarious and tells you everything you need to know about Trump: a legend in his own mind.
|
As if that solves anything. When people decide to get divorced, it's not like there is any room for bargaining. That shit is toast and needs to be put down. This is some olden days Catholicism bullshit right here. There is no benefit to forcing people to remain married. Fostering healthy relationships is great, but once shit goes sour, it's not like there's anything to be done.
How many wives has Trump had? Clearly he understands that it isn't always an option to stay together.
|
There should be major incentives given for married couples to stay together, but I'm not sure that child care subsidies are the right ones to use to discourage divorce/single parenting.
|
On September 16 2016 00:24 xDaunt wrote:
There should be major incentives given for married couples to stay together, but I'm not sure that child care subsidies are the right ones to use to discourage divorce/single parenting.
Why? what purpose(s) is there to achieve that's worth having the government involved in such? at least in the form of significant amounts of money (which is what I assume major incentives refers to)
|
United States43746 Posts
Pretty sure the incentive for a couple to stay together should be the other person in the couple. If you're a married dude the biggest reason to stay married should be your wife etc (check out my gay erasure right there). If you're at the point where you're thinking "I could take or leave the wife but these tax breaks, I am all about those" then we've created a broken incentives system which rewards irrational behaviour.
|
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more
|
Damn that pastor almost baited trump. All trump did was lie instead of attack him though. Almost...
|
On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more
Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough.
|
On September 16 2016 00:24 xDaunt wrote:
There should be major incentives given for married couples to stay together, but I'm not sure that child care subsidies are the right ones to use to discourage divorce/single parenting.
To my knowledge, financial incentives like this have not been shown to have any appreciable impact on family cohesion and the strength of the family. This is similar to abstinence education. Yeah, a couple of guys sitting around trying to think of solutions might come to this conclusion. But it isn't supported by statistics. It has been studied and it is straight up ineffective. If something isn't effective, it shouldn't be done. Happy to be shown to be wrong though.
|
On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough.
You're right. We should be using tax money to pay unhappy couples to stay together. Small government ftw.
|
United States43746 Posts
On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough.
Or, alternatively, the current incentives are creating marriages which should never have been in the first place and which were destined for eventual failure, no matter the incentives, because after a certain point no incentives will keep together two people who no longer want to be together.
|
Maybe the divorce rates are not something the government should care about lowering? Let people make up their own minds if they want to get divorced.
|
On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough.
instead of financially pressuring couples to stay together we could address the actual underlying reason for divorces.
an unhappy couple =/= the "traditional family" that is a healthy part of society, which i'm guessing is the end goal.
|
On September 16 2016 00:24 xDaunt wrote:
There should be major incentives given for married couples to stay together, but I'm not sure that child care subsidies are the right ones to use to discourage divorce/single parenting.
I agree on the kids part. Way too many couples stay together "for the kids". While most evidence shows that kids raised by an intact household do significantly better by most metrics, it can also backfire when a couple stays together solely for the kids and ends up fostering an incredibly toxic relationship. It just teaches the kids horrible lessons about romantic relationships.
|
On September 16 2016 00:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 00:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
there are already a lot of incentives for staying married, there's no need to tilt the scales even more Given current divorce rates, there clearly aren't enough.
You don't tackle something like divorce rates with financial incentives in a contract that is most often emotionally driven by fondness/love.
All that could possibly do is give a boost to the raw numbers but it just keeps shit marriages together longer. Divorce rates are a culture "problem". Which is why a lot of conservative christians have been banging on about marriage because they see the break down of man/wife + kids family as one of the core problems that leads to a good chunk of the larger ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
