Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves

13567

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    Squirt said:

    Gonna need @Swaye to weigh in on @SFGbob's make-everyone-get-married platform.

    Not what I said either. I just said that you were really serious about reducing poverty you'd strongly encourage people to get married before having kids. There was a very valid reason why that social stigma existed and it wasn't all about people being puritanical prudes.
    Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.
    Behold the modern democrat

    Can't even conceive of something being possible with out the Gubmint forcing you
    Answer the question.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,779 Founders Club
    Read the thread moron my answer is there
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,203

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    Squirt said:

    Gonna need @Swaye to weigh in on @SFGbob's make-everyone-get-married platform.

    Not what I said either. I just said that you were really serious about reducing poverty you'd strongly encourage people to get married before having kids. There was a very valid reason why that social stigma existed and it wasn't all about people being puritanical prudes.
    Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.
    Behold the modern democrat

    Can't even conceive of something being possible with out the Gubmint forcing you
    Gosh, how did we keep out of wedlock birth rates so low prior to the 1960s all without any government intervention.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Read the thread moron my answer is there

    No. It's. Not.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,779 Founders Club

    Squirt said:

    Gonna need @Swaye to weigh in on @SFGbob's make-everyone-get-married platform.

    If you wear your seatbelt you have a better chance of surviving a wreck. Doesn't mean the government has to force you to wear it even though they do. It used to be done with public service announcements and the AD Council

    You want to knock some chick up at 17 and marry her and life in a trailer park the government will let you.

    The other side of the coin is why should the government pay for your shitty choice?
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Squirt said:

    Gonna need @Swaye to weigh in on @SFGbob's make-everyone-get-married platform.

    If you wear your seatbelt you have a better chance of surviving a wreck. Doesn't mean the government has to force you to wear it even though they do. It used to be done with public service announcements and the AD Council

    You want to knock some chick up at 17 and marry her and life in a trailer park the government will let you.

    The other side of the coin is why should the government pay for your shitty choice?
    Race. Who pays for the public service announcements? Are they just funded from thin air?
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,203

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
  • BasemanBaseman Member Posts: 12,366
    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Segregation and Truancy officers
  • YellowSnowYellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 35,396 Founders Club
    SFGbob said:

    A government program has to be the absolute worst way to try and eliminate poverty.

    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Poverty in America today is almost solely a function of personal behavior and most social programs act as vehicles that keep people in poverty.

    SF Gay Bob, don't disagree but this a pretty much an intractable problem as this point. The sexual revolution won and marriage is a dying institution for the pours.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,203



    SFGbob said:

    A government program has to be the absolute worst way to try and eliminate poverty.

    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Poverty in America today is almost solely a function of personal behavior and most social programs act as vehicles that keep people in poverty.

    SF Gay Bob, don't disagree but this a pretty much an intractable problem as this point. The sexual revolution won and marriage is a dying institution for the pours.
    I'm not telling anyone to not have sex.
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,486 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    I see nothing wrong with this model.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    Swaye said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    I see nothing wrong with this model.
    I'm not judging.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,203

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.
    What would you guess the poverty rate is for people who do the 4 things I listed? What group of people have the highest rate of poverty in America today? Take a guess.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    Another claimed pulled straight out of your ass.
    Poast more links to the Washington examiner.
  • SFGbobSFGbob Member Posts: 32,203
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
    Another claimed pulled straight out of your ass.
    Poast more links to the Washington examiner.
    Are you claiming that the quote and the number provided from the Examiner wasn't accurate or are you just engaging in the standard Kunt act you preform here Hondo?
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 15,774 Swaye's Wigwam

    You will never "balance the budget" your way out of national debt, both because it's super hard and because politicians are greedy pos who don't pay for the bills they incur.

    We do however, have the ability to grow GDP to the point where the debt is back to "acceptable" levels.

    This was, and always has been the argument. Even Clinton knew this.

    I agree that we'll never "balance the budget". Hell, we've only been in the black for a few a couple of years in the entire post WWII era. BUT the I am skeptical of the view that we can grow our way back to debt being at a manageable percentage of GDP w/o dealing with the long term entitlement monster.

    Sven is right. #oldpeopletogitmo
    Well to unpack a bit, these are two somewhat different problems.

    The growing our way out of debt is actually relatively "easy" economically. A good GDP growth that also spurs a reasonable amount of inflation can very quickly marginalize a whole lot of debt. That much more so since we have such a huge economy.

    Entitlements are, after all, only as non-discretionary as we make them. The easiest way, imo, to keep these programs afloat(which I won't say is a goal in and of itself) is simply to shift the demographics. Push medicaid and SS ages out and lower the medicare income threshold. Society has changed, so should our entitlements.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:

    SFGbob said:



    If you really want to do something that will keep people from living in poverty in America today, you'd encourage people to get married before they have kids and then after they are married stay married.

    Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?
    First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.

    If want to ensure that people in America today don't end up living in poverty you would encourage them to do 4 simple things.

    1) Don't drop out of high school.

    2) Don't have kids until you're married and once you get married stay married.

    3) Get a job, any fucking job and keep it and do not quit that job until you've lined up a better or equal job.

    4) Don't abuse drugs and don't abuse alcohol.

    Do all of these things and the odds that either you or your kids will be living in poverty are extremely fucking low.
    Even better solution. Fund sex-ed and birth control and you don't have to worry about forcing trashy parents to stay get and stay married.
    You really believe the out of wedlock birth rate has something to do with the lack of Sex-ed and birth control? How was it that we were able to have such low out of wedlock birth rates prior to the 1960s when there was very little access to birth control and no sex ed?
    You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.
    What would you guess the poverty rate is for people who do the 4 things I listed? What group of people have the highest rate of poverty in America today? Take a guess.
    Were these statistics exempt prior to the 1970's? Get your Heritage Foundation bullshit out of here.
Sign In or Register to comment.