It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves
Comments
-
Yes. That number is not accurate. Read the thread again.SFGbob said:
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?2001400ex said:
Poast more links to the Washington examiner.SFGbob said:
Another claimed pulled straight out of your ass.2001400ex said:
Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.SFGbob said:
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?UWhuskytskeet said:
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.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
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. -
Fuck off faggot2001400ex said:
More homoerotic talk. You need a good pegging and a cigarette to calm down.SFGbob said:
Who do you pretend the strawman is when you fuck it in the ass Hondo?2001400ex said:
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.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.
El oh El.
I would like society as a whole to place as much stigma on having children out of wedlock as they do on say smoking or using the the phrase "that's so gay." I didn't say anything about government intervention my strawman ass fucking Kunt of friend. -
Actually the $500 Million figure was accurate and I never claimed that was supposed to be what it would cost for each year going forward. You're a liar a dumbfuck Hondo.2001400ex said:
Yes. That number is not accurate. Read the thread again.SFGbob said:
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?2001400ex said:
Poast more links to the Washington examiner.SFGbob said:
Another claimed pulled straight out of your ass.2001400ex said:
Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.SFGbob said:
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?UWhuskytskeet said:
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.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
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. -
lulzDuckHHunterisafag said:
Fuck off faggot2001400ex said:
More homoerotic talk. You need a good pegging and a cigarette to calm down.SFGbob said:
Who do you pretend the strawman is when you fuck it in the ass Hondo?2001400ex said:
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.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.
El oh El.
I would like society as a whole to place as much stigma on having children out of wedlock as they do on say smoking or using the the phrase "that's so gay." I didn't say anything about government intervention my strawman ass fucking Kunt of friend. -
1, 3, 5 are all valid ways to stay out of poverty. Agreed. But you only made point 2 in the post to which I replied. I'm sensing a little bit of a moving target.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
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.
For 2, you might as well say: don't have kids. Period. The little bloodsuckers are a drain on a wallet, married or not.
I don't doubt that there's a high number of poor, unwed mothers out here. Causation or correlation?!
But you haven't answered my question. How do you do this "encouragement" you want to do?
-
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?RaceBannon said:BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't2001400ex said:
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.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.
El oh El. -
Bob just needs more tim to get his HH reads down.Squirt said:
I know. I was just trying to have a laugh.SFGbob said:
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.Squirt said: -
Answer the questionBennyBeaver said:
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?RaceBannon said:BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't2001400ex said:
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.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.
El oh El. -
No. Invalid question. Axe a better question and you might get an answer.RaceBannon said:
Answer the questionBennyBeaver said:
Why are you quoting me in your point when SFGbob is the one looking for someone to encourage people to live a certain way, and I'm just axing him how he proposes to do that?RaceBannon said:BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
Why do you assume it takes the government to teach people that if they are responsible they won't be living in poverty? It doesn't2001400ex said:
Instead of government intervention in welfare. You want government intervention in marriage and family values. To have all of America align their values with yours. Makes sense.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.
El oh El. -
We mustn't judge your Injun ways.Swaye said:
I see nothing wrong with this model.2001400ex said:
Maybe because women married at 14 and were told to stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.SFGbob said:
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?UWhuskytskeet said:
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.SFGbob said:
First of all tell me why it's not a valid solution to deal with poverty? Take a look at the numbers.BennyBeaver said:
Assuming this is a valid solution to poverty (it's not) how do you implement your freedom loving strategy?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.
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.
