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.
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.
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?
Actually I did. How do we encourage people to stop smoking? If I were to go have a beer after work and light up a cig at the bar I'd have five people in my face telling me to put it out. There is a social stigma against smoking and engaging in that behavior is greatly discouraged by society. We should do the same with out of wedlock births. The stigma against out of wedlock births existed for a reason. Do you have kids? Do you encourage them to have kids without getting married?
Your idea for encouraging zero out of wedlock births and no divorces is to make those things socially unacceptable. Am I reading you correctly? Still not sure how you go about doing that. Creating a stigma?
How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
No, you're fucking strawman ass. I never said anything about reducing out of wedlock births to zero. Not possible. Why do you think out of wedlock birth rates were so much lower 50 years ago? What reason(s) do you believe kept the rate so low?
I'm not fucking anyone's ass thank you very much. Just trying to have a civil discussion. I mean, we agree on your other points about education, drugs and working hard. We have some common ground.
Amend what I said from "zero" to "reduce to rates of 50 years ago" in regards to births out of wedlock. I'll allow that bit of gray area because absolutes are difficult, feel better now?
I'll ask one last time, how do you go about creating a social stigma against unwed mothers and divorce? I'm referring to present day, not 50 years ago.
This is your solution to ending poverty today, so it's important that we get the answer because poverty sucks. It sucks for the poor people and it sucks for the burden they put on the rest of society.
Also, I missed your answer to this: How do you view the single mother that's not in poverty? That's OK in your view because she's not burdening others? Or not OK because she's not married?
I would prefer that people get married when possible before they have kids. It's better for the kids. Think of any social pathology you can. Drug use, school dropout, criminal activity, prison population. The people engaging in those behaviors disproportionately come from single parent households. Understood
How did we create a social stigma against littering and smoking? Public awareness campaigns, education and laws. I've answered your question you're just not accepting the response. I guess I missed it. Was it in this thread?
Society creates social stigmas against all kind of behavior. How often do you hear a white person that's not a Rat party member making overtly racist statements in public today? You don't, it isn't socially accepted. This behavior may not be socially acceptable, but it happens all the time. You might want to get out a bit more, read some stuff.
Spell it out for me chief...lets say Bob runs the country...he wants to reduce the rate of divorce and births out of wedlock...Bob creates a social stigma against this behavior...how?
First of all you could stop subsidizing it which I've already said. That alone would help to re-establish some of the stigma that existed before. Second of all how about a cultural shift where it isn't seen as cool or acceptable behavior. Look at the way you guys here are defending people who make this very shitty choice.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm just looking for you to expound on your solution. Do you think that welfare subsidies are incentivizing births out of wedlock? I don't think so.
Do you think welfare decreases the odds of someone having a kid out of wedlock? Of course welfare encourages it. When you subsidize a behavior you will get more of it. The stigma that was created against people having kids out of wedlock may have been dressed in religious objections but the underlying source was always the burden an additional mouth to feed put on the family unit.
Do you think welfare decreases the odds of someone having a kid out of wedlock? Of course welfare encourages it. When you subsidize a behavior you will get more of it. The stigma that was created against people having kids out of wedlock may have been dressed in religious objections but the underlying source was always the burden an additional mouth to feed put on the family unit.
Who has a baby so they can get $150 a month in food stamps and 48 gallons of milk?
BTW... You get the same whether married or not so I don't know why you think that's a deciding factor.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourself
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
Point of clarification. I'm an agnostic which is a distinction without much difference. But yes I am pro-choice in the first trimester. Did people prior to the 1960s love abortion?
I'm sure they would have liked the ability to have one.
The best way to discourage out of wedlock births is tax-funded birth control and sex-ed.
You still haven't addressed the fact that poverty rates were twice as high during your wedlock utopian days.
You're a fool if you believe that current out of wedlock rates have anything to do with people not having access to birth control and sex ed.
Sweet Geezus, 60 years ago there was no birth control other than condoms and no sex ed in the schools and the out of wedlock birth rate was a tiny fraction of what it is today.
You really believe that people are having kids out of wedlock because they don't know where babies come from?
Just like their has been societal changes in smoking that reduced smoking rates. People's freedom to not be pressured to be married has reduced marriage rates.
Just because someone has a child out of wedlock does not make them a bad person or a drain to society.
Can you respond without fucking strawman ass? I never said it made anyone a bad person. And the fact of the matter is that kids born out of wedlock are much more likely to grow up in poverty, drop out of school, end up committing crimes and spending time in prison. So you claiming that they aren't drain on society is just another example of you running your ignorant mouth.
I'll just leave this right here.
But since this only covers births how many had abortions ?
And Section 8 vouchers and "free" healthcare for their baby. I don't know that anyone would intentionally have a kid just to get welfare, I'm sure it happens but it's probably not that common. But when you're factoring in if you can have a kid without being married the money you can get does play into the decision. The money from the state alone isn't going to be a factor, but the money you're going to get from your boyfriend and the money you're going to get from braiding hair and or watching your sister's kids and the money you're going to get from working part time or off the books definitely plays a role.
Getting that money certainly doesn't discourage someone from having the kid. Also you're much more likely to get into public housing or get Section 8 assistance if you have kids.
And Section 8 vouchers and "free" healthcare for their baby. I don't know that anyone would intentionally have a kid just to get welfare, I'm sure it happens but it's probably not that common. But when you're factoring in if you can have a kid without being married the money you can get does play into the decision. The money from the state alone isn't going to be a factor, but the money you're going to get from your boyfriend and the money you're going to get from braiding hair and or watching your sister's kids and the money you're going to get from working part time or off the books definitely plays a role.
Getting that money certainly doesn't discourage someone from having the kid. Also you're much more likely to get into public housing or get Section 8 assistance if you have kids.
It happens all the time. More kids bigger check. There are scams on top of scams including money for child care etc. Add it all together and it's well above full time work at minimum wage. Why work when you can down 40's, smoke out, shoot up, snort and fuck?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.
You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.
And Section 8 vouchers and "free" healthcare for their baby. I don't know that anyone would intentionally have a kid just to get welfare, I'm sure it happens but it's probably not that common. But when you're factoring in if you can have a kid without being married the money you can get does play into the decision. The money from the state alone isn't going to be a factor, but the money you're going to get from your boyfriend and the money you're going to get from braiding hair and or watching your sister's kids and the money you're going to get from working part time or off the books definitely plays a role.
Getting that money certainly doesn't discourage someone from having the kid. Also you're much more likely to get into public housing or get Section 8 assistance if you have kids.
It happens all the time. More kids bigger check. There are scams on top of scams including money for child care etc. Add it all together and it's well above full time work at minimum wage. Why work when you can down 40's, smoke out, shoot up, snort and fuck?
Another scam is the home healthcare fraud where some relative gets paid as a home healthcare worker in order to take care of grandma.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.
You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.
Bob can't admit the government had anything to do with lower smoking rates. He thinks you can't smoke in a bar because drinkers care whether he lights up.
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.
You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.
Bob can't admit the government had anything to do with lower smoking rates. He thinks you can't smoke in a bar because drinkers care whether he lights up.
Hondo is trolling me again by fucking strawman ass. Are you capable of a discussion that doesn't involve you fucking strawman ass Hondo?
Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
You still don't have an answer how to promote marriage and out of wedlock births without government intervention.
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.
And you call me stupid?
If I were to light up a cig in a bar it wouldn't be any government intervention that would stop me from doing so. People, regular citizens would quickly let me know that my behavior wasn't acceptable and the law wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Now if I were to go out into the street here is SF and drop my pants and take a shit. Those same people wouldn't say a thing to me despite the fact that public defecation is also illegal. Smoking in public here in SF will receive more social stigma than taking a crap on the sidewalk. We choose as a society which behaviors we want to stigmatize. We used to stigmatize out of wedlock births.
There was a massive amount of government intervention that caused the cultural shift in cigarettes. Truth campaign. Making smoking ads illegal. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors. Sin taxing cigs. Sponsored health education programs in public schools. It wouldn't have happened if federal, state and local government weren't involved.
You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.
Bob can't admit the government had anything to do with lower smoking rates. He thinks you can't smoke in a bar because drinkers care whether he lights up.
Hondo is trolling me again by fucking strawman ass. Are you capable of a discussion that doesn't involve you fucking strawman ass Hondo?
Comments
BTW... You get the same whether married or not so I don't know why you think that's a deciding factor.
Getting that money certainly doesn't discourage someone from having the kid. Also you're much more likely to get into public housing or get Section 8 assistance if you have kids.
You would need the government to make your cultural shift happen, Bob, but you can't bring yourself to say it because it would make you a hypocrite.