It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves
Comments
-
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. -
-
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. -
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 CouncilSquirt said:
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? -
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
Sven is right. #oldpeopletogitmo -
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: -
Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.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: -
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. -
Behold the modern democrat2001400ex said:
Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.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:
Can't even conceive of something being possible with out the Gubmint forcing you -
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 question.RaceBannon said:
Behold the modern democrat2001400ex said:
Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.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:
Can't even conceive of something being possible with out the Gubmint forcing you -
Read the thread moron my answer is there
-
Gosh, how did we keep out of wedlock birth rates so low prior to the 1960s all without any government intervention.RaceBannon said:
Behold the modern democrat2001400ex said:
Ok I'll bite. How do you encourage marriage without government intervention.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:
Can't even conceive of something being possible with out the Gubmint forcing you -
No. It's. Not.RaceBannon said:Read the thread moron my answer is there
-
RaceBannon said:
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 CouncilSquirt said:
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? -
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. -
Race. Who pays for the public service announcements? Are they just funded from thin air?RaceBannon said:RaceBannon said:
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 CouncilSquirt said:
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? -
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. -
Segregation and Truancy officersSFGbob 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. -
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.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. -
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. -
You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.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. -
I'm not telling anyone to not have sex.YellowSnow said:
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.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. -
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. -
I'm not judging.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. -
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.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. -
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. -
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. -
Well to unpack a bit, these are two somewhat different problems.YellowSnow said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said: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.
Sven is right. #oldpeopletogitmo
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. -
Were these statistics exempt prior to the 1970's? Get your Heritage Foundation bullshit out of here.SFGbob said:
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.UWhuskytskeet said:
You mean prior to the 1960's, when the poverty rate was twice as high as it is today? Great shitty theory as always.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.
