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:
