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.
-
See?BennyBeaver said:
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. -
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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. -
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?BennyBeaver said:
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? -
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.BennyBeaver said:
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret. -
You can't smoke in a bar because of government intervention. Go to a tribal casino, you see a social stigma there?SFGbob said:
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?BennyBeaver said:
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? -
Btw, the target wasn't moving and if you only did the one about getting married before having kids you'd still reduce the odds of you and your kids living in poverty. But that list of actions has been part of my pet issues for 25 years.BennyBeaver said:
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? -
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.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
-
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.RaceBannon said:
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.BennyBeaver said:
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret. -
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?SFGbob said:
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?BennyBeaver said:
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?
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? -
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
-
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.SFGbob said:
And you call me stupid? -
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?BennyBeaver said:
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?SFGbob said:
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?BennyBeaver said:
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?
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? -
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.BennyBeaver said:
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.RaceBannon said:
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.BennyBeaver said:
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret. -
When you attempt to stereotype people you reveal more about yourselfUWhuskytskeet said:
Gaybob loves abortions, he just doesn't realize it.SFGbob said:Another way that you could discourage out of wedlock births is to stop subsidizing them.
Bob is an atheist who supports abortion rights
-
I found it funny that Race had to seek out backup. Now he parrots the backup. The leader has become the minion.RaceBannon said:
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.BennyBeaver said:
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.RaceBannon said:
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.BennyBeaver said:
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret. -
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.2001400ex said:
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.SFGbob said:
And you call me stupid?
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. -
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.2001400ex said:
I found it funny that Race had to seek out backup. Now he parrots the backup. The leader has become the minion.RaceBannon said:
Let me guess, you're "trolling" me with your stupidity again.BennyBeaver said:
Please produce the proof about your second sentence and I'll leave HH forever.RaceBannon said:
You just replied with a bunch of nonsense to my answer in another post.BennyBeaver said:
Knocked you out of the debate. Now let's see what Bob has to offer in ideas to encourage people to live a certain way. Bob's way?RaceBannon said:
See?BennyBeaver said:
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.
You have nothing other than the government has to do it if there is something done.
How do you motivate anyone to do anything? Its hardly a big secret. -
No. If the government allowed smoking in bars. They'd light up right next to you. Go to a tribal casino or go to a conservative state in the middle of the country you dumbbell.SFGbob said:
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.2001400ex said:
You said you can't smoke in a bar because of social stigma, nothing to do with government intervention.SFGbob said:
And you call me stupid?
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.
