It appears the tax cuts aren't paying for themselves

RaceBannon said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

SFGbob said:

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

Bob is a political unicorn in this case, but good to know.

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

SFGbob said:

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.

SFGbob said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

SFGbob said:

RaceBannon said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

SFGbob said:

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?

And poverty was twice as high.

SFGbob said:

BennyBeaver said:

SFGbob said:

BennyBeaver said:

SFGbob said:

BennyBeaver said:

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.

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?