Buying a 32" HDTV with a food stamps card...

[MooseNSquirrel]

Of course they don't. But according to liberals consent to sex is not consent to being a parent.

Liberals just want to punish men for having sex.

...unrelated nonsense...

No, you justify your misogynistic view of pregnancy by blaming a political group for holding men accountable for the consequences of having children.

Sorry nehalem, men are perfectly capable of preventing pregnancies just as easily as women are and thus bear equal responsibility for the pregancy.

 

[drebo]

Nope.

You and I can both have the same income (earned income) yet pay different rates of taxation. If your rate is lower I am implicitely subsidizing your tax rate.

If I underpay my taxes, I get a bill. If I overpay my taxes, I get a refund.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?

Deductions are money that the government would normally collect but don't due to exceptions in the tax code.

However, those exceptions are not free and the lost income must be made up somewhere else and always through more taxes elsewhere.

No, wrong. Deductions are not "lost income" to the government. Again, that implies that the money wasn't really mine to begin with.

The government gets what it gets as a percentage of my taxable income, and that's its income. Its income doesn't start with my income, allowing me to keep some by its (the government's) grace. You have it completely backwards.

The government's taxes and income are derived by MY grace in what I am willing to pay them...were this country's formative years completely lost on you in high school history class?

Try again, please.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Isn't funny that telling men to get a vasectomy is okay, but telling a woman to keep an aspirin between her legs is "hating" women?

Misdirection.

That is not what we are saying at all and you are trying to change the subject.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

If I underpay my taxes, I get a bill. If I overpay my taxes, I get a refund.

Is it really that hard for you to understand?



No, wrong. Deductions are not "lost income" to the government. Again, that implies that the money wasn't really mine to begin with.

The government gets what it gets as a percentage of my taxable income, and that's its income. Its income doesn't start with my income, allowing me to keep some by its (the government's) grace. You have it completely backwards.

The government's taxes and income are derived by MY grace in what I am willing to pay them...were this country's formative years completely lost on you in high school history class?

Try again, please.

I dont know what else to say.

If you cant understand how 2 people having the same gross income can pay 2 different tax rates then clearly you are in no position to have this discussion.

Its pretty simple. The gap between those 2 tax rates has to be payed somehow, and it certainly isnt coming from the person paying less.

And your last sentence is incorrect, at least according to the Supreme Court.

 

[drebo]

No, you justify your misogynistic view of pregnancy by blaming a political group for holding men accountable for the consequences of having children.

Sorry nehalem, men are perfectly capable of preventing pregnancies just as easily as women are and thus bear equal responsibility for the pregancy.

It isn't the man's decision to get pregnant, nor is it the man's decision to end that pregnancy. Both of those are entirely up to the woman. That's not disputable.

If I, as a man, accidentally impregnated a woman and tried to sue her to have the child aborted because I didn't want it, I would probably be jailed. At the very least, I'd be crucified in the court of public opinion. And yet I'd still be made to pay for the child.

Much simpler would be for the woman to be made reversibly barren via an IUD. IUDs don't prevent ovulation, they don't use chemicals, they don't interfere with a woman's natural cycle. They simply make the uterus unsuitable for implantation. They are installed via a simple outpatient procedure, they are cheap to produce, and they are completely reversible.

Here are some common sense conclusions for you:

If a woman is on welfare/food stamps because she can't support herself or her family, logic would dictate that she probably should not increase the size of said family.

If a person is healthy enough to eat something like pizza (most pizza places take EBT,) they're probably healthy enough to work for a living.

If a person has enough "disposable income" to buy a $300 TV with EBT funds, they're probably getting too much "assistance."

If a person is getting public assistance, said assistance should be used to make sure their family has clothing, food, water, and shelter. As such, food, water, and clothing should not need to be provided under other government programs (free school lunches, etc.)

There are much more efficient ways to feed a family than fast food...as such, why the hell are such places allowed to accept EBT?

Frankly, the fact that people can defend this behavior and these policies is disgusting.

 

[drebo]

I dont know what else to say.

If you cant understand how 2 people having the same gross income can pay 2 different tax rates then clearly you are in no position to have this discussion.

Its pretty simple. The gap between those 2 tax rates has to be payed somehow, and it certainly isnt coming from the person paying less.

And your last sentence is incorrect, at least according to the Supreme Court.

You are suffering from a gross cognitive disconnect.

The "gap" you speak of doesn't exist. The government's income is derived as a sum of all taxes paid. There are no "expected" taxes. The government's income is what is paid. Period. If I pay $10 and someone else pays $5, then the government's income is $15. It's not $20, even though two people paid. It was never expected to be $20, even if we both made the same amount of money. That means that the government has $15 to spend. It doesn't mean that the government was supposed to have $20 to spend and thereby needs to steal or borrow $5 more, which is what you are insinuating.

The government has no power to levy taxes other than what the citizens are willing to allow. That's how this country was formed and that's what's written into the constitution.

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that the government owns all money and that the money I earn which doesn't go to taxes is money that the government allows me to keep by their own grace. You've got that ass-backwards.

 

[xj0hnx]

I disagree with that view and followed up with a question on personal freedom which you chose to ignore.

You disagree because in your small mind the two are somehow related. I honestly don't understand how you think that because I support peoples right to own pretty much whatever gun they want, that I should also support someone taking taxpayer money that is given to them to pay for food and bills that they can not afford and instead spend it on a TV. There's no relevance between them. If you want to freely spend your money, then earn it, but if you have to come beg the government to give you free taxpayer money because you don't have money for food or bills, then that money the taxpayers give you is for food and bills.

So can you process that? Or is it still too complicated for you?

No wonder you spend so much time using insults, its a great way to dodge actually discussing the issue.

There is no "issue", only some weird association you have made up.

Well xj0hnx, do you believe in personal freedom or not?

Is this the question you are talking about? Sorry, but it's a pretty stupid question, and nothing I've said would indicate I do not.

 

[nehalem256]

Misdirection.

That is not what we are saying at all and you are trying to change the subject.

Its not misdirection. You just don't like you obvious male hatred pointed out.

No, you justify your misogynistic view of pregnancy by blaming a political group for holding men accountable for the consequences of having children.

Having a child is a woman's choice. It is HER BODY. What do you not understand about this?

If a man makes a gift of his seed to a woman why is he responsible for what she does with it?

Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Seems like a pretty simple concept. Unless you think women need to be treated like retarded children. Personally I think women should be treated as adults.

Sorry nehalem, men are perfectly capable of preventing pregnancies just as easily as women are and thus bear equal responsibility for the pregancy.

No they are not. Women have a much easier time. As your suggestion of permanent sterilization shows. Women have multiple reversible methods available.

Not to mention that women are the only ones you are capable of taking care of an "oopsie"

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You are suffering from a gross cognitive disconnect.

The "gap" you speak of doesn't exist. The government's income is derived as a sum of all taxes paid. There are no "expected" taxes.

Apparently Drebo hasn't heard of a little something called "budgeting".

The government's income is what is paid. Period. If I pay $10 and someone else pays $5, then the government's income is $15. It's not $20, even though two people paid. It was never expected to be $20, even if we both made the same amount of money. That means that the government has $15 to spend. It doesn't mean that the government was supposed to have $20 to spend and thereby needs to steal or borrow $5 more, which is what you are insinuating.

If you are paying 5$ and I am paying 10$ someone else is paying for your favourable tax treatment because the government, given well defined tax rates for equal levels of income, expects to collect 10$ and budgets that way.

You are trying to describe a financial situation where the free lunch is a reality.

The government has no power to levy taxes other than what the citizens are willing to allow. That's how this country was formed and that's what's written into the constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Your entire premise is based on the assumption that the government owns all money and that the money I earn which doesn't go to taxes is money that the government allows me to keep by their own grace. You've got that ass-backwards.

No, your entire counter-argument is based on that (incorrect) assumption. However it does seem that your fall into the "taxes are theft" camp, which if that is the case, explains a lot.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

...

If a man makes a gift of his seed to a woman why is he responsible for what she does with it?...

LOL " a gift of his seed". You are too much.

...
No they are not. Women have a much easier time. As your suggestion of permanent sterilization shows. Women have multiple reversible methods available.

Not to mention that women are the only ones you are capable of taking care of an "oopsie"

In the real world tubal ligations are far more risky and invasive than vasectomies.

So no.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You disagree because in your small mind the two are somehow related. I honestly don't understand how you think that because I support peoples right to own pretty much whatever gun they want, that I should also support someone taking taxpayer money that is given to them to pay for food and bills that they can not afford and instead spend it on a TV. There's no relevance between them. If you want to freely spend your money, then earn it, but if you have to come beg the government to give you free taxpayer money because you don't have money for food or bills, then that money the taxpayers give you is for food and bills.

So can you process that? Or is it still too complicated for you?



There is no "issue", only some weird association you have made up.



Is this the question you are talking about? Sorry, but it's a pretty stupid question, and nothing I've said would indicate I do not.

Case in point.

 

[nehalem256]

In the real world tubal ligations are far more risky and invasive than vasectomies.

So no.

In the real world IUDs, birth control pills, implants, shots, morning after pill etc exist that allow women to temporarily prevent pregnancy. In fact thanks to Obamacare these are all now free.

And in the real world women have the option to have an abortion if an "oopsie" occurs.

But hey obviously men should get sterilized.

 

[nehalem256]

LOL " a gift of his seed". You are too much.

Are you saying it is not a gift?

 

[WHAMPOM]

In the real world IUDs, birth control pills, implants, shots, morning after pill etc exist that allow women to temporarily prevent pregnancy. In fact thanks to Obamacare these are all now free.

And in the real world women have the option to have an abortion if an "oopsie" occurs.

But hey obviously men should get sterilized.

DAMN but you finally got it RIGHT!! Thought you were just too dense! Got to cut it off at the "root" of the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Are you saying it is not a gift?

All sex is rape, think about it.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

All sex is rape, think about it.

Not at all. Rape is for the unwilling.

credibility_0

 

[nehalem256]

All sex is rape, think about it.

Honestly I think this explains why liberals are so adamant about punishing men for having sex.

 

[WelshBloke]

...If a man makes a gift of his seed to a woman why is he responsible for what she does with it?

She can give him the gift of fatherhood in return. :awe:

 

[nehalem256]

She can give him the gift of fatherhood in return. :awe:

And you are normally allowed to refuse gifts :sneaky:

 

[chucky2]

Haha, more like the gift of indentured servant...

 

[WelshBloke]

And you are normally allowed to refuse gifts :sneaky:

Not this one.

 

[nehalem256]

Not this one.

So you don't know what a gift is.

 

[WelshBloke]

So you don't know what a gift is.

I know what responsibility is.

 

[xj0hnx]

Case in point.

Why do you keep trying to divert from your stupid statement?

 

[nehalem256]

I know what responsibility is.

Maybe you should try applying some of it to women too.