Romney rich friend says inequality good for U.S.

[alkemyst]

Whoah, you missed the mark. You aren't paying for entertainment, you are paying for them not to have resource draining kids.

Your statement shows the biggest misconception/lie that comes from those that are against family planning as government policy. Those people are already having "entertainment". Free contraceptives are not why people choose to "entertain".

How do you go from advocating forced sterilization earlier in the thread, then veering on the completely opposite path of refusing to provide contraceptives?

He is trolling.

 

[nehalem256]

Was that his plan for limiting births of poor people? I asked him to clarify how he was planning on implementing his poor person population control idea but he never answered.

Anyone who gets pregnant and cannot afford the child gets an abortion. IF they cannot afford an abortion the government can loan the ~$500 at 5% interest (same terms as Goldman Sachs got).

 

[alkemyst]

Will it increase inequality to a greater extent than a college education will? You have made this argument, now back it up.



This post explains a lot, you're in your early to mid 20's. Access to college is not easy for all segments of the US population, or even remotely close to that. Access to college education with or without debt varies widely based on socioeconomic background. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe otherwise.

Almost anyone getting a B GPA can get into a Community college and more than likely have tuition covered if a poor minority today. Almost any one of those kids that keep that B average will get into a four-year college in almost all areas of our country.

This is part of the reason the Bachelor's degree is so required even for menial jobs as well as so undervalued.

Problem is a lot of these kids don't stay in school nor have parents that encourage them to do better.

 

[HendrixFan]

And this is why teen mother's should get abortions. But neither Republicans nor Democrats will embrace that.

Abortions should be the last line of defense. Too many of them are harmful to a woman's body, plus they are costly. Condoms and birth control pills (or the shot or the implant) are much cheaper and a far more reasonable approach.

 

[HendrixFan]

Non-procreative sex is entertainment.

I shouldnt have to pay for it. It is pretty simple.

So you think they aren't having non-procreative sex right now?

 

[fskimospy]

Almost anyone getting a B GPA can get into a Community college and more than likely have tuition covered if a poor minority today. Almost any one of those kids that keep that B average will get into a four-year college in almost all areas of our country.

This is part of the reason the Bachelor's degree is so required even for menial jobs as well as so undervalued.

Problem is a lot of these kids don't stay in school nor have parents that encourage them to do better.

Their ability to get their tuition covered varies pretty widely. Furthermore, they still have two years of regular college to go to which will probably not be entirely paid for. (not to mention that the idea that everyone can go to college and get a free ride is preposterous on its face) There will be a significant accumulation of debt most likely and without student loans large segments of the population likely could not meet this. Hence, liberal programs to expand college access through access to financing helped out quite a bit.

Poor children also face a large number of other issues that wealthier ones do not. They are more likely to have gotten a substandard education to begin with, requiring extensive remedial courses. They are more likely to have financial burdens on them from home that require them to work more, etc, etc. I'm not saying that college isn't attainable, but it's important to recognize that it's not the same path for everyone.

 

[nehalem256]

Abortions should be the last line of defense. Too many of them are harmful to a woman's body, plus they are costly. Condoms and birth control pills (or the shot or the implant) are much cheaper and a far more reasonable approach.

Then we can loan them money at 5% interest for BC as well.

 

[alkemyst]

Their ability to get their tuition covered varies pretty widely. Furthermore, they still have two years of regular college to go to which will probably not be entirely paid for. (not to mention that the idea that everyone can go to college and get a free ride is preposterous on its face) There will be a significant accumulation of debt most likely and without student loans large segments of the population likely could not meet this. Hence, liberal programs to expand college access through access to financing helped out quite a bit.

Poor children also face a large number of other issues that wealthier ones do not. They are more likely to have gotten a substandard education to begin with, requiring extensive remedial courses. They are more likely to have financial burdens on them from home that require them to work more, etc, etc. I'm not saying that college isn't attainable, but it's important to recognize that it's not the same path for everyone.

This is in place here. Many don't take advantage of it. IMHO too many do.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone who gets pregnant and cannot afford the child gets an abortion. IF they cannot afford an abortion the government can loan the ~$500 at 5% interest (same terms as Goldman Sachs got).

How do you define 'affording' the child? Who makes this determination?

 

[alkemyst]

Anyone who gets pregnant and cannot afford the child gets an abortion. IF they cannot afford an abortion the government can loan the ~$500 at 5% interest (same terms as Goldman Sachs got).

You realize many of them don't have the $3 to even by the condoms to begin with.

You are seriously trolling or simply ignorant.

 

[nehalem256]

So you think they aren't having non-procreative sex right now?

I assume they are. Should the government provide free motorcycle helmets as well. Either you are an adult and can take responsibility for your actions, or you are a child. And sex with children is illegal.

 

[nehalem256]

You realize many of them don't have the $3 to even by the condoms to begin with.

You are seriously trolling or simply ignorant.

Condoms dont cost $3.

And that is why we loan them the money. So they can pay the government back once they have it.

 

[fskimospy]

Condoms dont cost $3.

And that is why we loan them the money. So they can pay the government back once they have it.

Seriously, can you tell me the legal parameters for your forced abortion idea? I'm very interested to learn about it.

 

[jackstar7]

Non-procreative sex is entertainment.

I shouldnt have to pay for it. It is pretty simple.

Admit it you guys, it's well-established that sex with condoms is WAY better. So why should we all have to pay for other people to have awesome sex with condoms?

I'm refraining from making inferences about nehalem based on that first sentence though. The jokes about entertaining himself are bubbling up...

 

[HendrixFan]

I assume they are. Should the government provide free motorcycle helmets as well. Either you are an adult and can take responsibility for your actions, or you are a child. And sex with children is illegal.

If they are already having non-procreative sex then you aren't paying for it. You are paying for them not to have society burdening children in the process.

It is like the old saying about prostitution, you aren't paying for sex, you are paying for them to leave afterwards.

 

[nehalem256]

Seriously, can you tell me the legal parameters for your forced abortion idea? I'm very interested to learn about it.

Well assuming obamacare is upheld by the supreme court we could call it the Abortion Mandate.

 

[nehalem256]

If they are already having non-procreative sex then you aren't paying for it. You are paying for them not to have society burdening children in the process.

It is like the old saying about prostitution, you aren't paying for sex, you are paying for them to leave afterwards.

Maybe we should buy people lazyboys. We are not paying for their entertainment, but for reducing the health care costs, from back trouble resulting from inferior quality furniture :\

Either people are adults and are responsible for their own actions, or they are children. And since we dont live in Brave New World children having sex is generally frowned upon.

 

[fskimospy]

Well assuming obamacare is upheld by the supreme court we could call it the Abortion Mandate.

By all means please explain! I would like details. How will you determine who is too poor? Who will make this determination? How will the enforced abortions be carried out? What will be the legal avenues for appeal? Considering the short time period (court time speaking), how will we handle the caseload?

This is all very interesting to me, and I'm excited to learn all the details of your obviously well thought out mandatory abortion plan.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given our current POTUS, his staff, and the current congress, its interesting to me you conveniently leave our Dems in your statement. You have become exactly as you claim the other side to be: blind, idealistic, and in a kool-aid induced stupor.

Some Dems are too much like Repubs, 'tis true, but that doesn't change the fact that Dems attempted to separate the unemployment extension & the tax cut extension, or that Repubs held the former hostage to the latter, along with extensions to estate tax reductions, as well. As Pelosi pointed out, Dems paid a king's ransom to get unemployment extended.

 

[nehalem256]

By all means please explain! I would like details. How will you determine who is too poor? Who will make this determination? How will the enforced abortions be carried out? What will be the legal avenues for appeal? Considering the short time period (court time speaking), how will we handle the caseload?

This is all very interesting to me, and I'm excited to learn all the details of your obviously well thought out mandatory abortion plan.

The government already makes determinations of who can receive benefits based on income. This is basically the same idea. You can use a multiple of the poverty level just like government does for all the benefits it currently provides.

 

[fskimospy]

The government already makes determinations of who can receive benefits based on income. This is basically the same idea. You can use a multiple of the poverty level just like government does for all the benefits it currently provides.

You don't see a glaring flaw in this plan? The government analyzes your income based on documents you supply them when you apply for benefits. How is the government going to do this for people who are pregnant? How would the government even know they were pregnant? Is it going to require monthly pregnancy tests from all women?

Say they somehow get everyone's income reports. What if you have mitigating circumstances like you have large savings or live with a family member who can support you? Is there a religious exemption? What's the appeals process? Remember, you will only really have a 3-4 month period to get this done, so time is of the essence.

Say you work all that out, how will the mandatory abortions be performed? What if a woman refuses? Will the police come, arrest her, drag her off to a clinic, and forcibly abort her baby?

Seriously man, this 'mandatory abortion' idea has to be one of the dumbest I have ever heard.

 

[woolfe9999]

And yet two men who start from the same starting point have different levels of success. To the extent that one is successful and other a failure, the first is more self-made.

You're leaving out something called luck. It's always better to be lucky than good, or hard working. If you haven't figured that out by now after however much time you've spent on earth, I don't know what to say. Equal starting points and equal amounts of talent and industry do not guaranty the same outcomes. Not even close. And we do NOT have equal starting points here to begin with anyway. Not only that, but "talent" may also be a matter of luck of the gene pool. Literally the only thing we control is how hard we work. If everything hinges on that one variable, then blue collar people who work their asses off should be doing as well as business execs who work no harder, and better than the ones who work less hard. But everything does not hinge on that one variable. Outcomes depend on numerous variables beyond the control of the individual. That is just a fact.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't see a glaring flaw in this plan? The government analyzes your income based on documents you supply them when you apply for benefits. How is the government going to do this for people who are pregnant? How would the government even know they were pregnant? Is it going to require monthly pregnancy tests from all women?

Say they somehow get everyone's income reports. What if you have mitigating circumstances like you have large savings or live with a family member who can support you? Is there a religious exemption? What's the appeals process? Remember, you will only really have a 3-4 month period to get this done, so time is of the essence.

Say you work all that out, how will the mandatory abortions be performed? What if a woman refuses? Will the police come, arrest her, drag her off to a clinic, and forcibly abort her baby?

Seriously man, this 'mandatory abortion' idea has to be one of the dumbest I have ever heard.

You may have heard of something called income tax filing; the government gets a report on your income every year. Large savings, many government programs currently take savings into account, it would be reasonable to continue to do so. If someone is willing to sponsor your pregnancy and take full responsibility fine. No religious exemption, but I suppose we could allow religious organizations to sponsor people, if they dont like abortions let them put their money where their mouth is. Why is an appeals process necessary? You have 9 months to get it done; its not a person until it pops out of the mom remember?

If you refuse you are arrested yes. Just like if you refuse to pay your taxes men with guns will come to your house and drag you off to jail.

No, the dumbest idea has to be allowing a woman who has had 6 children removed from her, for abusing them, to continue having more.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please. America's wealthiest did not force people to buy houses they could not afford. There is not just one group to blame.

Nice red herring. It's not like homeowners were the only people laid off & unable to find work. At that, a house you can afford when employed is one you can't when you aren't employed for an extended period of time.

 

[nehalem256]

Nice red herring. It's not like homeowners were the only people laid off & unable to find work. At that, a house you can afford when employed is one you can't when you aren't employed for an extended period of time.

But loaning money to a person who could afford his payments when he was employeed wouldnt be irresponsible lending now would it?

But why were a bunch of people laid off? Oh wait, because the mortgage market crashed because banks loaned money to people who could only afford the house with zero down negative amortization loans. Both sides are responsible.