• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Two problems are:

1. In a single income household, someone is at home to take care of children. That person may not have marketable skills that could produce a single income stable environment.

2. 100k - 50k = 50k; 50k - 50k = 0

A two income household is more likely to have a larger cushion to take the hit, if they don't that's their own fault for living outside their means.

A single income household is at 0, less likely to have the same cushion built up to get them through the hard times.

If a single income household is bring in 100k, that may or may not be a better situation.

What if's are easy to come by in these situations, because the factors in play are variable by the people.

From what I've seen, a single income household will be hard up if the only job they have is lost.
You are failing to take into account that a dual-income family is twice as likely to experience a job loss.

This I think puts it best

So I'd say a two-income household SHOULD be more stable than a single-income household, but due to human nature probably isn't.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,891
11,637
146
You are failing to take into account that a dual-income family is twice as likely to experience a job loss.

This I think puts it best
No, I'm not. You're still bringing in money. You're failing to realize that 50k - 50k = 0.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,891
11,637
146
I have defined it previously.

Now tell me whose life is made worse if we prevent women who cannot afford children from having them?
Define prevented. I'm not reading through 500+ posts to find it.

Are you going house to house to enforce condom usage? That's a good ole government job, costs money!
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Assuming that half of qualified nurses are unemployed. :rolleyes:

Which should make it obvious why you plan is impossible.
You think there's enough qualified male nurses who are currently unemployed to back fill all the women who won't be working anymore under your plan? That's a far greater stretch.

Nor is there any reason for them to have entered it in the first place. And there is a little reason called reality.
Women have just as much a right to work as men do. The reasons for having them enter the workforce are as valid as the reasons for having men remain in the workforce.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Define prevented. I'm not reading through 500+ posts to find it.

Are you going house to house to enforce condom usage? That's a good ole government job, costs money!
The simplest solution is that anyone who is pregnant and cannot afford children gets an abortion.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,891
11,637
146
The simplest solution is that anyone who is pregnant and cannot afford children gets an abortion.
Define afford. What type of financial situation do you have in mind? At what trimester is this requirement fulfilled? Who's going to pay for it?

Government mandated abortions, interesting lol...

Oh, and to answer your question, you have instantly made that woman (and possibly a bf/husband) life/lives worse. Abortion should not be taken so lightly. The emotional trauma can be significant, especially if you're forced to do it.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
You think there's enough qualified male nurses who are currently unemployed to back fill all the women who won't be working anymore under your plan? That's a far greater stretch.
And in fact it was completely possible for a smaller amount of women to enter the workforce, given that the labor force participation rate has decline among men

Women have just as much a right to work as men do. The reasons for having them enter the workforce are as valid as the reasons for having men remain in the workforce.
Liberals decided to change society. Don't you think there should be some actual reason for doing that. Especially when such a change will have such a drastic impact?

And don't you think if you push for a change to society you should not cry about the obvious consequences?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
460
126
If they are hungry because of their own stupid life choices yes.
But we're speaking of feeding children. The fact that so many children are born to dysfunctional, often despicable poor people is pretty strong evidence that children do not choose to whom they are born. Were it otherwise, most children would be born to wealthy, loving families, with a minority born to loving but poor families. Even dysfunctional, despicable rich people would have way more children than would dysfunctional, despicable poor people because no matter what you value, someone else would suit much better. Ergo we can conclusively, um, conclude that children of very poor or bad parents made no decision to be in that situation.

I too despise parents too trifling to feed their own children even with food stamps so readily available. But you can bet your last dollar that except for the really messed up (who probably can't get their children to these things anyway), these same despicable people are going to take care of themselves first; it won't be THEM going hungry. So ending these programs doesn't really punish the irresponsible parents, it punishes the innocent children. Just as progressives are wrong to count children as part of their parents when demanding they be offered up to serve militarily, so are conservatives wrong if we count children as part of their parents when demanding the parents be punished. Children are individuals, and punishing them or constraining their freedom to punish their parents is NOT cool.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Define afford. What type of financial situation do you have in mind? At what trimester is this requirement fulfilled? Who's going to pay for it?
Government comes up with formulas for distributing benefits all the time.

The government can loan the woman the money at 5% interest. Exactly the same deal the gave Goldman Sachs.


Government mandated abortions, interesting lol...

Oh, and to answer your question, you have instantly made that woman (and possibly a bf/husband) life/lives worse.
But I keep being told that having a child you cannot afford makes your life worse? Are you disagreeing with that?

Abortion should not be taken so lightly. The emotional trauma can be significant, especially if you're forced to do it.
Funny, according to feminists abortion causing emotional trauma is a right wing myth. And why should removing a ball cells cause emotial trauma. Do people get emotional trauma from having rotten teeth removed?
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Liberals decided to change society. Don't you think there should be some actual reason for doing that. Especially when such a change will have such a drastic impact?

And don't you think if you push for a change to society you should not cry about the obvious consequences?
There were and continue to be valid reasons for the change, like enforcing the constitution.

If we need less people to be in the economy, then go be a househusband. I know other people who did it because it made the most sense for their family. Be the change you want to see in the world. It's so easy to tell other people what they can and can't do, isn't it?

My plan impacts everyone the same, your plan targets a specific group.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,891
11,637
146
Government comes up with formulas for distributing benefits all the time.

The government can loan the woman the money at 5% interest. Exactly the same deal the gave Goldman Sachs.
So they can't afford a child, but they can afford a government loan for expensive medical procedures with 5% interest. interesting. Mandate abortion, profit. Got it.

But I keep being told that having a child you cannot afford makes your life worse? Are you disagreeing with that?
You "keep being told" is your problem. Think for yourself. You can't blanket statement these types of situations, which is why it hasn't already been "taken care of".

For some, they'll get another job, or maybe ask family members for help. They may even choose to have an abortion, which is within their rights.


Funny, according to feminists abortion causing emotional trauma is a right wing myth. And why should removing a ball cells cause emotial trauma.
Links?

I've met people who would have an abortion at the drop of a hat and never look back. I've met people who could never bring themselves to do it. And I've met people who regret it and just can't seem to let go.

Do people get emotional trauma from having rotten teeth removed?
lol, wtf.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
There were and continue to be valid reasons for the change, like enforcing the constitution.

If we need less people to be in the economy, then go be a househusband. I know other people who did it because it made the most sense for their family. Be the change you want to see in the world. It's so easy to tell other people what they can and can't do, isn't it?
And you have ignored my question about how many women are going to be willing to have a househusband vs how many men are willing to have a housewife.

My plan impacts everyone the same, your plan targets a specific group.

As well as continuing to ignore
nehalem256 said:
And don't you think if you push for a change to society you should not cry about the obvious consequences?
If your group advocating for pushing a large # of people into the workforce do not complain about lower wages and higher unemployment.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
But we're speaking of feeding children. The fact that so many children are born to dysfunctional, often despicable poor people is pretty strong evidence that children do not choose to whom they are born. Were it otherwise, most children would be born to wealthy, loving families, with a minority born to loving but poor families. Even dysfunctional, despicable rich people would have way more children than would dysfunctional, despicable poor people because no matter what you value, someone else would suit much better. Ergo we can conclusively, um, conclude that children of very poor or bad parents made no decision to be in that situation.

I too despise parents too trifling to feed their own children even with food stamps so readily available. But you can bet your last dollar that except for the really messed up (who probably can't get their children to these things anyway), these same despicable people are going to take care of themselves first; it won't be THEM going hungry. So ending these programs doesn't really punish the irresponsible parents, it punishes the innocent children. Just as progressives are wrong to count children as part of their parents when demanding they be offered up to serve militarily, so are conservatives wrong if we count children as part of their parents when demanding the parents be punished. Children are individuals, and punishing them or constraining their freedom to punish their parents is NOT cool.
And this is why I advocate for a plan that will keep the children from being born and needing to be supported by society to begin with.

No starving children and adults are held accountable for their choices.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
And you have ignored my question about how many women are going to be willing to have a househusband vs how many men are willing to have a housewife.
Because I don't know (you've provided a single anecdote as evidence). In addition, my solution does not require either housewives or househusbands (since both people continue to work equal amounts), so it's a moot point.

As well as continuing to ignore

If your group advocating for pushing a large # of people into the workforce do not complain about lower wages and higher unemployment.
And you continue to ignore the fact that I am providing a solution to combat those problems that you refuse to accept simply because it's not the way things used to be.

If you truly believe that lower wages and unemployment are due to too many people in the labour force and it needs artificial restriction (which is what not allowing women to work is), then there's no reason that the artificial restriction has to come only from female working hours instead of both male and female working hours.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And you continue to ignore the fact that I am providing a solution to combat those problems that you refuse to accept simply because it's not the way things used to be.

If you truly believe that lower wages and unemployment are due to too many people in the labour force and it needs artificial restriction (which is what not allowing women to work is), then there's no reason that the artificial restriction has to come only from female working hours instead of both male and female working hours.
I have never proposed, nor would I support, a law preventing women from working.

We need simply stop encouraging women to be men.

Any woman who wishes to be independent from men should be free too provided she is truly willing to be independent from them.

Of course we that means that they do not get any:
1.) Government enforced child support or
2.) Government forcing men to subsidize their health insurance
3.) Government providing funding special women's health clinics
4.) Government providing special laws to protect them from domestic violence
5.) Government providing welfare to pay for their bastard children.
etc

Once they realize what being independent means, well then I think they may reconsider.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
And this is why I advocate for a plan that will keep the children from being born and needing to be supported by society to begin with.
Yes, and it only requires trashing the constitution and making us into a police state. Such a deal!

No starving children and adults are held accountable for their choices.
Except for the irresponsible men who knock women up. They get off scot-free.

Funny, that.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Yes, and it only requires trashing the constitution and making us into a police state. Such a deal!
Seems to me like it would be constitutional thanks to the ACA ruling. We would just have to call it a tax(or let the Supreme Court infer we meant for it to be a tax).

Except for the irresponsible men who knock women up. They get off scot-free.

Funny, that.
This would be balanced out by the fact that single women who could afford to have a child we be able to have one or abort without the man having a voice.

If women have 100% choice of whether a child is born, do not complain when I hold them 100% responsible for that choice.

EDIT: And why are you whining that "independent" women cannot force responsibility on men?

EDIT2: And any man who got pregnant and could not afford the child would also be required to get an abortion. Equality for all!
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Seems to me like it would be constitutional thanks to the ACA ruling. We would just have to call it a tax(or let the Supreme Court infer we meant for it to be a tax).
That's nonsense.

This would be balanced out by the fact that single women who could afford to have a child we be able to have one or abort without the man having a voice.
I don't consider that balanced at all.

Your solution for unwanted pregnancies is police-state-like forced abortions for women and men prancing off scot-free. That's a plan that would only make a misogynist like yourself happy.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
That's nonsense.



I don't consider that balanced at all.

Your solution for unwanted pregnancies is police-state-like forced abortions for women and men prancing off scot-free. That's a plan that would only make a misogynist like yourself happy.
With power comes responsibility. You cried for the power, do not cry when you get the responsibility.

And stop acting like abortions are big deal. Liberals have been saying that a fetus is just a clump of cells for 4 decades. A mandatory abortion is really no different than a mandatory rotten tooth pulling.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,775
0
76
Charles, you're arguing with a Sharia Law advocate man. Don't waste your time.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Unless you're a man who gets a woman pregnant. In that case, you don't have to take any responsibility.
And a man who gets a woman pregnant has exactly 0% control over what the woman does. He has no power and hence no responsibility, see how that works.

The woman gets subjected to a medical procedure against her will. The man gets to go knock up other women.

Gotcha.
Men do not go around knocking women up against their will. And of course all of the most effective forms of reversible birth control are controlled by women.

And please. Ever heard of RU-486. You swallow a pill and no more fetus. Stop acting like abortion is some kind of big deal.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY