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

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
^more liberal socialist/communist ranting. typical. Does the left have any new ideas?
Label, dismiss, & deny, as if that's some sort of argument. It's not.

It's one of the ways that Righties fail so desperately, because they never question their own beliefs, not in the slightest. When called upon to do so, they're constitutionally incapable, intellectually crippled by their own fears & prejudices. It's a disease of the mind.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
Nehalem 256 begins with an absurdity, that women who can't "afford" children shouldn't have them, simultaneously excusing men who father them from bearing any responsibility.
And how would you suggest men have abortions?

And of course you are conveniently forgetting the liberals happily excuse women from any obligations while forcing them

The biggest problem with that, beyond his blatant misogyny, is that America needs those children, and that we can afford them, if we're only slightly more generous than Scrooge or Fagin, if we accept that we are one people, one nation, with obligations to each other beyond the conceptualizations of right wing twits.
Sounds like what I have been arguing. If you cannot afford a child you have an OBLIGATION not to have one.

I say we need them because we already have economic problems from the demographic bulge of baby boomers, and economic problems from the massive shift of income to the tippy top.

Rich people don't fund SS, medicare, or pensions- working stiffs do in a collective fashion. If we want to be able to survive in old age, when we can't really work any more, if we want to have medical care, then we need to be able to depend on younger people to help with that, the same way that generations of americans have done before us. If we want tosell our homes where we raised our own children at a profit, we'll need younger people to want them, to afford them, and that won't happen if there are damned few younger people.
Um no rich people do fund medicare.

And by the way poor people are not going to be funding medicare, SS, or pensions.

Their children will however drain medicaid.


The US birth rate is barely above replacement rate, so forced abortion will deny the future the working people we need for continuity & prosperity. We're not like China- we are not overpopulated, and it would be stupid to adopt their methods for any ends other than that. They're already having huge problems supporting their elderly, and that burden won't decrease from having fewer people to do it.
Arent liberals the ones complaining about us using too many resources?

I figure it would be entirely fitting for Nehalem 256 to get old, and for younger people to take the same kind of attitude towards him that he takes towards others. If you can't be entirely self sufficient at 90, or at any age, well, it's time to punch your ticket. Or just let you starve, freeze or otherwise perish. Getting old is just stupid, right?

His own desires would make that a lot more likely, because younger workers would have proportionately too many oldsters to care for comfortably, and his "ideas" would obviously have led them to believe that short sighted greed is a virtue.

Those who live by the sword shall perish by it is a broader concept than he realizes, because there are all kinds of swords. He's swinging one himself.

Don't like the Welfare State? It's easy to say when you think you'll be rich someday, but you probably won't, particularly not if current income trends continue. You'll more likely be busted, in debt, obsolete and the rest of the right-wing-o-sphere will say it's because you're stupid and that you deserve what you're getting, even as people who never really worked at all enjoy he fruits of ownership via unlimited inheritance.
Because obviously people who dont graduate from high school, and flip burgers, are going to be the ones to fund medicare, SS, etc :rolleyes:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
It's not reasonable, unless you're a communist. Then all your "tell people what they can do with their bodies" talk seems fitting. Let's not forget all the money it will cost to actually enforce your ideas.
Ok, so you don't want to tell people what to do with their bodies?

Well then logically you cannot oppose teenage prostitution.

Hey! Maybe we have a way for them to pay for their children after all:sneaky:
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Label, dismiss, & deny, as if that's some sort of argument. It's not.

It's one of the ways that Righties fail so desperately, because they never question their own beliefs, not in the slightest. When called upon to do so, they're constitutionally incapable, intellectually crippled by their own fears & prejudices. It's a disease of the mind.
your the one in denial.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Or lie about the paternity of the child. And then if the man finds out later he wont get paid back.
And neither of those situations should be allowed. Pointing out situations a system doesn't handle well is not justification to scrap it entirely, it simply needs refinement.

The 'lie about the paternity' can easily be solved with a paternity test, and don't grant back child support (Other than maybe a 6 month or one year time frame after birth if paternity is in question and to give time to file suit).
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
6
0
And neither of those situations should be allowed. Pointing out situations a system doesn't handle well is not justification to scrap it entirely, it simply needs refinement.

The 'lie about the paternity' can easily be solved with a paternity test, and don't grant back child support (Other than maybe a 6 month or one year time frame after birth if paternity is in question and to give time to file suit).
But what happens if the man does not find out for 5 years?

And the argument for scraping it entirely is that is is morally appalling to give 17 year old girls the power to ruin the life of a 17 year old boy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
And how would you suggest men have abortions?
I don't. I suggest that they take responsibility for their own decisions. When having sex with a woman, it's understood that there is risk of pregnancy, even with precautions, and that women have the final say wrt to bearing that child or not. The choices & consequences are known in advance.

And of course you are conveniently forgetting the liberals happily excuse women from any obligations while forcing them
Women don't generally rape men, so they haven't forced them into anything that a man hasn't agreed to when having sex in the first place.

Sounds like what I have been arguing. If you cannot afford a child you have an OBLIGATION not to have one.
I did qualify that by saying "beyond the conceptualizations of right wing twits", thus ruling out your argument.

Um no rich people do fund medicare.

And by the way poor people are not going to be funding medicare, SS, or pensions.

Their children will however drain medicaid.
Rich people derive their income primarily from capital gains, dividends & interest, and medicare taxes will not apply to those income sources until 2013, if ever. No SS contributions come from those income sources, nor on individual earned income portions above ~$112K in 2012.

Of course poor people fund all those things, because most poor people do work, they just don't get paid fer shit, and their employment is often temporary, part time, seasonal- whatever they can get at the convenience of the so-called Job Creators. Their greatest goal in life is often to advance to the ranks of the increasing number of near-poor, people whose income barely surpasses the threshold of poverty.




Arent liberals the ones complaining about us using too many resources?
No.

Because obviously people who dont graduate from high school, and flip burgers, are going to be the ones to fund medicare, SS, etc :rolleyes:
In part, they will be. Given the direction that American capitalists are leading us, low wage jobs are the wave of the future-

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/10/job-polarization-not-to-blame-for-slow-economic-recovery

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/where-the-job-growth-is-at-the-low-end/

You won't read any of it, obviously.
 
Last edited:

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,581
313
126
I know where babies come from. It happens when a woman lets a man ejaculate in her without birth control.

I just dont see why this should allow her to control a man for 18 years when she can take care of it with a simple pill?????
Ah but of course, the "Eve" argument.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,009
14,176
136
your the one in denial.
I actually *made an argument*, while you've just gone into mental lockdown, because your own flawed belief structure is incapable of dealing with that argument. If that weren't the case, you'd make a counter argument, but you haven't, indicating that you can't, so here we are.

Conservatives, btw, don't have "new" ideas, by the very nature & definition of conservatism. Conservatives oppose change, unless they're radical reactionaries, which much of the leadership of the "conservative" movement really is.

 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
It happens when a woman lets a man ejaculate in her without birth control.
An interesting illustration, this sentence: even a man ejaculating is expressed as something the woman is responsible for.

I don't think I've ever encountered online anyone so deeply misogynistic.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,912
11,650
146
Ok, so you don't want to tell people what to do with their bodies?

Well then logically you cannot oppose teenage prostitution.

Hey! Maybe we have a way for them to pay for their children after all:sneaky:
I don't logically support the prohibition of prostitution. 18 is consenting adult in the USA, so no I don't support prohibition of "teenage" prostitution. Is that what you mean? 18+? This is a conversation I've had with many people.

I don't support any drug prohibition either.

I support personal freedoms until they physically interfere with others. IE, drink and drive? fucked.

Choose to pay for sex outright between consenting adults? Go for it. We're all paying one way or another, some people just don't want to break through all that social red tape for sex.

edit: Legal prostitution would make is safer for both parties involved as well. No pimps, monthly STD testing, health care, and less likely to get women pregnant, so less mouths to feed.

Even if they had children, it would be lucrative enough to feed the kids.

Looks like you support legal prostitution, glad we agree on something.

What I don't support is the original topic: People who don't need the free food still getting it.

Or mandatory abortions. Think of the costs surrounding such an undertaking! Not to mention the violation of personal freedoms.

I also support sex-ed and not abstinence only education.
 
Last edited:

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
But what happens if the man does not find out for 5 years?

And the argument for scraping it entirely is that is is morally appalling to give 17 year old girls the power to ruin the life of a 17 year old boy.
If he doesn't find out for 5 years: no back pay. She can still sue him for future support (with proof of paternity) but he should be entitled to joint custody instead.

And I don't see how supporting his child is 'ruining his life'.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY