What does it say about you, when confronted with someone you disagree with, your thought is to have them killed :\
It doesn't seem to be problem if that someone is a Muslim, does it?
What does it say about you, when confronted with someone you disagree with, your thought is to have them killed :\
On a per-post basis this is the stupidest thread I have ever seen in my 12+ years on this forum.
why do we want people who struggle to support themselves take on a greater financial burden caring for yet another person?
then have that child who's born into poverty struggle to break out of it, and have the vicious cycle continue?
it doesn't make sense to me. surely someone has the answer to such a simple question.
It doesn't seem to be problem if that someone is a Muslim, does it?
Why are you bringing muslims up? I have said nothing about them. But at the very least I dont think they have the same problem with bastard children that we do in America.
The right wing wants to make America a place with massive poverty and a few very wealthy people, where many are forced to be poor and not have things like children or healthcare - and blame them for not having them. They want policies that ensure those problems, with policies such as aboloshing Medicare and Social Security.
Progressives want America with a safety net, where people are rewarded for contributing to the economy, with wealthy and poor - but where everyone can have important things like children if they want to, where we don't create massive social suffering and costs with short-sighted policies to not care for and educate children.
'The American Dream' was meant to be available to all. Only progressives support that.
Why do we encourage anyone to reproduce? I mean we give people a tax deduction for having kids, when in fact they use more government resources. Shouldn't we increase their taxes instead? If they can't afford the higher taxes, they shouldn't be having kids.
Why do we encourage anyone to reproduce? I mean we give people a tax deduction for having kids, when in fact they use more government resources. Shouldn't we increase their taxes instead? If they can't afford the higher taxes, they shouldn't be having kids.
Well isn't that statement a little bit contradicatory? safety net is for those who for some reason cannot contribute to economy, such getting lay off, having health problem, or simply lack the skill to find jobs. The safety net put up by liberals is exactly design to reword those who does not contribute to the economy.
There is no black and white answer to this debate. Too much of a capitalism is not good and like wise, too much socialism is not good either. The question is where is America in this spectrum and is America's position optimal and sustainable.
The fact speaks for itself. There is no one in America starving. The social net is enough. America is hugely in debt, and getting more in debt by the trillions under Obama admin. This is certainly not sustainable.
Stupid idea. Those who makes enough money to pay tax is the exact people we should encourage to reproduce.
Those who don't make money and is on welfare on the other hand should not have free pass and all the incentives to make more welfare babies.
I just repeat, all you can do on the right is create an underclass in America who either is denied having children or who raises them in poverty; the left is for people not to be poor.
Progressives are the only group supporting the latter, though they all say they are 'for the people'.
The shifts in America are more to the right, more for de-regulating finance, more for protecting the plutocracy, and we see the results in wealth's movement since Reagan.
The chart below offers one way to see this. It shows trends in GDP per capita and median family income, with each series displayed as an index set to equal 1 in the initial year. From the late 1940s through the mid-to-late 1970s, the two moved in lockstep. After that, GDP per capita continued its steady upward march (through 2007), but median income rose much less rapidly.
Actually it was the left who destigmatized divorce and bastard children. Look up the poverty rate of children raised by single mothers. Its not pretty.
And what has the left done to eliminate poverty?
Actually it was the left who destigmatized divorce and bastard children. Look up the poverty rate of children raised by single mothers. Its not pretty.
And what has the left done to eliminate poverty?
Actually one the liberals on this forum posted a link that showed that wealth's movement to the top began BEFORE reagan
http://lanekenworthy.net/2012/03/11/is-decoupling-real/
It does however line up with the increase in the labor force participation rate cause by women entering the workforce. Who was it that thought it was important for women to work just like men?
You can see discussion beginning at the bottom of this page: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2243581&page=6
Yes, nearly all women were married young into marriages to raise children at home in the past, in far more often miserable and violent relationship, and destitute far more than now if they had to leave the marriage. People's lives were destroyed, girls sent out of state, for unwed pregnancy. The good old days. Now women can do more, since Mary Tyler Moore.
You think it's better to have a 'stigma' for 'bastard children'. How practical and humanitarian of you.
That's the point - the right simply creates poverty and suffering for everything, they have no solutions. The left has 'imperfect' solutions, the right has actively harmful ones.
The poverty rate among single mothers IS very bad. You don't have a magic forumla for everyone to be happily married; you have only punishments to hurt people.
The left will at least provide a safety net for the mother and child giving her and the child a better chance for the 'American Dream', education and nutrition and so on.
Under your system the child will be unhealthy, uneducated, likely imprisoned before long. But hey, you sure taught him for choosing a single mother.
No, it doesn't. First, it's not a chart about 'movement to the top'. Second, it shows it did start the shift it does show, just before Reagan took office.
Look at your chart - just before 1980 - the last time the two lines are very close:
(Also note that the best period post-Reagan was following the passage of the tax increase on the rich under Clinton that IIRC every Republican opposed).
There's a reason it uses its baseline in the following statement in 1979, and Reagan was elected in 1980:
"The share of income going to the top 1% of households jumped from 8% in 1979 to 17% in 2007."
Who was it? I'd say it was both feminists who wanted women to have more rights and power to have the choice to work and make money; and the wealth who own the businesses who liked the idea of having a lot more workers, which increases the labor pool for them, not only driving down labor costs but supplying a second labor force paid less than the first one, who could profit from that labor and boost to the economy at the expense of the quality of home life for two income households.
Having both parents work increased national productivity - but the increase went into the pockets of the wealthy while the couples had to both work to get what they had earlier.
What does it say about you, when confronted with someone you disagree with, your thought is to have them killed :\
I'll give you five of the things. You'll ignore them and waste my time having asked.
The irony doesn't penetrate into your little troll brain does it? Cry about that while advocating forced sterilization and prevention of millions of births of children you don't like?
1. Public education greatly increased
2. Improved the financial markets from constant crash cycles to steady with regulation
3. Increased the prosperity of the people directly and indirectly with workers' rights/unions
4. The War on Poverty permanently reduced the poverty rate in the US by 1/3
5. Social Security reversed an elderty poverty rate of 90%
Yes, nearly all women were married young into marriages to raise children at home in the past, in far more often miserable and violent relationship, and destitute far more than now if they had to leave the marriage. People's lives were destroyed, girls sent out of state, for unwed pregnancy. The good old days. Now women can do more, since Mary Tyler Moore.