The agenda of the left

If God wanted brown babies he would have had Jesus be born in the Middle East.

 

I’m not sure why you think I look down on unwed mothers. It’s very odd that people here refuse to track my argument. But congrats on the water pump.

 

Provide a solution.

 

Maybe we should tax it

 

Republicans would never go for that, for multiple reasons.

 

Again, he provided a "solution," in his original post. He said the problems were the "incentives" given to single parent families.


Post #1290:
idk man but there’s a reason why the USA has the highest rate of single parenthood IN THE WORLD and terrible incentives from government programs are on of them.



If the "reason" for the "problem" are the "terrible incentives", the solution to a conservative is obvious: get rid of the incentives.

Of course, there are no "terrible incentives" for "single parenthood."

There are (extremely miniscule) assistance programs provided to low income parents. I do not believe there are any SPECIFICALLY for "single parenthood."

 

But, as you know, the problem is getting rid of the incentives does not eliminate the problem. People don't become single parents because of the incentives. For example, making adultery illegal never stopped adultery - just ask biblical David about that. When you deal with biological impulses, incentives are quite inconsequential.

 

Yes! Because "profit" implies that everyone benefits, especially those at the bottom of the class system.

One of my students, a single mother, told me that she pays roughly $11,000 a year in health care for her daughter and herself. I responded by saying if she moved to New Zealand to attend uni there, she would pay less than $1,000 a year.

 

Yep, favoring children have two parents is anti children.

 

Let’s first see and agree if there’s a problem. That’s the first step there is lots of debate about here. What do you think?

 

Too many soccer moms too few subsidized fields?

 

I know that
You know that


Do Conservatives know that?!?

This seems to be underlying thesis behind Post #1290, since the "terrible incentives from government programs are on of them" for single parents.

 

You clearly and obviously didn't read my first post that you said was full of strawman arguments. If you had read that, you wouldn't have made this comment.

Now, provide a solution to the problem because it is becoming very clear that you don't have one. You just want to whine about it.

 

I’d like to first see if you admit there’s a problem or not. Why be cagey about it? It’s a yes or no question, a basic assumption. My position: yes there’s a problem.

yours?

by the way, a problem is independent from a solution. there’s no cure for some forms of cancer. But it’s still a problem.

 

I have clearly stated that your primary assumption that rates of single parenting are higher in America than anywhere else in the world was wrong, and I provided data supporting that. Thus, you started off the discussion with a flawed assumption.

I have very clearly stated the data suggests, generally speaking, two parents are better than one. Thus, I am in agreement with the core of your argument, even if I am not in agreement with the substance of it (mainly because you have provided no substance - your argument thus far has been superficial at best).

I have very clearly stated that cultural context is important - that children raised by a single parent can be problematic or not depending on many other cultural factors. As such, in itself it is not a problem given problematic results are based on additional factors. As such, any simplistic black & white approach is problematic, which is what the evidence indicates.

In the end, either 1) you don't have a solution to the problem you wish to address (mainly because you choose to ignore all relevant variables) or 2) you think there is no solution to it at all. If the former, then you are simply a typical Republican who raises issues not because you actually care about the issue, but because you want to use it to attack Democrats - as you have repeatedly done. If it is the latter, then we should be striving to improve the living situation of single parents as much as we can, which you don't seem to support. At this point option 1 is clearly what is happening here.

In other words, you have thus far refused to provide a solution to a problem you identify. You are the one who claims it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I am trying to work with you in addressing it to the benefit of children, but you refuse to provide any possible solution but instead simply whine and moan like the typical Republican politician does.

In other words, put up or shut up. If you think it is a problem, provide a solution. If you can't provide a solution, then stop your whining. If I remember correctly, you brought the topic up, so it is on you to treat the topic seriously instead of acting as a troll, whining because no one is accepting your simplistic approach to the topic.

 

I’m striking this post as over the word limit. Please rephrase in 100 words or less.

 

So what you’re saying here is that you believe women are deliberately having children out of wedlock and/or divorcing their partners in order to receive subsidies?

 

I have attempted to engage the topic with you but you have refused to do likewise.

You won't provide solutions because you have none. You have none because you are incapable of examining a topic beyond a superficial level, a level whose sole intent is to do nothing but attack Democrats, regardless of how it is done.

In other words, you are a troll.