Tweet
Ted -
Only talking down to my audience so you can understand, I guess it'll take extraordinary measures to get it thru your thick skull. Btw, notice how I offer evidence when I accuse you of hypocrisy? Try it for a change...
"Back in the day"? "Everything"? And you say I'm "oversimplifying" the situation? Your use of generalizations and extreme exaggerations knows no bounds. This is just another unsupported claim like your claim that the world would face ruination if people here don't get their government handouts. 
RR's were given a monopoly by government. Did RR's control EVERYTHING? No...
Gee, and why do you think there was no competition? Because government passed legislation preventing competition.
Government created the trusts so I have no problem with breaking up government created monopolies. But anti-trust laws were used for more than breaking up the government created RR monopolies, they were used against other large businesses that had acquired significant marketshare even when laws prohibiting competition were not in place, and if you didn't like the wage they were offering, then WALK AWAY! RR's only owned entire towns that were built because of the railway on RR land and as part of the RR's business in much the same way mining companies built "towns" to accomodate miners. And yes, if you don't like the wages being offered in "your" town, you are free to go elsewhere.
Can you debate without putting your claims and arguments in my mouth? I never said welfare programs were the "sole" cause of the increase in out of wedlock births. I said welfare has caused a huge increase in out of wedlock births and nothing you and Joe said refutes either my claim or my evidence.
Another "success" of liberalism. Have out of wedlock birthrates increased equally across the board? No, they have increased much more among populations on welfare.
I already offered the proof, you just ignored it. Of course, you also ignored the fact I just refuted your arguments you gave when calling my claim linking welfare and out of wedlock births, "BS". You ignore my proof, you ignore my refutations of your arguments, then you accuse me of hypocrisy for not offering proof while expecting proof from you? You're a dishonest person.
Then why were out of wedlock birthrates among both whites and blacks so low 50 to 100 years ago? You're ignoring the fact that so many children living in poverty are in single parent households headed by single mothers on welfare. And welfare has created a system of dependency that creates incentives for poor couples to stay unmarried for the benefits with many fathers just up and leaving because government will take their place.
They do get "government" money and most already know they will get it, especially when their mom is getting it too because she did the same thing as her kid when she was young. It's called generational welfare. You're ignoring human biology and evolution. Women generally seek males who will be good providers for them and their family. If "government" becomes this provider, many women no longer need or want a husband. But that doesn't mean they stop having sex, only that the guy they have sex with won't be needed to provide for the family.
And out of wedlock birthrates in those countries have been increasing too, what a surprise.
Not only are you putting your words in my mouth, you're putting your generalizations in my mouth. If it's convenient for you to believe this, then that is what you will believe, but don't claim I said this because I didn't. Like I did say, the fact many people take government handouts doesn't mean they are lazy, most of them are working or retired.
Pouring trillions of dollars into social programs had better enrich some people, but that isn't proof they worked. It assumes poverty rates would have been higher if all these people had never become dependent on government in the first place and that the money used to create this dependency would not have been used by the rightful owners to create jobs or provide for charity. And when you forcibly take money from people who are already near the poverty line, you push them into poverty.
This information wasn't from the government, it came from a liberal think tank's "analysis" of goverment statistics. And most of us know how statistics can be fudged to paint a picture the painter likes. It's funny how many liberals will use different definitions of poverty depending on the picture they want to paint. If they want a picture showing poverty programs work, they use a definition that reduces the number of people in poverty; when they want a picture showing that poverty is rampant (especially under a Republican President), they use a definition that expands the numbers. We've got people here in poverty who are obese, wearing expensive Nikes, with multiple cars, VCR's, or TV's, etc...
Hypzerker,
You are oversimplifying the situation.
You are oversimplifying the situation.
You analysis of, "just walking away," is incorrect. Back in the day, certain companies controlled EVERYTHING.
That's why the anti-trust legislation was passed, because mostly railroads were in charge of everything, not just the railroads themselves.
They could gauge prices, pay workers ****ty wages, because there was no competition around to hire workers who wanted a choice of another employer.
Basically in your own words, they wanted "freedom" to get another job. The government came in a broke up the trusts to give those workers other options. You couldn't just "walk away" when everything in your town and the surrounding area is owned by the railroad. So therefore they are setting low prices, since nobody else is hiring, they can pay you whatever they wanted to.
Regarding the welfare mothers you are STILL incorrect. You say government programs are the sole contributors to increased out of wedlock. There are several factors that could contribute to this trend. One being a cultural impact.
Back in the day, a woman had a child out of wedlock, and she would be scorned by the whole town. You couldn't even say, "pregnant" on tv because it was a dirty word. People are more promiscuous, and it is more acceptable to be a single mother.
Even so, you have absolutely zero proof of a correlation between out of wedlock births and government programs. And in fact, removing those programs would do more harm than good.
Once again proving you a hypocrite for asking for burden of proof from others, yet supplying none of your own.
Hypocrite.
Hypocrite.
Kids living in poverty has more to do with kids having kids.
When a teen gets pregnant, dropping out of school, there is no chance of raising that child with an acceptable income. Yeah, guy, the teen really had getting government money in mind when getting pregnant.
"Basically, there are policies and programs in other industrial nations that ensure children against poverty better than those in the U.S.," said Neal Bennett, for the National Center for Children in Poverty.
Also saying people won't take care of themselves and calling them lazy is the exact same thing.
The following is from 1996, a time which we had just endured a recession and government benefits were needed most.
In other words, the programs worked.
BUT I GUESS WE CAIN'T TRUSS THIS INFARMASHUN BECUZ IT COMMIN FROM THA GUBMENT, HUH HYPZERKER?!?!
)
Comment