US 'could be going bankrupt'

[spike]

Of course, encouraging/enforcing 2 parent families would just be silly.

Enforcing 2 parent families? That would be pretty silly as well as impossible.

 

[highwayman]

Enforcing 2 parent families? That would be pretty silly as well as impossible.

Are you sugesting something diferent then he and she to make baby?
From what I know about biology it can be dificult for two same sex mamels to produce offspring...

Other then sexual gratufacation how do you sugest a man and a women to reproduce????

 

[Altron]

Enforcing 2 parent families? That would be pretty silly as well as impossible.

Kind of simple, actually. Gay? Not married? Divorced? Rubber up. Pop the pill. It's no secret where children come from.

 

[Gotholic]

Enforcing 2 parent families? That would be pretty silly as well as impossible.

Actually, getting rid of the no-fault divorce law would be one way to help make it possible.

 

[Dave]

is it just me or did the last few posts seem completely random?

 

[paul_valaru]

Of course, encouraging/enforcing 2 parent families would just be silly.

so forced abortions, forced adoptions, when a father passes away from cancer the wife has to marry his brother?
Encouraging, sure you can encourage, enforce, not without being

A) dictatoship

B) Sharia type goverment.

 

[spike]

so forced abortions, forced adoptions, when a father passes away from cancer the wife has to marry his brother?
Encouraging, sure you can encourage, enforce, not without being

A) dictatoship

B) Sharia type goverment.

What the hell, let's just pick A or B and get it over with. There's just too many people anxious to give up any freedom they don't personally need at the moment.

 

[paul_valaru]

yes the free speach unless I disagree with you movement.

2 parent families cannot be enforced, encouragement isn't helping, maybe if gays could get married there would be more 2 parent homes.


*puts away his handy dandy can of worms can opener.

 

[Altron]

How are gays going to have children? There's a reason that most people are straight - when it comes to producing offspring, it works best.

 

[Altron]

Also, I'd like you to point out the post where I said that I have issues with gays getting married.

 

[paul_valaru]

Also, I'd like you to point out the post where I said that I have issues with gays getting married.

It's not all about you.

How are gays going to have children? There's a reason that most people are straight - when it comes to producing offspring, it works best.

there are means, artificial insemination, adoptions, or old fashioned sex, jsut to get knocked up.

 

[Altron]

I still don't follow how our shared belief that a two-parent family is the best way to raise kids means that we want a dictatorship.

Note how Prof used the word 'Encourage'. Y'know, changing the laws so that people can't get knocked up, divorced, then get government handouts for being a single mom. I think I've been pretty clear with my disapproval of government handouts of any sort.

 

[paul_valaru]

Note how Prof used the word 'Encourage'. Y'know, changing the laws so that people can't get knocked up, divorced, then get government handouts for being a single mom. I think I've been pretty clear with my disapproval of government handouts of any sort.

so the kids starve or are neglected.

as for goverment handouts, yes some abuse it, but when your family REALLY needs it so nobody starves, then you will be thankful they exist, and if you never ever need them, great, live a happy successful life.

But when my mom left my abusing father, and had to relocate to get away from him, and could not re-enter the workforce RIGHT away after a couple of years of not working (she tried, but no-one would hire her) it was nice knowing that while we wouldn't be having steak, we would still be eating, thanks to the goverment.

So you get rid of all your goverment "handouts" and destroy the future of a whole bunch of people who got caught in a bind, way to go!!!! "they are lower class, they don't need to eat"

 

[Altron]

so the kids starve or are neglected.

as for goverment handouts, yes some abuse it, but when your family REALLY needs it so nobody starves, then you will be thankful they exist, and if you never ever need them, great, live a happy successful life.

But when my mom left my abusing father, and had to relocate to get away from him, and could not re-enter the workforce RIGHT away after a couple of years of not working (she tried, but no-one would hire her) it was nice knowing that while we wouldn't be having steak, we would still be eating, thanks to the goverment.

So you get rid of all your goverment "handouts" and destroy the future of a whole bunch of people who got caught in a bind, way to go!!!! "they are lower class, they don't need to eat"

Private charities.

 

[paul_valaru]

Private charities.

and when there isn't enough, or do you just like the idea of the poor having to beg for scraps?

Middle class eliteism, "make it a private charity, I am sure the rich will donate."

 

[Altron]

Oh, so it's better for the government to put together some half-assed robin hood scheme of steal from the people who work and give it to those who don't, except they never really bother to see if the people they're giving it to actually need it.

 

[Altron]

There would be a hell of a lot more donating to private charities if income tax was cut in half by removing Fed charity programs.

I'd happily donate 6% of my income to a church instead of giving it to the government through social security tax if I knew that they were giving it to the right people and not spending it friviously.

The government, by definition, is stupid and inefficent. Why not step back and let private charities do it? I am quite certain that the preist at my local church can help a lot more people with the same amount of money than some bean counter in Washington can.

 

[paul_valaru]

so instead of fixing a system, you get rid of it.

this is real life not the end of old yeller.

or you can guarantee everyone employment

oh wait, communism again.

 

[paul_valaru]

There would be a hell of a lot more donating to private charities if income tax was cut in half by removing Fed charity programs.

I'd happily donate 6% of my income to a church instead of giving it to the government through social security tax if I knew that they were giving it to the right people and not spending it friviously.

The government, by definition, is stupid and inefficent. Why not step back and let private charities do it? I am quite certain that the preist at my local church can help a lot more people with the same amount of money than some bean counter in Washington can.

yeah your church....so the poor jewish people would have to convert to eat?

 

[Altron]

They can go to the synagouge (spelling?) and get it. There are a lot of them too. By church, I refer to religious institutions of any denomination.

The system should not even exist in the first place, as per the Constitution. But corrupt political parties are too afraid to get rid of it.

There isn't a guarantee of employment. If you have trouble finding a job, private charities.

The government has too much shit to do, so their solution for all social problems is just to throw money at it. When my dad got laid off two years ago, the preist at my church was very helpful in helping my dad out. Not giving him money, but by talking to him and becoming involved in his search for a new job. Someone who cares and has a little bit of money is more helpful than a nameless check in the mail every month.