«12. . .1,8171,8181,8191,8201,8211,8221,823. . .2,0722,073»
it's worrying how the most "liberal" among us have taken such a narrow-minded totalitarian stance at the moment.
Zetox and Staine
What do you mean?
Lets break out the grill, we going havin a UCN only party over here, while the rmb burns
Room for 1 more?
Oi The British Imperial this one of your friends?
Radical leftist policies never work! We need less government overreach, more power and freedoms to the people!
Devolve more power to the state and local governments!
South Waterford and Zetox
pov: you dont understand economics
Welfare is proven to work and the AFA will put 4 million children out of poverty
here are three sources that prove welfare works:
https://www.nap.edu/child-poverty/highlights.html
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0019793918790220
https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/2019/3/5/the-afa-and-child-poverty
The right of an individual to have their own independent opinion plays a fundamental part in modern day democracy, and the suppression of any opinion, just because another individual or group of individuals disagrees with it, is wrong and immoral.
Nowadays, "Liberals" are more than willing to censor anything that they find subjectively offensive. They would rather ruin something for others because one person has taken offense to it, for example from stand-up and comedy to somebody's genuine political views. And of course you have a right to take offense and of course you have the right to complain about it, however ruining it for others is where the line is drawn.
Censorship is a totalitarian ideal, just for example.
Zetox, United Sentinel States, Capital Markets, and Staine
This is a definition problem for liberals, the fact we have been thrown in with the radical left because of poor state of political dialog in the US, and now the more extreme elements of the left are trying to push those they deem degenerates, distasteful, and just bad PR, as liberals, that they're the crazy libs at it again, but in reality they are not liberals not even close.
"There are no principled arguments for censorship, only arguments from power"
pov: you think that government can solve poverty by signing checks, and you also mistake "projections" for proof
Sure, spending more taxpayer money on relief programs and social safety nets will help. But it does not solve the root cause of child poverty. It has been shown extensively that you can pretty much eliminate your chance of being impoverished if you (1) graduate high school, (2) don't have children outside of committed marriage or when you are a teen. Poverty to an extent is a result of choices made by you and/or your parents.
Logical social safety net programs that contain the right incentive structures are sound policy. Expanding the check-signing activities of the government without a plan to address the root cause is bad policy.
Additionally, I think figure 4 in the first link you sent is really interesting. The commentary that "Child poverty fell by nearly half between 1970 and 2016, and government programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and SNAP played important roles in achieving this drop" refers to the blue line labeled "supplementary poverty measure" (SPM). If you look at the red line "official poverty measure" (OPM), it shows that child poverty was not reduced over this time. By using the SPM, it is including all government benefits as "income" in addition to the traditional measure of cash income. So there will obviously be a direct inverse relationship between the SPM and the amount of money the government spends on welfare. In my mind, solving the poverty problem is about people improving their standard of living through better education, family structures, and personal choices, coupled with limited, but sound social policy for extreme circumstances and unforeseen misfortunes
Welfare would increase rate of high school graduation and more funding for sex ed would lower teen pregnancy rates(government spending).
Aye, USN Engineer. Is a Goodlad
All this progressive/leftist garbage is like a computer program
if
(*enter literally anything here*)
then
solution = more government power
strawman
Strawman? I suggest you look up the definition.
I made my point about expanding welfare programs and how I don't think it solves the underlying root cause of poverty, which would be necessary for any real structural economic change. Then you replied to that argument by saying that more government spending/programs would be the solution to those underlying root causes. Let me demonstrate the robustness of my computer program:
if:
(Child poverty exists)
then
(Expand government programs)
if:
(Poverty is linked to HS graduation and irresponsible sexual decisions)
then
(More government spending)
*slams table*
OBJECTION!!
*sips mug*
Cereal isnt a soup!
Chokoku, Somerania, and Staine
Noice I'll put another stake on the grill
The British Imperial and Staine
It is worrying to see how liberals dont mind doing totalitarian thing to move their agendas!
Exactly! Liberals like to censor and cancel a lot things because they dont like it despite having the rest of population believing and support the exact thing they want to censor or cancel
Liberals just to do things their way without evaluating the consequences it will have to rest of the population. Liberals sometimes act like spoiled brats!
Exactly! Spending our tax payer money doesn’t solve the problem, so stop taxing us so much!
That is a good analogy!!!
Yes, Liberals just want to spent our money and created debt then they are asking why debt got so high?!
Liberal's do not censor those they disagree with, those in your country that you have called liberals are not liberals, they are authoritarian scum masquerading as liberals.
The British Imperial, Zetox, Leria, and Staine
«12. . .1,8171,8181,8191,8201,8211,8221,823. . .2,0722,073»
Advertisement