Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: boymimbo

Dow is still up 22.7% since Trump's inauguration. This is likely a well deserved correction.

But more importantly, the Dow was at 24,754 the day that Trump signed the tax cut (December 22, which is the only piece of economic legislation that he passed. Today it closed at 24,345, which is lower than the December 11th point when the Dow hit its record high.

Quote: Mission146

Why would there necessarily be extra taxes? I'm not saying there wouldn't, but is it not possible that tax dollars could be diverted from something else into providing for a free education for reasonably promising students? There are a number of different things funded by tax dollars that are, in my opinion, both nonsensical and a complete waste.

If you're the Government, you have to look at all tax dollars as an investment, really, and education is one of the better investments they could make.

So, what is it you want to cut?

It would be a huge amount of extra taxes.

Quote: AZDuffman

So, what is it you want to cut?

It would be a huge amount of extra taxes.

We can start with the border wall

Quote: Mission146

Responsible parents? With what? Strictly limited (if any) social safety nets, limited access to education without loans, abstinence only education, whatever job a person may have access to with a H.S. Diploma, unaffordable child care costs and many employers who are completely unwilling to make basic schedule accommodations for people?

I would think that Liberals & Conservatives would agree that we want parents to be responsible, the difference lies in how wiling we are to afford them the means to do so. I don't know anything about abortion rates by race. I don't know or care about the illegitimacy rate, which I also don't know how you are defining. Are you saying unmarried or not knowing who the father is?

Somehow parents were able to do the responsibility thing just fine before the "War on Poverty" and the safety net was in the community. Illegitimate means any child born to an unwed mother. The rate has been climbing since the 1960s and a child being born to an unwed mother is pretty much the #1 indicator if it will grow up in poverty or not. Stated simply, too many young women are letting themselves get pregnant. At least in part this can be blamed on how the pop culture has made "heroes" of single moms. You should care about the rate, as it is directly related to kids growing up poor and also if they will end up in prison. When I started 1st grade (1976) in most classes you would have 1 maybe 2 kids who had no father, most of the time that was because the mother was a young widow. Today it is often half the class.

Quote:

WE don't have equal pay for equal work everywhere. Furthermore, they are about equality in the workplace, in general. If you have one gender getting sexually harassed considerably more often than another, then you do not have workplace equality. It's not entirely about wages.

I don't think women are suggesting that a female fry and burger cook at McDonald's should make as much as the CEO of McDonald's, which seems to be the complete and utter nonsense that you are implying they believe.

If so many women are getting paid less for the same job, why has the EEOC not fined more places? See, what feminists want is "comparable value" in wages. In simple terms this means the woman answering the phones should get the same wages as the guys working out in the field. In reality, I ran such a place. I had 30 applicants for the one office position and as few as 2-3 for each in-field position. The in-field directly generated revenue, so was more important. So who am I going to pay more? Women could do 99% of what had to be done in the field, but never applied.

It starts in college. I don't have the link as it was a podcast, but of the top 5 most male dominated jobs, only one was a low-pay job, and that was clergy. For the top 5 most female dominated, only one was high pay, that was pharmacy. Women are just more likely to choose a low-pay profession. Of course, many major in Husbandry in college, so they care even less what they take.

Quote:

Why are you taking TV shows seriously? It's a caricature. Some TV shows make fun of women that they see as naggy and demanding. TV shows and movies make fun of people. Honestly, if I didn't see a little of the beer-guzzling football enthusiast that such shows make fun of in myself, and laugh at it, I would seriously reevaluate how seriously I take myself.

Because while individually it is just a show, when you look at the larger picture, TV imitates society.

Quote:

Trump is called a racist because he has said things that could be interpreted as racist. Maybe he's a racist, maybe he isn't, but it's not hard to refrain from saying things that could be interpreted that way.

The people complaining about Trump being racist would say I am racist for preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.

Quote:

I don't know why a woman couldn't coach football at a high level.

Find me a female player, assistant coach, or Division I head coach, then we can discuss if she is qualified. If you do not have one of these jobs then you do not have the qualifications to interview.

Quote:

Not everyone can save $5,000 over 12-18 months just by putting their mind to it.

No, but anyone can find a reason they cannot do so.

Quote: AZDuffman

The people complaining about Trump being racist would say I am racist for preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.

There's definitely no basis to the idea that trump might be a racist. None. At. All.

Trump called Democrats traitors today and not a single GOP spokesman on CNN called him out for it.
This is the behavior of tin dictators presiding over shithole banana republics.

Quote: billryan

Trump called Democrats traitors today and not a single GOP spokesman on CNN called him out for it.
This is the behavior of tin dictators presiding over shithole banana republics.

He did it in the form of a question.😀😛
Same tactics used by many on this very forum.

Quote: AZDuffman

Somehow parents were able to do the responsibility thing just fine before the "War on Poverty" and the safety net was in the community. Illegitimate means any child born to an unwed mother. The rate has been climbing since the 1960s and a child being born to an unwed mother is pretty much the #1 indicator if it will grow up in poverty or not. Stated simply, too many young women are letting themselves get pregnant. At least in part this can be blamed on how the pop culture has made "heroes" of single moms. You should care about the rate, as it is directly related to kids growing up poor and also if they will end up in prison. When I started 1st grade (1976) in most classes you would have 1 maybe 2 kids who had no father, most of the time that was because the mother was a young widow. Today it is often half the class.




If so many women are getting paid less for the same job, why has the EEOC not fined more places? See, what feminists want is "comparable value" in wages. In simple terms this means the woman answering the phones should get the same wages as the guys working out in the field. In reality, I ran such a place. I had 30 applicants for the one office position and as few as 2-3 for each in-field position. The in-field directly generated revenue, so was more important. So who am I going to pay more? Women could do 99% of what had to be done in the field, but never applied.

It starts in college. I don't have the link as it was a podcast, but of the top 5 most male dominated jobs, only one was a low-pay job, and that was clergy. For the top 5 most female dominated, only one was high pay, that was pharmacy. Women are just more likely to choose a low-pay profession. Of course, many major in Husbandry in college, so they care even less what they take.



Because while individually it is just a show, when you look at the larger picture, TV imitates society.



The people complaining about Trump being racist would say I am racist for preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.



Find me a female player, assistant coach, or Division I head coach, then we can discuss if she is qualified. If you do not have one of these jobs then you do not have the qualifications to interview.




No, but anyone can find a reason they cannot do so.

Wrote a long rebuttal of this nonsense post and deleted it as futile. AZD posts on women boil down to one thing: Lucy Van Pelt Explains It All To You. 5ç.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Wrote a long rebuttal of this nonsense post and deleted it as futile. AZD posts on women boil down to one thing: Lucy Van Pelt Explains It All To You. 5ç.

Now you get it.

Quote: billryan

Now you get it.

I also was in the middle of a rebuttal as well and thought "why bother?"

Neither side in this debate (Mission or AZ) are posting facts to back up their theories. The truth is that wage gaps exist for a multitude of reasons but the primary reasons are systemic discrimination in hiring and promotional decisions, giving men higher raises when the raises are discretionary, and of course, the true fact that women interrupt their careers to bear and raise children. There are plenty of studies to support these facts.

The fact is that Americans place no value on child-rearing, giving the least amount of maternity leave in the Western World, and not providing job guarantees for women who leave to have children in small businesses (<50 employees). The fact is that early life is the most valuable time for the parent-child bond to occur (and of course there is a ton of evidence to support this), and women wisely decide to kill their career to raise their children, which is exacerbated of course if you are a single mother, and exacerbates the wage gap. Of course, if all employers were forced to allow women to leave work to bear children and return to work with a longer and guaranteed, wage supported (through employment insurance benefits) leaves, it would be far better overall for the parents, children and society overall. However, Americans are far too shortsighted and far too divided to understand this link and to actually spend public money which has a multiplier for future benefits.

As for poverty, degrees in husbandry, and the herione-ness of "single moms", complete and utter bull. Men should be committing to the raising of their children both financially and physically, when possible. Custodial decisions should be made that suits the best interests of the children. Child support should be set appropriately and enforced. Options for pregnant women including abortion, adoption, Plan "B", and of course, responsible parenting should be made available, which is why PP should be funded, because it gives poor people good options.

Single women aren't heroes, and I don't see why they would ever see it that way. They make a go of it because the child has spent 9 months in their body and there's an attachment there. Plenty of single women are complete failures, but that failure is the function of the father as well who has physical, financial, and emotional responsibility for that life.

Look, my kid's 20, and I've paid over $150,000 in child support. I support my child directly through university. I support her, spend time with her, pay her medical, dental, and vision bills, and fought for custody when her mother was failing. Frankly, being her father has been the most rewarding experience of my life, and any dad who dismisses that responsibility, no matter how much a f-ed the mother, is a complete and utter loser. The fact that men continue to get away with this is part of the reason why feminism is necessary.

And I don't see any solutions forthcoming. The Libertarian point of view seems to be "self-fund" everything and to let children of parents who make crappy decisions suffer. The problem of course is that most of these children (if they don't die first from gunfire, malnourishment, lack of health care, etc) somehow make it through childhood and become adults, and they in turn, make crappy decisions and so on and so forth. Ah, the American dream. Survival of the fittest, inner cities and sh**holes for the poor, and death for the rest.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Wrote a long rebuttal of this nonsense post and deleted it as futile. AZD posts on women boil down to one thing: Lucy Van Pelt Explains It All To You. 5ç.

My views on women are based on logic and reality and not lapping up what the feminists say.

Quote: boymimbo

Neither side in this debate (Mission or AZ) are posting facts to back up their theories.

Yes, it is called having a discussion. This is a forum, not a college paper.

Quote:

The fact is that Americans place no value on child-rearing, giving the least amount of maternity leave in the Western World, and not providing job guarantees for women who leave to have children in small businesses (<50 employees). The fact is that early life is the most valuable time for the parent-child bond to occur (and of course there is a ton of evidence to support this), and women wisely decide to kill their career to raise their children, which is exacerbated of course if you are a single mother, and exacerbates the wage gap. Of course, if all employers were forced to allow women to leave work to bear children and return to work with a longer and guaranteed, wage supported (through employment insurance benefits) leaves, it would be far better overall for the parents, children and society overall. However, Americans are far too shortsighted and far too divided to understand this link and to actually spend public money which has a multiplier for future benefits.

Why on earth should an employer be forced to pay a woman who chooses to take time off to have children? Why should everyone be forced to pay into "insurance" to do this. Here is the thing. Kids are a lifestyle choice. Since the 1970s, feminists have put forth this idea that "SHE CAN HAVE IT ALL!" Sorry, you cannot. You get to have a career or you get to raise a family. There are just 24 hours in a day, you cannot work and raise kids and expect to do both well.

Quote:

As for poverty, degrees in husbandry, and the herione-ness of "single moms", complete and utter bull. Men should be committing to the raising of their children both financially and physically, when possible. Custodial decisions should be made that suits the best interests of the children. Child support should be set appropriately and enforced. Options for pregnant women including abortion, adoption, Plan "B", and of course, responsible parenting should be made available, which is why PP should be funded, because it gives poor people good options.

Did you go to college and live on campus? Women have for decades used college to meet a better guy than she would elsewhere. Women choose lower paying majors. And don't you remember the Dan Quayle "Murphy Brown" fiasco when the feminists went totally nuts when Quayle correctly said the show was setting a bad example? As to PP, let it fund itself. Let all these celebs who love it so make donations if they like. But do not ask for Federal or State funding, Let women pay for their choice. If they let themselves get pregnant in the first place, it is on them to fix it. Same as the guy who will be paying child support if she has the baby.

Quote:

And I don't see any solutions forthcoming. The Libertarian point of view seems to be "self-fund" everything and to let children of parents who make crappy decisions suffer. The problem of course is that most of these children (if they don't die first from gunfire, malnourishment, lack of health care, etc) somehow make it through childhood and become adults, and they in turn, make crappy decisions and so on and so forth. Ah, the American dream. Survival of the fittest, inner cities and sh**holes for the poor, and death for the rest.

Spending more and more money is not the answer. In fact, what it does is breed kids who learn how to milk the welfare system, sort of what you are saying here. It really does start by telling young girls not to have kids before they get married.

More nonsense.

I'm going to refute one.small.part.

Not. One. Dime. Of Planned Parenthood federal funds go to abortion.

You, if you believe the tripe you post, should be the FIRST in line to contribute to Planned Parenthood. They provide the birth control methods and education that allow poor, single women to AVOID needing an abortion. They help women plan their families (literally the NAME of the freaking ORGANIZATION) so that women don't end up single parents as teenagers or before they're ready to have children. They can then do it as healthier mothers due to the services PP provides.

That you constantly libel and deride them instead just further demonstrates your inconsistent and illogical thinking. Not to mention your misogynistic bias and cruel short-sightedness.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Not. One. Dime. Of Planned Parenthood federal funds go to abortion.

It. Doesn't. Matter. They are an abortion factory. And a private at that. Money they get for one part helps overall fixed costs. No reason to be funding them. Let the clients go to some other place that provides services for "women's health."

For that matter, someone one day has to explain why "women's health" is somehow more special than "men's health." Why do we need special funds for one but not the other?

Quote: AZDuffman

My views on women are based on logic and reality and not lapping up what the feminists say.

Is that because women tend to be more logical and real than men?

Quote: AZDuffman

It. Doesn't. Matter. They are an abortion factory. And a private at that. Money they get for one part helps overall fixed costs. No reason to be funding them. Let the clients go to some other place that provides services for "women's health."

For that matter, someone one day has to explain why "women's health" is somehow more special than "men's health." Why do we need special funds for one but not the other?

Deleted again.

Really, Romes?

Quote: AZDuffman

For that matter, someone one day has to explain why "women's health" is somehow more special than "men's health." Why do we need special funds for one but not the other?

Planned Parenthood is for men, too.

Quote: 1MatterToMotion

Is that because women tend to be more logical and real than men?

Not from what I have seen in this life.

Quote: TigerWu

Planned Parenthood is for men, too.

And Curves gym is open to men per CA law. I still ain't going to a female place that says, "men welcome."

Quote: AZDuffman

And Curves gym is open to men per CA law. I still ain't going to a female place that says, "men welcome."

But PP isn't a "female place." It's for everyone. Always has been.

Quote: TigerWu

But PP isn't a "female place." It's for everyone. Always has been.

Not sure where you get this idea. An abortion mill is a women's place. Their dedication to "women's health" (whatever that means) makes it a female place. I cannot imagine a male going there for any kind of service. Can you please explain what services they offer to men and have you known any men who go there?

Quote: AZDuffman

Can you please explain what services they offer to men and have you known any men who go there?

From the website:

- Testicular and Prostate Cancer Screening
- Erectile Dysfunction Education
- Erectile Dysfunction Referrals
- Erectile Dysfunction Exam
- Erectile Dysfunction Treatment
- Jock Itch Exam and Treatment
- Male Infertility Screening and Referral
- Premature Ejaculation Education
- Premature Ejaculation Referrals
- Premature Ejaculation Exam
- Premature Ejaculation Treatment
- Vasectomies

They're neither dedicated to "women's health" or the other fake news you are making up about them.

Quote: gamerfreak

From the website:

- Testicular and Prostate Cancer Screening
- Erectile Dysfunction Education
- Erectile Dysfunction Referrals
- Erectile Dysfunction Exam
- Erectile Dysfunction Treatment
- Jock Itch Exam and Treatment
- Male Infertility Screening and Referral
- Premature Ejaculation Education
- Premature Ejaculation Referrals
- Premature Ejaculation Exam
- Premature Ejaculation Treatment
- Vasectomies

They're neither dedicated to "women's health" or the other fake news you are making up about them.

I'll stand corrected. They offer some services for men.

Their primary business is still being an abortion mill.

Still no reason for them to receive government funding.

I also still do not see any guy I know going there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, it is called having a discussion. This is a forum, not a college paper.

Oh, in that case, I am an advantage craps player and rolled 11 yos in a row.

Quote: AZ

Why on earth should an employer be forced to pay a woman who chooses to take time off to have children? Why should everyone be forced to pay into "insurance" to do this. Here is the thing. Kids are a lifestyle choice. Since the 1970s, feminists have put forth this idea that "SHE CAN HAVE IT ALL!" Sorry, you cannot. You get to have a career or you get to raise a family. There are just 24 hours in a day, you cannot work and raise kids and expect to do both well.

The job of parenting and supporting the child should always fall to both parents. Many employers value their female employees and give them paid time off to encourage them to stay loyal with them. It's called "benefits". Why does it have to be have a either or? What would America's economic growth rate have been if females took on that attitude and decided to stay at home en masse.

Quote: WSJ

Between 1970 and 2009, women went from holding 37% of all jobs to nearly 48%. That’s almost 38 million more women. Without them, our economy would be 25% smaller today—an amount equal to the combined GDP of Illinois, California and New York.

Quote: AZ

Did you go to college and live on campus? Women have for decades used college to meet a better guy than she would elsewhere. Women choose lower paying majors. And don't you remember the Dan Quayle "Murphy Brown" fiasco when the feminists went totally nuts when Quayle correctly said the show was setting a bad example? As to PP, let it fund itself. Let all these celebs who love it so make donations if they like. But do not ask for Federal or State funding, Let women pay for their choice. If they let themselves get pregnant in the first place, it is on them to fix it. Same as the guy who will be paying child support if she has the baby.

Drivel. Yes, I did go to college and lived on campus, and I don't know any female graduate who married their college sweetheart or was spending their college years looking for Mr. Right. The women I knew studied hard and went on to be engineers, mathematicians, physicists, and nobel prize winners. The women who I knew who got art degrees are managing not-for-profits, government managers, and actual artists of one form or another. They also have children. Most are feminists. All but one is miserable or unhappy (except at men who spew misogynistic crap). The men I went to college with (including myself) didn't have time for dating. As for "lower paying majors", there were barriers into those male dominated professions where women in the industry were treated to abuse -- BBB's experience as an ATC candidate is a perfect horror story that exemplifies that. But take a look in an engineering, science, or math classroom today and you'll see a fairly even mix of men and women, because the barriers for entry has been removed and women have been encouraged to engage in careers in the physical sciences and male management have been encouraged to bring women into the workplace rather than make it a men's only club. It's called progress.

Quote: AZ

Spending more and more money is not the answer. In fact, what it does is breed kids who learn how to milk the welfare system, sort of what you are saying here. It really does start by telling young girls not to have kids before they get married.

Abortions rise after Texas stopped funding for Planned Parenthood. Spending money on early childhood of course is the answer. The problem of course is that success is long term and not easily measured and doesn't win political victories.

I can quote from a WSJ paper which was a culmination of studies, so I will link it here.

Quote: WSJ

The reasons why women choose to remain at their current level or move on to another organization—despite their unflagging confidence and desire to
advance—include: lack of role models, exclusion from the informal networks, not having a sponsor in upper management to create opportunities...

...Women often elect to remain in jobs if they derive a deep sense of meaning professionally. More than men, women prize the opportunity to pour their energies into making a difference and working closely with colleagues. Women don’t want to trade that joy for what they fear will be energy-draining meetings and corporate politics at the next management echelon....

...Of all the forces that hold women back, however, none are as powerful as entrenched beliefs. While companies have worked hard to eliminate overt discrimination, women still face the pernicious force of mindsets that limit opportunity. Managers—male and female—continue to take viable female candidates out of the running, often on the assumption that the woman can’t handle certain jobs and also discharge family obligations. In our Centered Leadership research, we found that many women, too, hold limiting beliefs that stand in their own way—such as waiting to fill in more skills or just waiting to be asked.

Quote: AZDuffman

Still no reason for them to receive government funding.

I can promise you that getting free birth control to as many poor people as possible is +EV for taxpayers.

Quote: AZDuffman

I'll stand corrected. They offer some services for men.

Their primary business is still being an abortion mill.

Still no reason for them to receive government funding.

I also still do not see any guy I know going there.

This guy did.

About 10% of PP's clients are male.

I think you need a definition of abortion mill before you can cast Planned Parenthood as one.

This article points out several measures of what percentage of planned parenthood operations are abortions

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.4b9dd3dadec0

they compare percent of all services (3%), percent of three specific pregnancy services (97%), percent of revenue (15 to 37 or even 55%), percent of total patients receiving abortions (12%), a few others.

The easiest and most successful way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is low-cost or free birth control, and comprehensive sex education. You would think that Conservatives/Republicans would be standing on street corners handing out condoms and birth control pills for free and teaching sex ed in churches every Sunday if they truly wanted to end abortion.

Quote: TigerWu

The easiest and most successful way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is low-cost or free birth control, and comprehensive sex education. You would think that Conservatives/Republicans would be standing on street corners handing out condoms and birth control pills for free and teaching sex ed in churches every Sunday if they truly wanted to end abortion.

Not if you believe that using a condom is a sin. Isn't that what Catholic teaching says? Or am I wrong? So they would say they would not want to sin to stop abortion, just make them illegal.

Every time I participate in a tubal ligation or vasectomy I truly feel good that I am helping someone who wants to avoid an unwanted pregnancy do so.

Conservatives continue to live in a fact-free world. And since our population lives in two entirely different information universes, we will continue to spin our wheels and go round and round and round while getting nothing done. Or, the alternative, what we do get done flies in the face of the actual information that should be guiding us on what to do. Take the tax cuts for example. There's absolutely no reason to cut taxes for corporations/businesses/wealthy when our economy was already strong. In fact, you could make the argument, as a lot of economists are, that the dive the markets have taken over the last week is a result of the tax law as fears of inflation and interest rates start to set in.

So you can cite all the facts, all the statistics, and all the information, all you want, they will hashtag #fakenews and ignore it all in pursuit of their ideology. Planned Parenthood is a prime example.

Quote: boymimbo

Oh, in that case, I am an advantage craps player and rolled 11 yos in a row.

Good for you. Hope you had the prop bet not just the pass line.

Quote:

The job of parenting and supporting the child should always fall to both parents. Many employers value their female employees and give them paid time off to encourage them to stay loyal with them. It's called "benefits".

If employers want to offer it I have no beef. I do have an issue making it mandatory or just as bad making it government funded.

Quote:

Drivel. Yes, I did go to college and lived on campus, and I don't know any female graduate who married their college sweetheart or was spending their college years looking for Mr. Right.

Then you led a sheltered college life. Husbandry is an old major, thought getting harder what with more and more men being driven off college campuses.

Quote:

Abortions rise after Texas stopped funding for Planned Parenthood.

So you are saying that women did not need government funding to get their abortions? Glad we agree here!

Quote: boymimbo

Abortions rise after Texas stopped funding for Planned Parenthood.

They were probably just trying to get on one of the MTV shows Teen Mom or 16 and pregnant.

Quote: Steverinos

Conservatives continue to live in a fact-free world. And since our population lives in two entirely different information universes, we will continue to spin our wheels and go round and round and round while getting nothing done. Or, the alternative, what we do get done flies in the face of the actual information that should be guiding us on what to do. Take the tax cuts for example. There's absolutely no reason to cut taxes for corporations/businesses/wealthy when our economy was already strong. In fact, you could make the argument, as a lot of economists are, that the dive the markets have taken over the last week is a result of the tax law as fears of inflation and interest rates start to set in.

So you can cite all the facts, all the statistics, and all the information, all you want, they will hashtag #fakenews and ignore it all in pursuit of their ideology. Planned Parenthood is a prime example.

I supported a tax cut/tax reform with the long term goal that increased economic output would bring in offsetting revenues, but even the most favorable views with robust economic growths still showed the tax plan costing a minimum of $568 billion over 10 years. Bringing tax money onshore would have been a good goal as well as it would prevent companies from sheltering income in a low tax country (aka Apple and Ireland). Lowering the tax rate can do some of that. There was probably a formula available that would have increased economic output and revenue at the same time. Trump failed to do that.

I never understood the pressure to get rid of programs and services that help the poor. Removing services like those that PP provides has the effect of higher infant mortality rates, higher birthrates, more unwanted pregnancies, and more botched abortions. If the long term goal of the government is to produce less people born into poor homes, then PP is a perfect model that you would want.

Quote: AZDuffman

So, what is it you want to cut?

It would be a huge amount of extra taxes.

I don't know, I'm not the CBC. Senators' salaries would be a good start.

Quote: SOOPOO

Not if you believe that using a condom is a sin. Isn't that what Catholic teaching says? Or am I wrong?

I don't know what Catholics believe, but I do know for a fact that according to the Bible, using condoms and birth control are not sins.

Quote: AZDuffman

So you are saying that women did not need government funding to get their abortions? Glad we agree here!

So you are saying that government funding was helping to PREVENT abortions? Glad we agree here!

Quote: AZDuffman

Somehow parents were able to do the responsibility thing just fine before the "War on Poverty" and the safety net was in the community. Illegitimate means any child born to an unwed mother. The rate has been climbing since the 1960s and a child being born to an unwed mother is pretty much the #1 indicator if it will grow up in poverty or not. Stated simply, too many young women are letting themselves get pregnant. At least in part this can be blamed on how the pop culture has made "heroes" of single moms. You should care about the rate, as it is directly related to kids growing up poor and also if they will end up in prison. When I started 1st grade (1976) in most classes you would have 1 maybe 2 kids who had no father, most of the time that was because the mother was a young widow. Today it is often half the class.

Let's assume that everything in your first three sentences is correct and that many Republicans agree with you. Realize now that most of those same Republicans are also pro-life.

Pick one.

I really don't care which one they pick, but let's not complain about taxes going into the social safety nets, unwed pregnancies and et cetera unless we are going to not only support abortion, but also make it as easy as possible. Money is saved every single time.

As far as single-mother households is concerned, I'll admit that it may not be ideal and that the numbers often seem to back up what you say. That's also most true if the father has little to no involvement with the kids at all. These are also the type of women, I would argue, that you would WANT to get back in school (or in school in the first place) if they show the natural academic aptitude so that they can get out of poverty.

Assume for a second that they will be in poverty without higher education regardless of the extent of social safety nets supporting them, because they will, does it not make sense to get the more promising ones educated so that they may become teachers, nurses, etc. and you have fewer children who grow up in poverty? If they pull that off, not only do tax dollars cease to be spent directly on that child, but she may well earn enough to pay tax dollars right back into the system.

Which has been my entire point. In many cases, education will be an investment, rather than a hand out.

As far as the rates go, I don't care because there is nothing I can do to stop it. The best thing you can do there is educate them on pregnancy and the transmission of STD's and perhaps provide boys with condoms and ladies with free birth control. Why? Because it's a Hell of a lot cheaper than supporting someone for eighteen years who, as you point out, will live in poverty and often grow up to in poverty (and have kids) himself/herself.

Quote:

If so many women are getting paid less for the same job, why has the EEOC not fined more places? See, what feminists want is "comparable value" in wages. In simple terms this means the woman answering the phones should get the same wages as the guys working out in the field. In reality, I ran such a place. I had 30 applicants for the one office position and as few as 2-3 for each in-field position. The in-field directly generated revenue, so was more important. So who am I going to pay more? Women could do 99% of what had to be done in the field, but never applied.

Because you don't do it directly, you know that. It's just like if someone refuses to come in on a day off when the employer attempts to call him/her in and then they get fired or hours cut; nobody directly states that is the reason for it. Same thing with pregnancy, you know a pregnant person is going to be needing a couple of months off soon, so if you interview her, many places don't hire her for that reason. You obviously can't tell her why you selected a different candidate over her, but that's often the reason for it.

Anyway, there are so many practices and reasons for employment decisions that would be patently illegal, if directly stated, and right-to-work, as it is called, just makes it easier to do all of those things...so there you go. Without RTW, the employer would give a reason and you could theoretically prove that they were either wrong or lying, now they don't even have to give the person a reason.

I don't know anything about the specific jobs you're talking about, and with all respect, I don't think that the group, "Feminists," would ever appoint you as their personal representative to speak for what they want. What I understand is that they want equal pay for working the same position as a male and they want an equal opportunity to get that position to begin with.

Quote:

It starts in college. I don't have the link as it was a podcast, but of the top 5 most male dominated jobs, only one was a low-pay job, and that was clergy. For the top 5 most female dominated, only one was high pay, that was pharmacy. Women are just more likely to choose a low-pay profession. Of course, many major in Husbandry in college, so they care even less what they take.

What is Husbandry? What do you mean? I think a starting female pharmacist at a given chain wants to earn what a starting male pharmacist earns, and get the same hours if it goes by hours. I don't think female pharmacy techs, as one example, think they should be paid as much as male pharmacists.

Quote:

Because while individually it is just a show, when you look at the larger picture, TV imitates society.

They don't imitate it, they satirize it. That's the difference you seem to be missing. If they merely imitated it, then TV sitcoms would not be funny.

Quote:

The people complaining about Trump being racist would say I am racist for preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.

What? I prefer vanilla ice cream. In fact, that's the only flavor of ice cream I like. The hell does that have to do with anything?

My statement on that could not be more simple: Trump has made comments that could be interpreted as racist comments; it is easy to not make a comment that can be interpreted as a racist comment. My conclusion is he is either a racist or does not always phrase his thoughts very well. WE already know the second one is definitely true, so I accept and appreciate the possibility that the first is not true.

I think he knows who is core voters are and how to appeal to them, though. In order to do that, for some of them, it is beneficial to make the occasional statement that could be interpreted as racist. I don't know whether or not he actually is a racist, though.

Quote:

Find me a female player, assistant coach, or Division I head coach, then we can discuss if she is qualified. If you do not have one of these jobs then you do not have the qualifications to interview.

What? If you already had to have had a job of a certain type to interview for a new job, then nobody would ever be able to work in a position that they had not previously worked. In three-four generations, nobody would be qualified to work anywhere as none of them had ever done it before, following your logic.

Quote: boymimbo

Neither side in this debate (Mission or AZ) are posting facts to back up their theories. The truth is that wage gaps exist for a multitude of reasons but the primary reasons are systemic discrimination in hiring and promotional decisions, giving men higher raises when the raises are discretionary, and of course, the true fact that women interrupt their careers to bear and raise children. There are plenty of studies to support these facts.

What the hell are facts going to do for me in this debate? Do you think facts are going to matter? I agree with everything that you said above.

Before I can get into any facts, I first have to convince AZD that feminists do not want to be paid the same amount for being telemarketers (or whatever he said) as guys do for being construction workers or working in the oilfield, or whatever. I'm a long way away from actually getting into the specific reasons for wage disparities. We may get there, but I doubt it.

I agree with everything else you said in the remainder of the post.

Quote: TigerWu

I do know for a fact that according to the Bible, using condoms and birth control are not sins.

If taken literally (which it often is), it’s this part of Genesis 38 that some Christian’s point to when claiming birth control is a sin:

Quote:

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Quote: AZDuffman

Why on earth should an employer be forced to pay a woman who chooses to take time off to have children? Why should everyone be forced to pay into "insurance" to do this. Here is the thing. Kids are a lifestyle choice. Since the 1970s, feminists have put forth this idea that "SHE CAN HAVE IT ALL!" Sorry, you cannot. You get to have a career or you get to raise a family. There are just 24 hours in a day, you cannot work and raise kids and expect to do both well.

This SCREAMS of gender discrimination. Essentially what you are insinuating is that the father is not as responsible, or men in general, for the creation of children, so as a result, a woman must choose to either have children or pursue a career. In the meantime, you want women to generally be married to a man with whom said children are being had so that such men may continue working while the woman gives up pursuing her career in order to raise kids instead.

In other words, a difference between the genders because one gender can get pregnant and the other cannot. Due to this difference, you are stipulating that a woman must choose family or career while a man can do whatever the hell he wants, despite the fact that he is equally responsible for the child's creation.

And, in the meantime, you're pro-life...so even if the woman wanted to choose, 'Career,' after the fact of getting pregnant...in your ideal world...she can't, unless she wants to carry to term, allow someone to adopt it and have that stigma attached to her in the workplace and beyond. As opposed to to the alternative, which is to have an abortion that nobody ever knows about.

Pick one.

Quote:

Did you go to college and live on campus? Women have for decades used college to meet a better guy than she would elsewhere. Women choose lower paying majors. And don't you remember the Dan Quayle "Murphy Brown" fiasco when the feminists went totally nuts when Quayle correctly said the show was setting a bad example? As to PP, let it fund itself. Let all these celebs who love it so make donations if they like. But do not ask for Federal or State funding, Let women pay for their choice. If they let themselves get pregnant in the first place, it is on them to fix it. Same as the guy who will be paying child support if she has the baby.

So, your general assumption is women go to college to meet men? I'm done with this paragraph.

Quote:

Spending more and more money is not the answer. In fact, what it does is breed kids who learn how to milk the welfare system, sort of what you are saying here. It really does start by telling young girls not to have kids before they get married.

It starts with providing them with free forms of contraception so that they are much less likely to get pregnant even if they do have sex. Again, contraception is much cheaper than eighteen years of support.

Quote: SOOPOO

Not if you believe that using a condom is a sin. Isn't that what Catholic teaching says? Or am I wrong? So they would say they would not want to sin to stop abortion, just make them illegal.

Every time I participate in a tubal ligation or vasectomy I truly feel good that I am helping someone who wants to avoid an unwanted pregnancy do so.

Catholics are to believe that any form of contraception, including coitus interruptus, is a sin. However, roughly half of Catholics believe that abortion should be legal in all cases.

They believe that not because that is something that they would ever do, but because, as a relatively reasonable Abrahamic religion, they have no right to create laws that would force others to adhere to their moral/Religious codes.

In other words, they do what they do as individuals and don't let the things other people do as individuals bother them.

Quote: Mission146

I don't know, I'm not the CBC. Senators' salaries would be a good start.

ALL elected official should get no pay!

Quote: Mission146

What the hell are facts going to do for me in this debate? Do you think facts are going to matter?

There is no point of debating without facts. Facts are the only thing that can sway opinion. There are studies out there that answer "what women want". That's a start.

But given that the truth has been getting a beating lately, facts are no longer so. This allows people to hold on to an opinion and cry "fake news" when the facts don't suit them. That's what I loved about Trump's "fakeys"... all of the stories cited had been retracted by the esteemed news stories except for one (the collusion one), and several "fakeys" were based on tweets from journalists. Tweets.

Facts are facts. Convincing one that the facts are true IS the debate.

As my training is in science, I keep an open mind, hypothesize, look for studies that affect the hypothesis (one way or another), determine biases and relevance, and finally conclude. It's the scientific method. It applies as much to social issues and economics as it does to to the physical sciences... just more difficult equations, less certainty, and more unknowns due to less data points. But it all comes down to hypothesis testing, good ol' STAT242Y.

Maybe removing, reducing, or finding a way to curb abuse of programs where low income mothers choose to have children to be a source of income might help lower unwanted births, since they want the monthly check more than the child? I don’t know how common it is, but it’s too much when you’ve heard people openly discussing it on multiple occasions. #bus people

Quote: Mission146

What the hell are facts going to do for me in this debate? Do you think facts are going to matter? I agree with everything that you said above.

Before I can get into any facts, I first have to convince AZD that feminists do not want to be paid the same amount for being telemarketers (or whatever he said) as guys do for being construction workers or working in the oilfield, or whatever. I'm a long way away from actually getting into the specific reasons for wage disparities. We may get there, but I doubt it.

I agree with everything else you said in the remainder of the post.

Why do you think you need convince azd of anything? Let his words stand by themselves?

Quote: boymimbo

There is no point of debating without facts. Facts are the only thing that can sway opinion. There are studies out there that answer "what women want". That's a start.

I know where the facts are, how to find them and how to cite them. I do it in my articles all the time, but this is just a conversation. Once again, if someone is going into the discussion with the assumptions about feminists and what they want that AZD is making, then none of these facts are going to matter. There are a couple of very basic things that I must first express before getting into specific studies, and things of that nature.

Besides, the next several paragraphs of your earlier post (all of which I agreed with) went on to make a bunch of categorical observations without citing anything. I will provide statistics and the like at any such time that I am challenged by AZD to do so.

Quote:

But given that the truth has been getting a beating lately, facts are no longer so. This allows people to hold on to an opinion and cry "fake news" when the facts don't suit them. That's what I loved about Trump's "fakeys"... all of the stories cited had been retracted by the esteemed news stories except for one (the collusion one), and several "fakeys" were based on tweets from journalists. Tweets.

Exactly, "Fake news." I return to my earlier position that facts are not going to help me accomplish anything.

Quote:

Facts are facts. Convincing one that the facts are true IS the debate.

Before I can do that, I first have to get AZD to accept that feminists are not Communists.

Quote: Mission146

This SCREAMS of gender discrimination. Essentially what you are insinuating is that the father is not as responsible, or men in general, for the creation of children, so as a result, a woman must choose to either have children or pursue a career. In the meantime, you want women to generally be married to a man with whom said children are being had so that such men may continue working while the woman gives up pursuing her career in order to raise kids instead.

In other words, a difference between the genders because one gender can get pregnant and the other cannot. Due to this difference, you are stipulating that a woman must choose family or career while a man can do whatever the hell he wants, despite the fact that he is equally responsible for the child's creation.

It is not gender discrimination at all. In fact, the woman has options the man does not. Consider when a woman takes 1-3 years off of work to have kids. She returns to the workforce with a gap on her resume. She explains she had 2 kids and took the time to do so. The employer will understand the gap.

Now say a guy takes 1-3 years off. He as a gap in his resume. He explains he and his wife wanted to start a family. The potential employer will likely pass on him. at best thinking he is lazy and at worst might have been in prison. IOW, it might be a career hiccup if the woman does it, if the man does it then it will be a career ender.

Quote:

So, your general assumption is women go to college to meet men? I'm done with this paragraph.

I never said "all" or that it was the only reason. Just that there are many Husbandry majors on any campus.

Quote:

It starts with providing them with free forms of contraception so that they are much less likely to get pregnant even if they do have sex. Again, contraception is much cheaper than eighteen years of support.

What on earth ever happened to paying for the things you want in life? Why do we have to "provide" it?

Quote: mcallister3200

Maybe removing, reducing, or finding a way to curb abuse of programs where low income mothers choose to have children to be a source of income might help lower unwanted births, since they want the monthly check more than the child? I don’t know how common it is, but it’s too much when you’ve heard people openly discussing it on multiple occasions. #bus people

This is the ideal thing. Sometimes called the "Family Cap." Makes sense because a workingman does not get a raise when a new kid is on the way, why should someone on welfare? The far left called it everything from "cruel" to "genocide." Usually it passes because most reasonable people agree with the premise.

you're either, with tax money, going to pay for their abortion or for a lifetime of WIC, welfare and other government programs. Choose the cheapest.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is not gender discrimination at all. In fact, the woman has options the man does not. Consider when a woman takes 1-3 years off of work to have kids. She returns to the workforce with a gap on her resume. She explains she had 2 kids and took the time to do so. The employer will understand the gap.

If we extended maternity leave, or made a parental leave that applies to both genders, then nobody would have to take 1-3 years off of work. Besides that, a male could give the same explanation if he spent the first few formative years with his child while the mother worked because she was the higher earner of the two.

I mean, I'm sure there are certain people for whom that explanation wouldn't fly because THE MAN shouldn't be doing that in the opinion of those people. However, in the opinion of myself and probably several others, a man doing that and having a gap is equally valid as a woman doing that and having a gap.

Quote:

Now say a guy takes 1-3 years off. He as a gap in his resume. He explains he and his wife wanted to start a family. The potential employer will likely pass on him. at best thinking he is lazy and at worst might have been in prison. IOW, it might be a career hiccup if the woman does it, if the man does it then it will be a career ender.

Not an employer I would ever want to work for anyway.

Do you know why an employer might assume that? Because the employer, in that case, is a misogynistic piece of crap. The employer has his head so far up his ass that it doesn't occur to him that any MAN could ever do that because he refuses to believe that a woman could earn enough money to facilitate such an event.

Quote:

I never said "all" or that it was the only reason. Just that there are many Husbandry majors on any campus.

Are you suggesting that no male has ever went to college partially for the reason of perhaps meeting a woman? I don't think you could have so-called, "Husbandry," majors without willing would-be husbands...to the extent that any such, "Husbandry," majors even exist. I have to believe that is a very rare primary objective in pursuing higher education, for both genders.

I think what happens is two people occasionally meet, are attracted to one another and...(Google, "Birds and Bees.")

Quote:

What on earth ever happened to paying for the things you want in life? Why do we have to "provide" it?

Did you not read the full statement?

Assume for a second that you have minimal social safety nets which include the following:

-Income-dependent public housing.
-Income-dependent food stamps.
-Income-dependent cash benefits.
-Income-dependent free healthcare for both mother and child(ren).

Because you do.

Here is what I am asking: Which is cheaper: Those benefits listed above for eighteen years, or free contraception? If you request, I will cite some numbers proving that the contraception is considerably less expensive if you don't believe me.