• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Proved Last Night who benefits from Government spending

Yes I met my burden. That is not the same as agreeing THE burden was mine to met.

But you haven't. You've only shown that there are no studies, and frankly, I am only taking you word for that. How on earth did you manage to show that there are no studies? Did you read every study in the world?

You haven't met the burden even as you see it, and you definitely haven't met your real burden to win in true debate.

Thus, you lose.
 
But you haven't. You've only shown that there are no studies, and frankly, I am only taking you word for that. How on earth did you manage to show that there are no studies? Did you read every study in the world?

You haven't met the burden even as you see it, and you definitely haven't met your real burden to win in true debate.

Thus, you lose.

You should go back and read it. There have been studies, but there results show no such effect.

Rumsfeld: Iraq has wmds.

Press: There's no evidence of that.

Rumsfeld: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Compare that to our discussion:

GI: Welfare is an incentive to have children when you can't afford them.

BR: Evidence (studies) does not support that.

GI: Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't happening.



Like I said, you're Rummie is this dicussion. ;)
 
yeah, he asked for shared sacrifice. no surprise you're against that. when we cut spending, who do you think is affected? the wealthy? lol!

Wonder why I cannot get you to respond to the question, is it fair that 47% of income earners don't pay any Federal Income Taxes? What is their fair share?
 
You should go back and read it. There have been studies, but there results show no such effect.

Rumsfeld: Iraq has wmds.

Press: There's no evidence of that.

Rumsfeld: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Compare that to our discussion:

GI: Welfare is an incentive to have children when you can't afford them.

BR: Evidence (studies) does not support that.

GI: Just because there's no evidence doesn't mean it isn't happening.



Like I said, you're Rummie is this dicussion. ;)

What does Iraq have to do with the thread topic? If you really want me to post quotes regarding Iraq, let me know. There are many of today's Democrat leaders that are on the record from 1998 to 2002 making the same claims but of course you ignore those quotes.

Now with regard to the thread topic, did you listen to our empty suit President today giving a campaign speech? Class warfare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of wealth creators is all this guy can do yet you continue to support him. Why?
 
that's not english

That is perfectly fine English. Rummie is a character in a tv, and Boo is using him as an analogy. You need to think before you make pronouncements, Prof. Think!
 
What does Iraq have to do with the thread topic? If you really want me to post quotes regarding Iraq, let me know. There are many of today's Democrat leaders that are on the record from 1998 to 2002 making the same claims but of course you ignore those quotes.

Now with regard to the thread topic, did you listen to our empty suit President today giving a campaign speech? Class warfare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of wealth creators is all this guy can do yet you continue to support him. Why?

MAybe you shgould read the entire discussion before you jump in. At least then you might know what we're talking about. Just a suggestion. :coffeepap
 
MAybe you shgould read the entire discussion before you jump in. At least then you might know what we're talking about. Just a suggestion. :coffeepap

You inserted Rumsfield into the discussion and the thread in some feeble attempt to make a liberal point. Rumsfield had no place in this thread other than to divert from the topic. don't blame you, class warfare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of individual wealth creation is the liberal agenda and isn't selling. "Your" President made a campaign speech today and the markets reacted, -266. Friday we get the unemployment numbers and those added to the .4% GDP growth first qtr 2011 and 1.3% second qtr GDP growth and that current 40% Presidential approval ratings are going to be a thing of the past as he will plummet into the 30's.
 
You inserted Rumsfield into the discussion and the thread in some feeble attempt to make a liberal point. Rumsfield had no place in this thread other than to divert from the topic. don't blame you, class warfare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of individual wealth creation is the liberal agenda and isn't selling. "Your" President made a campaign speech today and the markets reacted, -266. Friday we get the unemployment numbers and those added to the .4% GDP growth first qtr 2011 and 1.3% second qtr GDP growth and that current 40% Presidential approval ratings are going to be a thing of the past as he will plummet into the 30's.

Maybe you should read the entire discussion before you jump in. At least then you might know what we're talking about. Just a suggestion. :coffeepap
 
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

Five Media Myths About Welfare

richard cohen?

LOL!

what's krugman have to say?

ellen goodman and the urban institute?

what is this, the chrissy matthews show, weekend edition?

where's katty kay?

the la times filled all, i thought, of us in back in january, 2002:

The notion that welfare payments encourage single women to have kids "is a familiar idea, something that people on the streets have talked about for decades," says economist Robert Moffitt, a professor at Johns Hopkins University.

The presumption drives much of the public contempt for the stereotypical welfare mom, though I've always considered it absurd to think a woman would have another child just to collect the 50 bucks or so the kid would add to her monthly allowance.

Moffitt has spent 10 years studying the issue, using welfare records in California and New York to track what happens to family size as welfare payments go up or down. He's found virtually no correlation between trends in benefit levels and the rate of unwed births.

But he has discovered an interesting wrinkle: The rate of births among low-income, single women increases as the earnings and employment levels of their male counterparts decline.

In other words, welfare might not promote childbearing, but it gives women an alternative to marrying the fathers of their kids--men whose limited earning potential makes marriage less attractive than the economic stability a monthly welfare check provides.

Factoring Dads Into the Welfare Equation - Los Angeles Times

you just don't know enough about what's going on around you

I showed thier is no studies to prove that.

their isn't any studies, huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom