Started By
Message
re: "Christians didn't invent marriage. Why do they think they can define it."
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:48 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Originally, it was to keep blacks and whites from marrying in the early 1900s after it started becoming a "problem".
Legislation based on penis envy.
0
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:48 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Most of the people who get EITC or the child tax credit don't pay much into the system to begin with.
They don't make enough money so frick em? Is that your point?
What do you think the welfare stats would look like if you took all of those away? It's not pretty. The EITC is what welfare should be anyway. It's an incentive to work and a helping hand. Child credits help support families, which again is a worthy institution worth our investment. The benefits far outweigh the costs.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:50 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
I don't care if you call it a monkey orgy as long as the end result is the same.
Exactly, and I don't think Alahunter would disagree. I could be wrong.
I wouldn't. The main reason it's as huge an issue as it is, is because traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman, and has had it's roots in religion or is associated with religion, moreso than a Gov't ceremony. While everyone espouses separation of religion and state, this is one area that those same people thinks the state should be involved.
The main thing I think most religious folks want it to remain a religious event, is to keep Gov't from instilling certain mandates or rules upon religious entities. Most religions frown on same sex relationships, and they shouldn't be forced to condone them when they are against their religions.
If Gov't were out of the marriage business, eliminating tax breaks and the like, it would satisfy all sides I think. Married folks, civil union folks, would both have to enter into legalized unions for legal purposes, and they would be treated the same in the Gov'ts eyes. And "married" folks would only be recognized by the religious doctrines they ascribe to.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:50 pm to Duke
Except that the majority use those refunds for things like tv's and cars instead of food and clothing for their kids....
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:51 pm to Duke
quote:
What do you think the welfare stats would look like if you took all of those away?
Perhaps over time, there would be less out of wedlock births, since people wouldn't be rewarded for spitting out dependents.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:53 pm to brodeo
quote:
That's already a really big part of the Fair Tax and why it works.
Then good.
Still doesn't speak to the regulation nightmare of fighting the black markets that would arise from a 30% national sales tax. You need people actually paying the tax for it to work. Not to mention the cost of actually regulating it. Though I suppose we probably spend as much if not more funding the IRS.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:55 pm to Duke
quote:
Though I suppose we probably spend as much if not more funding the IRS.
I was gonna say.. when a 14 year old kid can show the Gov't can save $370,000,000 in INK, by changing a font.... I mean think about that... Gov't is such a huge monstrosity that we are spending upwards to a billion dollars in ink, every year. How freaking big is Gov't to have that kind of damn bill?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:56 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Perhaps over time, there would be less out of wedlock births, since people wouldn't be rewarded for spitting out dependents.
You can't legislate morality, but you can encourage responsibility, by taking away the safety net.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:56 pm to Vols&Shaft83
ding. ding.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:57 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
You can't legislate morality, but you can encourage responsibility, by taking away the safety net.
this
and for why christians think they can define things, because they are egomaniacs
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:57 pm to Alahunter
quote:
was gonna say.. when a 14 year old kid can show the Gov't can save $370,000,000 in INK, by changing a font.... I mean think about that... Gov't is such a huge monstrosity that we are spending upwards to a billion dollars in ink, every year. How freaking big is Gov't to have that kind of damn bill?
Whoa, when was this?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:58 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Except that the majority use those refunds for things like tv's and cars instead of food and clothing for their kids....
Are you saying those people aren't taking care of their kids? What they directly use the money on doesn't matter as long as their kids are already fed and clothed. You give people the freedom to spend as they choose and the opportunity to improve their quality of life.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 4:59 pm to Vols&Shaft83
Switching fonts on their documents could save the federal and state governments up to $400 million a year, according to a sixth-grader.
Suvir Mirchandani, a student at Dorseyville Middle School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, calculated that changing to the Garamond typeface, which has thinner strokes, would save Washington alone some $136m a year.
“Even though printing expenditure has been decreasing in recent years, it continues to be high and a small percentage decrease in printing expenditure due to a font change could result in substantial monetary savings,” Suvir and his co-author, teacher Peter Pinko, said in their paper.
When he started at his new school, Suvir noticed he was getting more hand-outs, and wondered if there was a way to cut the use of paper and ink.
Lots of attention had been paid to recycling paper, but no one was thinking about the ink, which, he notes, is twice as expensive by weight as Chanel No. 5.
LINK
Using commercial software called APFill Ink, he calculated how much ink is used for the sample letters in each of the fonts. He then double checked by enlarging the samples, printing them out on card stock and weighing them. Like any good researcher, he graphed his data.
The results were startling. By switching to Garamond, his school could cut its ink usage by 24 per cent, saving $21,000 annually
Suvir Mirchandani, a student at Dorseyville Middle School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, calculated that changing to the Garamond typeface, which has thinner strokes, would save Washington alone some $136m a year.
“Even though printing expenditure has been decreasing in recent years, it continues to be high and a small percentage decrease in printing expenditure due to a font change could result in substantial monetary savings,” Suvir and his co-author, teacher Peter Pinko, said in their paper.
When he started at his new school, Suvir noticed he was getting more hand-outs, and wondered if there was a way to cut the use of paper and ink.
Lots of attention had been paid to recycling paper, but no one was thinking about the ink, which, he notes, is twice as expensive by weight as Chanel No. 5.
LINK
Using commercial software called APFill Ink, he calculated how much ink is used for the sample letters in each of the fonts. He then double checked by enlarging the samples, printing them out on card stock and weighing them. Like any good researcher, he graphed his data.
The results were startling. By switching to Garamond, his school could cut its ink usage by 24 per cent, saving $21,000 annually
This post was edited on 4/22/14 at 5:02 pm
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:00 pm to Duke
Like I said, you wouldn't like my answer.
I'm not some crazy right winger and I'm not a bleeding heart left winger. What I think rarely makes sense to most people.
I'm not some crazy right winger and I'm not a bleeding heart left winger. What I think rarely makes sense to most people.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:00 pm to Duke
quote:
What they directly use the money on doesn't matter as long as their kids are already fed and clothed
It does, if it doesn't do anything to "promote the good" of the family. It isn't the Gov't's job to give a better quality of life. It's the individuals. We're only guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. Not to attain it, or be given it.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:02 pm to CatFan81
quote:
Like I said, you wouldn't like my answer.
I don't like most of Alahunter's answers, but I still welcome them and engage in the conversation. It's more fun than doing my physics homework.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:04 pm to Duke
Same here. However, without debate, you never understand the other side of the issue. And even if we leave in disagreement, at some point down the road, the perspective given may have influence on your thinking on the issue or similar ones, thus making the discussion valuable and fruitful. Thankfully, I'm an old fart to most and set in my ways, so I'm safe from changing my views too much.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:10 pm to Alahunter
quote:
It isn't the Gov't's job to give a better quality of life.
Right, but do we not want to give an incentive to responsible behavior? It's a helping hand for the average joe doing the right thing. You don't want to help the responsible or make being responsible more lucrative than not being? Your idealism of the individual is great and all, but practically it all comes down to economics.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:13 pm to Duke
quote:
do we not want to give an incentive to responsible behavior?
We don't reward single folks who don't have children out of wedlock. We do reward mothers who have children out of wedlock.
quote:
It's a helping hand for the average joe doing the right thing
Sometimes, the way to help, is to get out of the way and let someone learn to step up to a task on their own.
quote:
Your idealism of the individual is great and all, but practically it all comes down to economics.
As do all things. Would you agree, that if someone is getting something for no other reason than they are irresponsible, they have no incentive to earn the same thing through the fruits of their labor?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 5:21 pm to Alahunter
quote:
We don't reward single folks who don't have children out of wedlock. We do reward mothers who have children out of wedlock.
Well I certainly believe that's not a useful reward. Let's be honest, we're not taking aid away from mothers. Some sort of credit for not having kids out of wedlock isn't a half bad idea though.
quote:
Sometimes, the way to help, is to get out of the way and let someone learn to step up to a task on their own.
They're stepping up to the task. We're just giving them a little help to keep reaching higher.
quote:
that if someone is getting something for no other reason than they are irresponsible, they have no incentive to earn the same thing through the fruits of their labor?
Certainly. It's at the heart of the entitlement problem. The structure is a disincentive to going out and making it on their own. That's the beauty of the EITC, it's an incentive to go out and make it on your own. Instead for many stuck in the net, you get less than what you did after you get the job. That's the kind of perverse system I believe we both agree should be completely overhauled.
Page 8 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News