Tax Reform

[Lauren]

Lambskin bro

[zeitgeist57]

Condoms? Who the hell wears condoms?! :dumb:

 

...might as well not even have sex, amirite fellas?

 

PULL N' SPRAY

 

[Geeto67]

Just because a women is GIVEN birth control pills doesn't mean she might not or forget to take them. This books down to personal responsibility and nothing else.

 

I once dated a chick who would forget to take her pill constantly. I had to remind her.

 

ok, but at least there is the potential for redundancy. Take away the affordability of alternative and you just create a population of "accidents" because no measure is perfect.

 

 

You can't govern or force personal responsibility.

 

If you were nutting in her without a bag, regardless as to whether she took her pill or not I'd say that's pretty irresponsible of you. Don't be that douche that puts the responsibility all on the woman when you owe into this situation too.

 

After reading your opinion on this I totally support her responsible choice to not have sex with you at all.

 

This isn't about governing personal responsibility, it's about making options accessible so as to increase the overall chances of success for people (success in this case being sex without pregnancy). Take away options and the number of unsuccessful outcomes increases. It's a numbers game, either you want to solve the problem or you want to be a hypocrite and talk about "personal responsibility" as a reason to fuck women over, as if you don't owe an equal amount of personal responsibility yourself to the situation.

 

 

BTW quit with micro incidents and making them macro issues

 

Weren't you on here like a month back asking for advice on divorce? I think I figured out why....

 

A health care concern that affects 51% of the population hardly qualifies as a "micro" incident. Insert "micro incident and your dick" joke here.

 

Anyway, Giving people more options does not equal reducing personal responsibility. They aren't incongruent positions and in many ways making the option available and affordable ENCOURAGES personal responsibility because it just makes it easier. yeah, try wrapping your head around that one.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Geeto67

[wagner]

PULL N' SPRAY

 

 

Made this awful thread worth the click. +6 internet points for Clay :fuckyeah:

[Lauren]

ok, but at least there is the potential for redundancy. Take away the affordability of alternative and you just create a population of "accidents" because no measure is perfect.

 

 

 

 

If you were nutting in her without a bag, regardless as to whether she took her pill or not I'd say that's pretty irresponsible of you. Don't be that douche that puts the responsibility all on the woman when you owe into this situation too.

 

After reading your opinion on this I totally support her responsible choice to not have sex with you at all.

 

This isn't about governing personal responsibility, it's about making options accessible so as to increase the overall chances of success for people (success in this case being sex without pregnancy). Take away options and the number of unsuccessful outcomes increases. It's a numbers game, either you want to solve the problem or you want to be a hypocrite and talk about "personal responsibility" as a reason to fuck women over, as if you don't owe an equal amount of personal responsibility yourself to the situation.

 

 

 

 

Weren't you on here like a month back asking for advice on divorce? I think I figured out why....

 

A health care concern that affects 51% of the population hardly qualifies as a "micro" incident. Insert "micro incident and your dick" joke here.

 

Anyway, Giving people more options does not equal reducing personal responsibility. They aren't incongruent positions and in many ways making the option available and affordable ENCOURAGES personal responsibility because it just makes it easier. yeah, try wrapping your head around that one.

 

Again. You can type long winded responses all day. We are used to it. Nobody has banned birth control or abortions. Both are readily available.

 

As a man its my responsibility to wear a condom or confirm a a women is on BC. As a women before she spreads her legs its her responsibility to be on a pill or some other form which is easy to get

[Geeto67]

Again. You can type long winded responses all day. We are used to it. Nobody has banned birth control or abortions. Both are readily available.

 

unless you count affordability.

 

As a man its my responsibility to wear a condom or confirm a a women is on BC.

 

Not "Or" there hoss, "And". You still have a responsibility to not spread STDs and birth control doesn't prevent that. You really don't have a handle on this "personal responsibility" thing do you?

 

As a women before she spreads her legs its her responsibility to be on a pill or some other form which is easy to get

 

Except when it isn't "easy to get" because it's too expensive and her healthcare doesn't cover it. Ya know some of the employees at Hobby Lobby are teenagers, abstinence is not going to stop her horny teenage boyfriend from pressuring her into making a bad life choice and Hobby Lobby sure as shit ain't going to help her on this.

 

protecting people's options is not absolving them of personal responsibility. Providing assistance to those who need it does not encourage people to act irresponsibly. But self righteous people like yourself that don't understand this categorically just make it worse for everyone. You aren't helping anything, you are just shitting on people from a pretentious moral high ground that really isn't.

[Lauren]

Yawn

 

 

Have another example besides hobby lobby you can dick ride? You can decide if you want it with or without condom

[Geeto67]

Yawn

 

 

Have another example besides hobby lobby you can dick ride?

 

Below is a full list of cases filed by companies, nonprofits, and universities challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate as of June 26, 2014. (*= Both Nonprofit + Profit cases)

 

1. Tyndale HouseIllinois for-profit publishing company focusing on Christian books.

 

2. Freshway FoodsA fresh produce processor and packer, Freshway Logistics is a for-hire carrier of mainly refrigerated products. The companies are Ohio-based for-profits that serve 23 states.

 

3. Johnson Welded ProductsOhio-based manufacturer of reservoirs for air brake systems.

 

4. Willis & Willis PCMichigan-based law firm.

 

5. Trijicon, Inc.Michigan-based maker of aiming systems for firearms.

 

6. Barron IndustriesMichigan-based company that produces metal castings for various industries.

 

7. Midwest Fastener CorpMichigan-based company that supplies fasteners to the hardware store, home center, and industrial markets.

 

8. Electrolock Inc.Ohio-based corporation that works in the electrical and thermal insulation industry. Other plaintiff companies include Stone River Management Co. and Dunstone Co.

 

9. Zumbiel PackagingKentucky-based manufacturer of paperboard packaging for consumer goods.

 

10. Encompass Develop, Design & Construct, LLC.Kentucky-based architect, design and construction service of which John Stewart is the managing and sole member.

 

11. Holland ChevroletWest Virginia-based corporation engaged in selling and servicing motor vehicles.

 

12. Autocam CorporationAutocam Automotive makes parts for transportation while Autocam Medical makes medical equipment. These are west Michigan-based manufacturing companies that operate across the United States.

 

13. Dominos FarmsMichigan-based property management company.

 

14. Mersino ManagementMichigan-based management company and provides insurance for Mersino Enterprises, Mersino Dewatering, Global Pump Co., and Mersino South-West.

 

15. Eden Foods IncorporatedEden Foods is a Michigan-based corporation that specializes in supplying macrobiotic, organic food.

 

16. MK Chambers CompanyMichigan-based supplier of specialty machining.

 

17. M&N PlasticsMichigan-based supplier of custom injection molding products.

 

18. Mersino Dewatering, INCMichigan-based company that provides dewatering (water removal) services. It has branches in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania.

 

19. Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc.,Illinois-based full-service construction contractor.

 

20. Truine Health GroupTriune is an Illinois corporation that specializes in facilitating the re-entry of injured workers into the workforce.

 

21. Grote IndustriesIndiana-based, privately held business manufacturing vehicle safety systems.

 

22. Tonn and Black ConstructionIndiana construction company.

 

23. Lindsay, Rappaport and Postel LLCLR&P is an Illinois-based law firm that primarily practices in insurance defense, insurance coverage, and appellate work.

 

24. Hart Electric LLC,An Illinois-based manufacturer of electrical components, and H.I. Cable.

 

25. Ozinga BrothersIllinois-based producer of ready-made concrete.

 

26. O’Brien Industrial HoldingMissouri company engaged in the exploration, mining, processing, manufacturing, and distribution of refractory and ceramic raw materials.

 

27. American Pulverizer CompanySpringfield Iron and Metal, LLC, American Pulverizer Company, Hustler Conveyor Company, and City Welding are four Missouri-based companies involved in the business of wholesale scrap metal recycling and manufacturing of related machines.

 

28. Annex Medical IncAnnex Medical and Sacred Heart Medical are companies that design, manufacture, and sell medical devices. They are owned by Stuart Lind. Tom Janas is an additional plaintiff who is an entrepreneur who has owned several dairy businesses in the past and intended to purchase another in 2013. He operates Habile Holdings and Venture North Properties, companies that lease commercial properties but currently have no employees.

 

29. Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.Missouri Corporation that manufactures plumbing products.

 

30. O’Brien Industrial HoldingOwned by Reverend Gregory Hall, a Catholic deacon, it is a Minnesota-based company that manufactures and markets mining equipment, mud pumps, and parts for global distribution.

 

31. Bick Holdings Inc.Missouri-based holding company for operating companies Bick Group Inc., Bick Properties Inc., and SEALCO LLC. Through these subsidiaries BHI engages in data center consulting, design, maintenance, service, and cleaning.

 

32. SMA LLCMinnesota based agricultural/industrial construction company.

 

33. MedfordThe QC Group Inc is a Minnesota-based corporation, owned by Daniel Medford and David DeVowe, which provides quality control services.

 

34. Feltl and Co.Minnesota-based securities brokerage and investment banking company.

 

35. Randy Reed AutomotiveRandy Reed Automotive, Randy Reed Buick GMC, Randy Reed Nissan, and Randy Reed Chevrolet are Missouri-based car dealerships.

 

36. Doboszenski & Sons, IncMinnesota-based company that provides services for excavation, demolition, and street construction and reconstruction.

 

37. Hastings AutomotiveHastings Automotive Inc. (known as Hastings Ford) and Hastings Chrysler Center are Minnesota car dealerships.

 

38. Stinson ElectricMinnesota electrical services company.

 

39. Hercules Industries, Inc. isColorado corporation that manufactures heating, ventilation, and air conditioning products, owned by the Newlands and another plaintiff.

 

40. Continuum Health Partnership & ConessioneCHP is a Colorado-based oxygen supply company; Conessione is an investment company.

 

41. Cherry Creek Mortgage Co.Colorado-based full-service residential mortgage banking company.

 

42. Beckwith Electric Co.Florida-based provider of micro-processor-based technology.

 

43. Geneva College*The Pennsylvania-based for-profit plaintiffs are Seneca Hardwood, a lumber business, and WLH Enterprises, a sawmill. Geneva College is a Pennsylvania-based non-profit.

 

44. Weingartz Supply Company*Michigan company that sells outdoor power equipment. Legatus is a non-profit organization comprising more than 4,000 members, including individuals and professional organizations.

 

45. Sharpe Holdings Inc.*Missouri corporation that is involved in the farming, dairy, creamery, and cheese-making industries. Ozark National Life Insurance Company is a Missouri insurance corporation; N.I.S. Financial Services is a Missouri mutual fund broker, and CNS Corporation is the Missouri-based holding company for Ozark, N.I.S. and Sharpe Holdings.

 

46. Catholic Benefits Association*For- and non-profit corporations including Good Will Publishers, the Catholic Benefits Association, and Catholic Insurance Company.

 

[NONPROFITS]

 

47. Belmont Abbey Coll.

48. Wheaton College (Illinois)

49. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington

50. Priests for Life (New York)

51. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of NY

52. Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, et al.

53. Louisiana College

54. Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth (Texas)

55. Roman Catholic Diocese of Biloxi (Mississippi)

56. East Texas Baptist University

57. Catholic Diocese of Beaumont (Texas)

58. Michigan Catholic Conference

59. Right to Life of Michigan

60. Catholic Diocese of Nashville (Texas)

61. Ave Maria Foundation (Michigan)

62. Union University (Tennessee)

63. University of Notre Dame (Indiana)

64. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend (Indiana)

65. Grace Schools (Indiana)

66. Archdiocese of St. Louis (Missouri)

67. The School of the Ozarks (Missouri)

68. Dordt College (Iowa)

69. Colorado Christian

70. Southern Nazarene (Oklahoma)

71. Little Sisters of the Poor (Colorado)

72. Reaching Souls International, (Oklahoma)

73. Fellowship of Catholic University Students (Colorado)

74. Diocese of Cheyenne (Wyoming)

75. Eternal World Television Network (Alabama)

76. Ave Maria University (Florida)

77. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta (Georgia)

78. Perisco (Diocese of Erie)

79. Zubik (Diocese of Pittsburgh)

80. Brandt (Diocese of Greensburg),

81. Dr. James Dobson (“Family Talk” radio show and ministry)

82. Ave Maria School of Law (Florida)

 

After the Hobby Lobby decision all the above companies could discriminate in women's healthcare for "religious" reasons. Also so could any number of other companies because the Hobby Lobby decision did not just apply to hobby lobby but ALL employers.

 

 

You can decide if you want it with or without condom

So you are in favor of me making a choice, and ok if I act irresponsibly, but not of women having more choices available and affordable for them to act responsibly? seems discriminatory, oh wait - it is.

[BStowers023]

I'm saying an administration that blocks access to birth control and abortion and then PENALIZES people who have more than two kids is scamming the American public.

 

I think the people who chose to have 3 or more kids should enjoy the same tax breaks that those who have less kids currently enjoy. The current net effect isn't that.

 

Do you read what you're typing? As said before, birth control and abortion is not "blocked" and if you have kids, how the fuck is Government punishing you by not giving you free handouts?

 

 

you don't think that because you are bad at math?

 

How is it not benefiting everyone who works?

 

 

don't just read the part you agree with.

 

I read the whole article, thanks though. The part I didn't quote was just a bunch of excuses, like the ones you make for poor people then blame rich people.

 

 

This is a seriously messed up statement.

 

first off, the national average is 2.1 children by household so it is incorrect to assume that the problem is a lower income class problem.

 

Plus the tax penalty applied to all people with 3+ kids regardless of tax bracket.

 

economic policies that target population control based on econmic standing always unfarily affect other races. That's dangerous territory to be comfortable with.

 

It's messed up because it doesn't follow along with your PC agenda? Is there actually a "penalty" for having more than 3 kids, or are you confusing penalty with not getting anymore tax credits for having kids you can't afford?

 

 

unless you work for Hobby Lobby.

 

There are ways to "block" things by making them harder to obtain without outright making them illegal. De-funding Planned Parenthood, allowing employers with low wage employees to discriminate as to provided health care based on religious reasons are all examples of that.

 

You call ignorant and uniformed then misuse words because you don't know what they mean :lolguy:

 

 

it's amazing any woman has ever let you guys inside them, ever, with some of the shit you say.

 

Most women don't want PC pussy boys like yourself, we can add in morbidly obese if we're being technical.

 

 

This isn't about governing personal responsibility, it's about making options accessible so as to increase the overall chances of success for people (success in this case being sex without pregnancy). Take away options and the number of unsuccessful outcomes increases. It's a numbers game, either you want to solve the problem or you want to be a hypocrite and talk about "personal responsibility" as a reason to fuck women over, as if you don't owe an equal amount of personal responsibility yourself to the situation.

 

So I guess incentivizing poor people to have more kids is the better route :dumb:

 

 

You really don't have a handle on this "personal responsibility" thing do you?

 

I can't believe you actually said this. YOU out of all people said this :lolguy:

[CRed05]

I'm planning on getting a Chipotle burrito with the money I'm saving, how bout you guys?

 

What about this guy?

 

or this fine family

[LJ]

Does anyone know what happened with the 20% childcare tax credit in the new tax bill?

[BStowers023]

or this fine family

 

I love the headline of that one. Won't it make most families richer? It ain't no fun unless we all get some! :fuckyeah:

[Lauren]

Child credit is now $2000 and up to $1400 refundable up from $1000

[oh8sti]

I’m gojng to enjoy the tax reform - it gives me the opportunity to be more generous with bonuses and wages for the people that work for me.

 

I see this line of thinking is becoming more common since the passage of the bill as well. There’s a lot of greed out there, but there’s also a lot of people like me that just don’t want to be taken advantage by a government that misuses the taxes they collect.

[greg1647545532]

I think the reduction in the corporate tax rate is probably a good thing, I'm not sure it's been offset enough with "closed loopholes" but at 35% America is an outlier in theoretical corporate tax rates but pretty normal in terms of actual corporate taxes -- in other words, the current system is pretty dumb and I don't think this plan is the worst thing in the world on that front.

 

On the personal side, I stand to save a good chunk of money, but it seems pretty clear that this is going to increase the national debt. So... why? Where are all the deficit hawks now? Supply side economics does not work. This isn't going to pay for itself with economic growth, it's just going to lose the government money that my kids are going to have to pay back. Every time Republicans have an opportunity to balance the budget they fuck it all up, and people still think they're the party of fiscal responsibility.

[BStowers023]

I’m gojng to enjoy the tax reform - it gives me the opportunity to be more generous with bonuses and wages for the people that work for me.

 

I see this line of thinking is becoming more common since the passage of the bill as well. There’s a lot of greed out there, but there’s also a lot of people like me that just don’t want to be taken advantage by a government that misuses the taxes they collect.

 

Good for you for doing the right thing. I think more President/CEOs will do this too. People like Kerry think the Govt is the only way people will be taken care of. A lot of major companies around the U.S. are going to be giving out nice bonuses and salary increases to their employees because of the new Tax reform.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/20/news/companies/wells-fargo-bonuses-tax-cuts/index.html

[LJ]

Child credit is now $2000 and up to $1400 refundable up from $1000

 

That is the child credit, which is replacing the exemptions for the kids. There was a child care credit where you got 20% up to $3k for 1 kid and 20% up to $6k for 2 kids.

[CRed05]

I’m gojng to enjoy the tax reform - it gives me the opportunity to be more generous with bonuses and wages for the people that work for me.

 

Hopefully they won't go spending it all on candy and put it towards their insurance premiums that will go up to take care of the bums who will no longer be required to have health care.

[Geeto67]

Do you read what you're typing? As said before, birth control and abortion is not "blocked" and if you have kids, how the fuck is Government punishing you by not giving you free handouts?

 

It's not a "Free handout" - it's an exemption which means it's pre tax money you have earned. If you have two kids the government's new tax breaks mean your tax burden (the amount of money you earned that you pay the government) goes down. If you have 3 kids, the amount of money you pay the government goes up post the new tax plan because you can't claim that third dependent. The government is not giving you "free money" it's taking more of your own money.

 

 

How is it not benefiting everyone who works?

 

It doesn't benefit everyone.

 

It benefits the rich more than the poor because:

 

- that's how percentages work. Seriously, so the math: A person making $10,000 a year sees a $300 tax decrease as a result of the new taxes. A person making $100,000 sees a $4000 decrease in taxes. The middle class right now carries the tax burden so the government can't really afford to lose $4000 from those making $100K a year in America.

 

- The lower income brackets have other exemptions that are going away, so if the new plan gives you a tax break of $300, but takes away your individual deductions and exemptions that before gave you $400 off - then you are not benefiting. this is what your page 1 chart doesn't show and what my 3 kids example does show you. The rich don't have a lot of exemptions that are sun-setting.

 

It really screws:

 

- people who make between $200K and $416,700, because by reclassifying their bracket their taxes actually went up. While I am ok with this, you can't say the tax plan it is benefiting them at all.

 

 

 

I read the whole article, thanks though. The part I didn't quote was just a bunch of excuses, like the ones you make for poor people then blame rich people.

 

Wow you are closed minded. You deserve every time someone calls you "ignorant".

 

 

 

It's messed up because it doesn't follow along with your PC agenda? Is there actually a "penalty" for having more than 3 kids, or are you confusing penalty with not getting anymore tax credits for having kids you can't afford?

 

In order for you to understand how it is messed up you would need to understand desperate impact (more commonly referred to as how white people continued to oppress black people after the civil war and 13th amendment), which I doubt you will ever do. Just in case you want to know though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

 

It would also require you to have a functional definition of genocide, which isn't just killing a particular race but also preventing that race from pro-creating. Policies that cause population control of certain races through disparate impact are a form of genocide and up to this point have been mostly myth in modern America (but not historical America). If you don't see why that is dangerous I don't know what to tell you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_genocide_conspiracy_theory

 

You call ignorant and uniformed then misuse words because you don't know what they mean :lolguy:

 

here you go you ignorant asshole:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/block

 

a : obstacle

 

e.g. putting a block on any future development

 

 

If something is accessible because health insurance pays for it, and you remove that requirement that insurance pay for it and as a result it becomes un-affordable then it is "blocked" to those people by the original definition of the word.

 

 

Most women don't want PC pussy boys like yourself, we can add in morbidly obese if we're being technical.

 

grow up. Also....HHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....you are funny. You have a girlfriend right? do me a favor, go tell her how you feel about women's contraception and let us know how that conversation goes. I'll wait.

 

 

So I guess incentivizing poor people to have more kids is the better route :dumb:

Wow you are stupid.

 

#1 providing women contraception as part of their healthcare has never been proven to increase promiscuity. Denying them access to contraceptive has 100% been proven to increase the amount of unwanted pregnancies. so your idea that it incentivizes poor people to have more kids is literally the dumbest shit you have said on this forum today (but the day is still young).

 

#2 as an unmarried guy, if it were true that accessibility to contraceptives increased promiscuity, then why would you advocate something that makes it harder for you to get laid? I mean talk about a stupid proposition. Think of the money you would save on roofies alone!!!!!

 

 

I can't believe you actually said this. YOU out of all people said this :lolguy:

 

using contraceptives = personal responsibility.

having a lot of contraceptive options available to the public for them to choose from does not remove personal responsibility, there is still a choice there to be made. Considering the failure rate of a single method, it's possible to be personally responsible and still have an unwanted pregnancy, so it is still possible to be responsible and be fucked by it, so what's wrong with making insurance cover it so a lot more people have a lot more options to choose from?

 

How is this a hard concept for you?

[Wease]

I’m gojng to enjoy the tax reform - it gives me the opportunity to be more generous with bonuses and wages for the people that work for me.

 

I see this line of thinking is becoming more common since the passage of the bill as well. There’s a lot of greed out there, but there’s also a lot of people like me that just don’t want to be taken advantage by a government that misuses the taxes they collect.

 

Well done. A few of my friends who have small businesses have said similar things... :nod:

[BStowers023]

It's not a "Free handout" - it's an exemption which means it's pre tax money you have earned. If you have two kids the government's new tax breaks mean your tax burden (the amount of money you earned that you pay the government) goes down. If you have 3 kids, the amount of money you pay the government goes up post the new tax plan because you can't claim that third dependent. The government is not giving you "free money" it's taking more of your own money.

 

Again, why should the Government be giving exemptions for people who have over 3 kids? If you have more than 3 kids, would you agree that you should be able to support those kids without a tax exemption?

 

 

 

Wow you are closed minded. You deserve every time someone calls you "ignorant".

 

I'm close minded and ignorant says the guy who thinks the Government can spend his money better than him.

 

 

 

In order for you to understand how it is messed up you would need to understand desperate impact (more commonly referred to as how white people continued to oppress black people after the civil war and 13th amendment), which I doubt you will ever do. Just in case you want to know though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

 

Victim mentality once again

 

 

It would also require you to have a functional definition of genocide, which isn't just killing a particular race but also preventing that race from pro-creating. Policies that cause population control of certain races through disparate impact are a form of genocide and up to this point have been mostly myth in modern America (but not historical America). If you don't see why that is dangerous I don't know what to tell you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_genocide_conspiracy_theory

 

Maybe something like putting planned parenthood in poor urban locations that happen to have a high minority population and telling them they can come get their unwanted fetus sucked out of them for free or damn close to free?

 

 

 

here you go you ignorant asshole:

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/block

 

 

If something is accessible because health insurance pays for it, and you remove that requirement that insurance pay for it and as a result it becomes un-affordable then it is "blocked" to those people by the original definition of the word.

 

Are you saying Birth control isn't affordable? Do you know how cheap birth control is? It's not blocked you doofus, stop acting like birth control is a fucking right, it's not and it's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

 

 

grow up. Also....HHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....you are funny. You have a girlfriend right? do me a favor, go tell her how you feel about women's contraception and let us know how that conversation goes. I'll wait.

 

Um yeah my girlfriend isn't a fucking cry baby victim snowflake like the ones you see running around in vagina costumes on CNN complaining that life isn't fair because they have to pay for things they want. She would 100% agree with everything I've said so far in this thread.

 

 

 

Wow you are stupid.

 

#1 providing women contraception as part of their healthcare has never been proven to increase promiscuity. Denying them access to contraceptive has 100% been proven to increase the amount of unwanted pregnancies. so your idea that it incentivizes poor people to have more kids is literally the dumbest shit you have said on this forum today (but the day is still young).

 

#2 as an unmarried guy, if it were true that accessibility to contraceptives increased promiscuity, then why would you advocate something that makes it harder for you to get laid? I mean talk about a stupid proposition. Think of the money you would save on roofies alone!!!!!

 

I don't have to worry about it. If I were a girl though, I'd be very careful around you though. The last time you got some ass was probably the last time you saw your dick (who knows how many generations that's been)

 

 

 

using contraceptives = personal responsibility.

having a lot of contraceptive options available to the public for them to choose from does not remove personal responsibility, there is still a choice there to be made. Considering the failure rate of a single method, it's possible to be personally responsible and still have an unwanted pregnancy, so it is still possible to be responsible and be fucked by it, so what's wrong with making insurance cover it so a lot more people have a lot more options to choose from?

 

How is this a hard concept for you?

 

So is abstinence if you can't afford a $10 box of condoms or a $40 pill each month you probably shouldn't be having sex and risking have a child to take care of that's going to cost a hell of a lot more than that. It's called being responsible, your view of it is just flawed because you have a victim mentality and make excuses for ignorant lazy poor people.

[El Karacho1647545492]

I don't believe the cuts are empirically fair to Americans who need the most assistance.

 

I do, however, believe that perception trumps fact in many cases, and if people PERCEIVE that these cuts are good for America, consumer confidence improves which will improve overall welfare.

 

I don't think the consequences will be positive in the long run, but people's memories are short and our education system is pretty awful so the short term "success" and positive effects will be attributed to those who deserve little to no credit, and the long term consequences will be pinned on snowflake millennials who everyone thinks demand all the entitlements in the world.

[LJ]

Does anyone know what happened with the 20% childcare tax credit in the new tax bill?

 

I will answer my own question, I found a small snippet and this credit was preserved, but not expanded at all like Trump had promised.

[Geeto67]

Again, why should the Government be giving exemptions for people who have over 3 kids? If you have more than 3 kids, would you agree that you should be able to support those kids without a tax exemption?

 

You made the statement that this benefits everyone, and it was a false statement, and this was one example as to how.

 

But since you asked, This isn't really about "Children" per se. The Personal exemption "The exemption was intended to insulate from taxation roughly at the minimal amount of money someone would need to get by at a subsistence level (poverty line)". Each individual in a household was entitled to this exemption including dependents, so if you had a spouse and 2 children you would file for $4050 x4 which is $16,200 and less than the $24,000 standard deduction. If you had 4 children you filed for $4050x6 or $24,300. See the problem?

 

Now let's talk about children in general. Since you don't have any I can't expect you to be knowledgeable about this but children are classified as "dependents" in the tax code for a reason. They incur a cost and don't generally contribute to household income. In general you want the tax code to treat all children the same because each incurs both a cost on the household and government spending. To treat them inequitably both punishes the household, and the government for the services it provides to the child.

 

By the way I just realized that before I had been writing 3 or more children when I should have been writing more than 3 children so that's on me.

 

 

I'm close minded and ignorant says the guy who thinks the Government can spend his money better than him.

 

I've never said that. You assume that because your general level of intelligence and that massive chip on your shoulder prevents you of thinking of anything in this world other than as stereotypes. You have no appetite for the truth, for intellectual discourse, nor any willingness to see any position that doesn't confirm your bubble.

 

I have to be honest, I expected better of you because every once in a while there is a glimmer of hope that you seem like you want to know more, but you immediately sabotage yourself with your own views.

 

not that you care what my actual views are, but I think there are some things the government should be involved in (infrastructure, utilities including the internet), some things they could do much better (health care, enviornment) , and some things they probably shouldn't be meddling in. But that doesn't fit your collection of stereotypes so you'll probably ignore it like you do facts or anything that threatens your bubble.

 

I get that when you were a soldier the government touched you in your no-no place, but honestly you have to let go of that shit because it's fucking up your intelligence. I know it is possible, I meet and work with some exceptionally smart veterans every day, I just don't think you are one of them.

 

Victim mentality once again

 

nope, you are just literally stupid.

 

 

Maybe something like putting planned parenthood in poor urban locations that happen to have a high minority population and telling them they can come get their unwanted fetus sucked out of them for free or damn close to free?

 

Do you know anything about Abortion? or Planned Parenthood?

 

 

Are you saying Birth control isn't affordable? Do you know how cheap birth control is? It's not blocked you doofus, stop acting like birth control is a fucking right, it's not and it's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

It's cheap to you because you are a man. It is not cheap to women, but you don't know that because guess what you are not. For men, contraception is between $4 and $15 periodically (periodically being the expiration date on a box of condoms, usually 3-6 mos). For women it is between $15-$50 a month. That's the difference of $30-60 a year for men and $600 for women. That may be cheap for you for it ain't cheap for everyone. BTW, that number for women is determined by health insurance and the patients deductible, out of pocket costs add about $250-500 to that per year.

 

Nobody here said birth control is a "right", but what has been said is that it should be offered as a choice equally to every woman who has health insurance.

 

Um yeah my girlfriend isn't a fucking cry baby victim snowflake like the ones you see running around in vagina costumes on CNN complaining that life isn't fair because they have to pay for things they want. She would 100% agree with everything I've said so far in this thread.

 

or you are too chicken to ask her. It's ok, I wouldn't ask her either if I were you.

 

 

I don't have to worry about it. If I were a girl though, I'd be very careful around you though. The last time you got some ass was probably the last time you saw your dick (who knows how many generations that's been)

 

Lets see, out of the two of us, I'm the married one with a kid. so...oh yeah...good comeback. you gonna hit me with a "yo momma so fat" joke next?

 

 

So is abstinence if you can't afford a $10 box of condoms or a $40 pill each month you probably shouldn't be having sex and risking have a child to take care of that's going to cost a hell of a lot more than that. It's called being responsible, your view of it is just flawed because you have a victim mentality and make excuses for ignorant lazy poor people.

 

rape victims don't have a choice of abstinence. Convenient you forget about those people every time you talk about this though. They also don't get free abortions.

 

I want you to look back in your mind and think about every sexual encounter you have ever had, and I want you to really think hard if you ever pressured or paid a woman to have sex with you. You are a veteran so I'm willing to bet there's at least one hooker in your closet. I want you to really think about how "responsible" your behavior was in any of those times.

 

the "personal responsibility" argument here is null and void. It is not an abdication of personal responsibility to give people access to more options

[BStowers023]

rape victims don't have a choice of abstinence. Convenient you forget about those people every time you talk about this though. They also don't get free abortions.

 

I want you to look back in your mind and think about every sexual encounter you have ever had, and I want you to really think hard if you ever pressured or paid a woman to have sex with you. You are a veteran so I'm willing to bet there's at least one hooker in your closet. I want you to really think about how "responsible" your behavior was in any of those times.

 

the "personal responsibility" argument here is null and void. It is not an abdication of personal responsibility to give people access to more options

 

I'm just going to reply to this statement because the other ones we will just keep going back and forth but I want to make sure we're clear here.

 

I believe if you are raped and become pregnant, you should be able to have an abortion for free. If the Government doesn't pay for it, I'm willing to bet a charity would pop up and offer it.

 

I've never had to pay for sex and I certainly have never forced myself on a girl. Nice assumption though. Weren't you just insulting me about stereotyping, yet here you are.