Bridget has this "soak the rich" mentality that works in lala land.


But if you soak the rich they dont stand by idly. Their spending habits change and their working habits change.


Let's say we put a cap and said no one can make more than $1 million per year. You think Bill Gates would still work? You think multimillionaires would invest and work? Hell no.

Who do you think pays for all these entitlement programs in the first place? You soak the rich too much and you stand to lose your base which means the burden falls on the middle working class.

You also get all huffy about corporations. Do you not realize we have the highest corporate taxes in the world? If we continue to increase them our foreign investment will collapse. Do you know what that means? Goodbye cheap imported goods & services.

Surely Americans will pick up the slack and replace that investment right? The same Americans who put $5,000 rims on $3,000 toyota corollas? Fuck no they won't.

I cant believe someone suggested that I should move. The country is built on capitalism, its you socialists who should leave if anyone.

3/7/2007 4:23:21 PM

Quote :

"Bridget you just don't fucking get it. There you go with your "free daycare" nutjob idea. Yeah that sounds great. You knwo what, I need an Ipod, any chance we can legislate free ipods to american citizens too? Do you not realize that by giving away free daycare you create an incentive to have more children??? If the cost is reduced to raise children then you damn well better believe MORE children are going to be born not less. Are you really this dumb? You want MORE children growing up in single parent homes with low income mothers? Where is the cutoff for this "free daycare"? Does everyone get it? Do only workers under $25,000/year get it? Do you realize what this does? Now if a single mom is offered a job for $25,000 or $30,000 (all things else the same) she will always select the $25k job because the free daycare incentive is worth more than $5,000/year to her. Does that make any fucking sense? Once again you penalize the middle class workers who have to pay for THEIR daycare and for the low income family daycare. I cant believe any non-communist would support free daycare. Jesus. If only Applebees gave away free bacon cheeseburgers... I'd be there every night!!!"

1. I think everyone should get free daycare or preschool if they want it (we already have Smart Start and More at Four).
2. No, I don't think free daycare will cause people to have more babies. I'm not stupid.
3. And, no, I will not support a program to help you get a free iPod. I do think internet access should be free though. I'M SUCH A COMMUNIST!

Quote :

"FURTHERMORE, do you know what happens if you make a service free that someone is currently paying for???? Let's say this poor old single slut mom with two kids is making $25k a year and is paying $5k/year for daycare. All the sudden daycare is free. This is income redistribution at its finest. She now has $5,000 left to spend on whatever she wants. Guess what this fiscally irresponsible lady is going to do with this money? *Hint* She's not investing it in the stock market, creating a college fund for her kids. Its going to alcohol/drugs, cell phones, cars, toys, & luxury goods. Her autonomous consumption goods are already being met from the $25k. This $5k becomes money she can spend however she damn well pleases. We arent giving this lady DAYCARE. She was already getting DAYCARE. We are giving her $5,000 that she can choose to spend however she damn pleases. Gee, what a terrible person I am for not supporting an idea that gives money to the poor and encourages them to have more children."

Give me the name of the Economics professor that taught you this.

3/7/2007 4:26:26 PM

Quote :

"2. No, I don't think free daycare will cause people to have more babies. I'm not stupid."

Yes you are stupid. People respond to incentives.


You might as well say if Best Buy gives away free Ipods that people won't bother going to get them.


Do you realize people shit their pants during tax free weekend? Oh my god $0.50 packets of loose leaf paper are 6.5% off this weekend everyone haul ass down to Officemax!!!

Quote :

" Give me the name of the Economics professor that taught you this."

There is nothing even arguable in my statement so who cares who "taught" it to me. It's not some amazing principle. If you give people something for free that they used to pay for, they now have more money available to spend on other things. Not a tough concept.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:31:12 PM

Seriously, I wanna know the names of the people who are you teaching you that poor people are poor because they're lazy, irresponsible with money, and promiscuous. Let's cut to the chase. Give me their names.

Cause I've got my notes right here that only 10.3 percent of families on assistance are unemployed. Do they not use real numbers in your Econ classes? Is it all about the "givens"..."Well, they're poor, and under our set of 'givens,' only people who don't work are poor...so these people must not be working"?

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : sss]

3/7/2007 4:32:50 PM

Should people have free air conditioning? How about free college for everyone? Where do you draw the line?

Quote :

"I wanna know the names of the people who are you teaching you that poor people are poor because they're lazy, irresponsible with money, and promiscuous"

While I can't comment on his professors, I think most people have learned that some poor people fit this bill based on their own 2 eyes

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 4:33:23 PM

Quote :

"Yes you are stupid. People respond to incentives."

Deciding whether to have a kid is not a purely economic decision.

3/7/2007 4:34:25 PM

Quote :

"2. No, I don't think free daycare will cause people to have more babies. I'm not stupid."

http://courses.ncsu.edu sign up for EC 201 or EC 205

Any professor available will be glad to explain how price and quantity demanded are related.

Quote :

"Deciding whether to have a kid is not a purely economic decision."

That is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn't have to be purely economic. Economic plays a factor in the decision. I'm not going to break out a multivariable regression line on you but you better believe beta doesn't equal zero on that coefficient.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:37 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:35:55 PM

It's entirely possible free daycare would have a neglible impact.

3/7/2007 4:39:32 PM

Quote :

"Deciding whether to have a kid is not a purely economic decision."

Of course its not...however, aside from rape, it is a DECISION...meaning you can choose to have kids or not...wear a condom...take a pill...whatever

Me personally...I'm gonna have kids some day...but for now, I'm working and saving...I don't want kids right now as my finances would make things tricky...but I guess I am the fool for not just having kids and looking for govt assistance since I should be entitled to a bunch of free shit based on my own bad choices

3/7/2007 4:40:47 PM

Maybe subsidized daycare would increase the birth rate. France seems to think so:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=52654

3/7/2007 4:42:59 PM

Well when you mentioned that having kids isnt solely an economic decision...economics is part of it..and if one of the only things stopping you from having kids is being able to afford it...and all of a sudden the govt says they will give you X amount of dollars for daycare, etc...it could certainly sway your decision to have a kid or have kids

3/7/2007 4:44:28 PM

Quote :

"rallydurham: sign up for EC 201 or EC 205 Any professor available will be glad to explain how price and quantity demanded are related."

I aced Microeconomics.

And got a little e-mail encouraging me to get involved in the department. (They must be hard up for females or something.)

I'll be waiting on the names of the professors that taught you that poor people are poor because they are lazy, promiscuous, and irresponsible with money.

What's being taught in Economics is a growing concern in the academic/intellectual community. Maybe we need to clean up the Econ department at NCSU.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:44 PM. Reason : Names, please.]

3/7/2007 4:44:29 PM

BridgetSPK:

Quote :

"Should people have free air conditioning? How about free college for everyone? Where do you draw the line? "

3/7/2007 4:45:07 PM

^^^^ It saddens me that you even had to dig up that article to get Bridget to see that subsidizing child cost would increase child births.

I cant argue this much longer it makes me feel dirty to share a time zone with some people.

Quote :

"waiting on the names of the professors that taught you that poor people are poor because they are lazy, promiscuous, and irresponsible with money."

Never heard that quote from a professor. They have this little thing called "tact" because they don't want to be castrated by the media. That is an opinion I hold. However, that is not the same quote that you listed above when you asked me what professor taught me that. Maybe you thought I wouldn't notice that little trick you just pulled.



[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:48 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:46:06 PM

Quote :

"It saddens me that you even had to dig up that article to get Bridget to see that subsidizing child cost would increase child births."

Well, there is a lot more going in France than just subsidized daycare.

And I don't she's responded to that article.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:50 PM. Reason : than]

3/7/2007 4:49:12 PM

^^^I plan to respond to that and that^^^^.

However, I came into this discussion because I disagreed with rallydurham's characterization of poor people. And I'm ready to get to the bottom of this little problem.

I need to know names.

Either someone taught you this, you read it somewhere, or it's your idea.

Let's hear it.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:49 PM. Reason : sss]

3/7/2007 4:49:34 PM

If I felt confident in my financial future, I'd probably hate poor folk too.

It's all about class, people.

3/7/2007 4:51:06 PM

Quote :

"Never heard that quote from a professor. They have this little thing called "tact" because they don't want to be castrated by the media. That is an opinion I hold. However, that is not the same quote that you listed above when you asked me what professor taught me that. Maybe you thought I wouldn't notice that little trick you just pulled."

I wanna know where you're learning all this stuff. I'm not pulling any tricks here.

So just give me a name of a teacher who implied it tactfully to avoid "being castrated by the media."

3/7/2007 4:53:10 PM

Hell, even on a fairly anonomyous message board a lot of people PM me to say "great thread" or "agree with you completely" rather than risk coming off as a racist or poor people basher by agreeing in the thread.

Its sad that you cant speak the truth on a messageboard frequented predominatly by educated people for fear of being labelled insensitive by the rabid socialist dogs out there.

Move to California if you want to secede from capitalism. They are well on their way out there.


^ bridget you said "who taught you this" at the top of page 7 and I said "um, its just factual information" REFERRING TO THE LARGE QUOTED BLOCK OF TEXT THAT WAS ABOVE IT. I never said a professor came out and said poor people are promiscuous. I never even used the word "promiscuous" in that LARGE BLOCK OF TEXT THAT YOU QUOTED ABOVE.

Check the birth rates amongst income classes if you are so hellbent on defeating me on this particular point, but at least acknowledge that "promiscuous" had nothing to do with the LARGE BLOCK OF TEXT THAT YOU QUOTED AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7.

Poor people are for the most part financially irresponsible. That is pretty inarguable I think. It's cute to think there is no correlation between financial irresponsibility and wealth. It's also cute to think about magic rainbows and unicorns but they don't write about those in science books.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 4:54:02 PM

Quote :

"She is. You all failed at making a decent monthly operating budget for her. "

No, we made a pretty damn good monthly budget. The problem is, her expenses outstrip her income, so she needs to change her life. If she were a corporation you would tell her to move her location, seek new ways of generating revenue, drop some expenses, or liquidate some assets. Why is it any different? In fact, it should be easier for her because she doesn't have to worry about destroying the lives of others in the process.

Quote :

"Who would actually benefit most from lower government operating costs? (Hint: Top earners. And don't give me that trickle down bullshit.)"

Low earners. If the middle class makes up for the loopholes the top earners exploit, the middle class is paying the most taxes as a percentage of income. Lower government operating costs (hopefully) lead to lower taxes, which in turn provides greated bennefits to the middle class. An extra $2,000 / year won't bennefit your $7.2 million CEO, but it damn sure will make your $30,000 worker much happier and provide more bennefits to him (if spent correctly).

Quote :

"When you're working full-time, you should be able to support yourself and your children; I believe the system should work this way. You disagree."

It shouldn't work that way. The reason is, working full time as a beggar and working full time as a doctor are two very different things. Working full time should allow you to support yourself enough to improve. I work full time now, but it is not a life on which I could support children, hence I don't have them. I also don't have a new Lexus.

Quote :

"A hand that should be manageable. You're acting like she hit on 20 or something. "

According to you, she had two kids, by potentialy two different fathers, and hasn't attempted to use any of the resources which are already availible to her and is still fucking. I would say that's as close to hitting on 20 as she can get without purposefuly throwing money away.

Quote :

"Surely there's a way to incentivize businesses that doesn't include offering them quite possibly the cheapest labor force in the Western world. "

There is, have the government pay them to come here. Like they did with google. Otherwise known as corporate welfare. Something which you and others railed on a few pages back.

Quote :

"I'd also like to figure out a way to stop segregating poverty. (Policy could come in here.) "

Stop instigating class warfare.

Quote :

"Is this a sweet remark on the nature of man? "

It's a remark on the realities of life. It is inefficient for each person to work soley on their own. Man was not meant to be a solo creature.

Quote :

"They used to say that you're supposed to spend a third of your income on food, and housing was cheap. What the fuck happened? Why did the cost of living shoot up so high that women had to leave the home and get jobs? Are poor people to blame again? (These questions aren't rhetorical; I've never gotten a clear answer on what happened.)"

Women entered the workforce en masse. Seriously. More supply, roughly the same demand, prices go down. Plus, since it is now a societal expectation that the man and the woman would both work, there is no need (nor demand) for an individual job to pay enough to support a whole family. Also all the zoning, taxes and regulations talked about help.

Quote :

"1. I think everyone should get free daycare or preschool if they want it (we already have Smart Start and More at Four)."

Who's going to pay for that? Are we going to up the taxes? Yay lets take another pecentage point out of the lower class workers paychecks, that will surely assure they will be able to save and succeede enough to not have to rely on the government for their survival.

Quote :

"2. No, I don't think free daycare will cause people to have more babies. I'm not stupid."

It certainly removes an incentive not to. Why don't you have kids right now? Are any of your reasons economic? If you personally suffered no economic consequences of having a kid, would you have one now?

Quote :

"3. And, no, I will not support a program to help you get a free iPod. I do think internet access should be free though. I'M SUCH A COMMUNIST! "

Why should internet access be free? Out of curiosity, do you also support free electricity and water?

3/7/2007 4:55:53 PM

Quote :

"Move to California if you want to secede from capitalism. They are well on their way out there."

And they're still one of the richer states in the Union. Socialismo FTW, I guess.

3/7/2007 4:58:46 PM

BridgetSPK has ignored many of my posts, so I don't see why you fellas should be any different.

3/7/2007 4:59:27 PM

Here's something else for you Bridget (and I know you have a lot of things to answer/respond to so take your time)

Does the woman get child support? Does the actual father(s) pay for their children? I figure since it was a man and woman who made the child, the man and woman should pay for the child first and foremost. She does get SOME kind of child support from the men, right? I would hope so

Cause if she DOESNT, I would blame the father a lot more than the govt, and you should too

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 5:01:07 PM

^^^ On the flip side of that, the cost of living out there is insane. This thread's single mother of 2 would spend more than half her paycheck on housing alone and still be living in a studio appartment (or the slums). By contrast, she can live just outside raleigh in a decent appartment here.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 5:01 PM. Reason : damn this thread moves fast]

3/7/2007 5:01:11 PM

^^^^ haha are you kidding? California has been bankrupt for a long time. Their finances are a mess.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : a]

3/7/2007 5:02:32 PM

Quote :

"haha are you kidding? California has been bankrupt for a long time. Their finances are a mess."

I'm talking about the people, not the g0v, ph00l. California is one of the richer states. It's above the national average.

3/7/2007 5:04:15 PM

California does have some rich people

but theres also millions of poor people in LA so its not like the whole state is a bunch of rich folks

3/7/2007 5:07:42 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK has ignored many of my posts, so I don't see why you fellas should be any different."

I'm taking my time, and your posts are acutally the most interesting to me.

For now, I'll say...

I hear ya, man.

3/7/2007 5:09:37 PM

Quote :

"Check the birth rates amongst income classes if you are so hellbent on defeating me on this particular point, but at least acknowledge that "promiscuous" had nothing to do with the LARGE BLOCK OF TEXT THAT YOU QUOTED AT THE TOP OF PAGE 7."

Promiscuous had nothing to do with your post. Like I said, I wanna know where you learned all this stuff, including the part about promiscuous, lazy, and irresponsible.

And the part about poor people being poor because they eat all their meals out, buy a lot of cell phones, and use drugs. Drug addiction is a contributing factor in poverty. Lack of birth control (not promiscuity) is a contributing factor in poverty. However, you cannot paint an entire class of people by these factors.

Your opinions on assistance are entirely unfounded. Most people on assistance require it due to event poverty and not to some character problem. Almost ninety percent (89.7 percent) of the people on assistance work jobs. For that matter, most homeless people have jobs. They're not sluts. They're not bums. And they're not defective.

You called me reprehensible and said you found me digusting. Right back atcha, fuckface.

(I'm going to walk my two pugs now. I'll see what I can do about responding to the rest of you later.)

3/7/2007 5:23:31 PM

Cell phones are also, it seems, a contributing factor in poverty.

Got damn the poor and their cell phones.

3/7/2007 5:28:57 PM

^^ The thing is you arent really talking about "poverty" when you talk about a woman making $25k a year.


A one income family with 2 kids at 25k i consider poor but i do not consider it poverty.


Im okay with there being homeless shelters and soup kitchens that are paid for with donations.

Im not cool with free daycare and other incentives for stupid broke people to have more kids than they can already financially provide for.

3/7/2007 6:30:56 PM

Quote :

" obviously you've never tried to get something from the DMV, the IRS or any other alphabet company the govt has... you should be hapopy that people call because they want to still be involved or know what the government is doing if you don't believe that most government employees suck ass, look no further than the Walter Reed Hospital situation"

sure some suck and sure walter reed situation is fucked up. But even within the alphabet organizations of the government, they deal with thousands of people a day get asked the same questions and it gets iritating when the information is available and people chose to not research first. Also, it isn't the job of the government employee to just cave into every request made by people.

3/7/2007 6:40:08 PM

Page 7 and people are still trying to assert the fallacy that all poor people are poor because they're lazier than rich people.



[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 7:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 7:46:39 PM

Quote :

"rallydurham: ^^ The thing is you arent really talking about "poverty" when you talk about a woman making $25k a year. A one income family with 2 kids at 25k i consider poor but i do not consider it poverty."

I said from the start that her situation does not qualify as poverty.

The stats I gave in my last post have nothing to do with her so I don't consider this part of your response relevant to my last post.

Quote :

"rallydurham: Im okay with there being homeless shelters and soup kitchens that are paid for with donations. Im not cool with free daycare and other incentives for stupid broke people to have more kids than they can already financially provide for."

Since you insist on continuing to view the element of poverty in this light and only this light, I've nothing more to say to you.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: I do. Eliminate the minimum wage and reduce taxes. Regional Poverty is the result of business imbalances (all the local businesses competed poorly on the national level and thus went bankrupt, leaving the workers unemployed). In a free market, such imbalances are corrected by allowing the local wages to fall in response to unemployment, drawing sucessful businesses to the area in search of low wages. However, a minimum wage prevents local wages from falling and thus eliminates the incentive for businesses to correct this imbalance."

Obviously, my knee-jerk reaction to this suggestion is OMG, THE PEOPLE WON'T GET PAID ENOUGH!

But I've had a moment to think about it, and here goes...your idea will not work, and my evidence is in history. These currently economically depressed towns became towns exactly the way you're describing. Because we had such cheap labor available, businesses came down here and built manufacturing plants and the like, and people had jobs (WOO HOO!). And the workers did their part; they worked hard for thirty or forty years...only to be laid off with no pension because the plants shut down and left the towns to rot. So, in the long-run, your plan's a loser.

And I think you know all this so I'm kinda disappointed that you would suggest eliminating the minimum wage and allowing businesses to come milk some cheap labor out of folks and then run off again. It just seems wrong to me.

3/7/2007 7:50:26 PM

People who work in manufacturing plants make quite a bit more than minimum wage

However, eliminating the minimum wage might solve regional unemployment problems, but it wouldn't solve regional poverty problems. If you work for less than minimum wage you're still really fucking poor.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:03 PM. Reason : 2]

3/7/2007 7:55:18 PM

^Yeah, $13/hour in 1997, I know. My post has nothing to do with that. (Nevermind, that manufacturing jobs have been on their way out for decades.)

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: Should people have free air conditioning? How about free college for everyone? Where do you draw the line?"

No free air conditioning or cable or anything like that.

The reason why I suggest free internet is because of what a valuable resource it is and how cheap it would be to provide it to everyone once we got it set up.

Of course, a lot of the time, people would probably use it the way people who have it now do (entertainment)--that's not particularly valuable to society. But the information (and misinformation, I know) it could provide to people, who otherwise might have to wait in line to use it at the public library if they can even make it to a public library, is invaluable. Just like what we're talking about here about smart money management...besides Fannie Mae, a lot of folks don't have access to information. When I spoke to my sister (accountant) about my budget project, she listed off all these things I could do to save money, and I was like, "Say what?" That information is right there on the internet, and we could pump it straight into people's homes, and I think that's awesome.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:14 PM. Reason : sss]

3/7/2007 8:01:44 PM

It's laughable/disgusting how some of you pretend to be morally superior to poor people.

You're no better, and you haven't worked as hard as the average poor 20 year-old.

You're typing on the internets during the most responsibility-free time of life (college), pretending that you're somehow less-lazy than someone working 40+ hours a week while raising a family.

Pathetic

3/7/2007 8:02:29 PM

I consider it to be pretty irresponsible that people try to raise a family without the means to do so, thereby relying on the government for help.

Pathetic.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM. Reason : 2]

3/7/2007 8:06:31 PM

Good thing we live in a world where shit doesn't happen.

IN AN IDEAL WORLD, MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES FOR THEIR MISTAKES!


And again, way to cast judgment on someone who's working a couple times harder than you are.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2007 8:17:57 PM

Quote :

"the most responsibility-free time of life (college),"

I don't know about that.

3/7/2007 8:24:20 PM

I guess a case could be made for K-12, but I don't really consider that "life" as much as "childhood."

3/7/2007 8:26:36 PM

A single person working a shitty job could easily have fewer responsibilities than a student.

At least menial jobs don't follow you home.

3/7/2007 8:28:47 PM

But then you have to worry about making ends meet

3/7/2007 8:30:03 PM

ugh, you socialists are stuck in your ways.

Let's just hope you're not in the majority come '08.


7 full pages explaining why you're wrong but you just can't visualize it.


Just keep on thinking happy thoughts and daydreaming about free ice cream and candybars....

3/7/2007 8:30:12 PM

you keep pretending you're any better than poor people

3/7/2007 8:31:02 PM

^rallydurham has already said he's lazy, too.

^^And I'm not in sociology. I'm in education.

But I'm seriously considering fucking education and going for a double major in sociology and economics right now.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 8:44 PM. Reason : Seriously.]

3/7/2007 8:43:39 PM

Oh, so he really is a social calvinist?

3/7/2007 8:45:26 PM

Quote :

"But then you have to worry about making ends meet"

Plenty of students have to worry about that as well.

3/7/2007 8:56:53 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: No, we made a pretty damn good monthly budget. The problem is, her expenses outstrip her income, so she needs to change her life. If she were a corporation you would tell her to move her location, seek new ways of generating revenue, drop some expenses, or liquidate some assets. Why is it any different? In fact, it should be easier for her because she doesn't have to worry about destroying the lives of others in the process."

Don’t compare people to businesses. If we were to do that, we might come to the conclusion that some folks should “shut down” (kill themselves).

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Low earners. If the middle class makes up for the loopholes the top earners exploit, the middle class is paying the most taxes as a percentage of income. Lower government operating costs (hopefully) lead to lower taxes, which in turn provides greated bennefits to the middle class. An extra $2,000 / year won't bennefit your $7.2 million CEO, but it damn sure will make your $30,000 worker much happier and provide more bennefits to him (if spent correctly)."

How much did the average American get back in the last round of tax cuts? Was it $200? And how much did the top earners get back? Hmmm…

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: It shouldn't work that way. The reason is, working full time as a beggar and working full time as a doctor are two very different things. Working full time should allow you to support yourself enough to improve. I work full time now, but it is not a life on which I could support children, hence I don't have them. I also don't have a new Lexus."

I disagree.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: According to you, she had two kids, by potentialy two different fathers, and hasn't attempted to use any of the resources which are already availible to her and is still fucking. I would say that's as close to hitting on 20 as she can get without purposefuly throwing money away."

I don’t know if she’s still having sex; she doesn’t appear to have any time for it. But I budgeted for condoms just in case. I’d prefer oral contraceptives, as well. We’ve been through the “other resources” deal, and come to the conclusion that not everybody has family/friends they can rely on. The idea about finding another single mother to live with is an excellent one!!!

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: There is, have the government pay them to come here. Like they did with google. Otherwise known as corporate welfare. Something which you and others railed on a few pages back."

And I’ll continue to rail on it. With the incentives Google got, you’d think they’d be employing thousands, not just the hundreds they’ve promised. They’re going to pack up and leave once the incentivized period is up.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: It's a remark on the realities of life. It is inefficient for each person to work soley on their own. Man was not meant to be a solo creature."

He said that not even a single childless woman could make it alone. That’s not a reality of life so I assume he’s making some statement on how we need to feel connected.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Women entered the workforce en masse. Seriously. More supply, roughly the same demand, prices go down. Plus, since it is now a societal expectation that the man and the woman would both work, there is no need (nor demand) for an individual job to pay enough to support a whole family. Also all the zoning, taxes and regulations talked about help."

No. Women entered the work force because the cost of living went up, not the other way around. I’ve heard arguments that connect the increase in cost of living with the Vietnam War and other factors.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Who's going to pay for that? Are we going to up the taxes? Yay lets take another pecentage point out of the lower class workers paychecks, that will surely assure they will be able to save and succeede enough to not have to rely on the government for their survival."

Yes, more taxes.

Quote :

"1337 b4k4It certainly removes an incentive not to. Why don't you have kids right now? Are any of your reasons economic? If you personally suffered no economic consequences of having a kid, would you have one now?"

You do realize that most pregnancies are unplanned?

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Why should internet access be free? Out of curiosity, do you also support free electricity and water?"

No free electricity or water or anything like that.

The reason why I suggest free internet is because of what a valuable resource it is and how cheap it would be to provide it to everyone once we got it set up.

Of course, a lot of the time, people would probably use it the way people who have it now do (entertainment)--that's not particularly valuable to society. But the information (and misinformation, I know) it could provide to people, who otherwise might have to wait in line to use it at the public library if they can even make it to a public library, is invaluable. Just like what we're talking about here about smart money management...besides Fannie Mae, a lot of folks don't have access to information. When I spoke to my sister (accountant) about my budget project, she listed off all these things I could do to save money, and I was like, "Say what?" That information is right there on the internet, and we could pump it straight into people's homes, and I think that's awesome.

3/7/2007 9:22:14 PM

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: Here's something else for you Bridget (and I know you have a lot of things to answer/respond to so take your time) Does the woman get child support? Does the actual father(s) pay for their children? I figure since it was a man and woman who made the child, the man and woman should pay for the child first and foremost. She does get SOME kind of child support from the men, right? I would hope so Cause if she DOESNT, I would blame the father a lot more than the govt, and you should too"

We talked a little bit about this earlier in the thread. I need to make it clear that our job was to prepare a budget, not pick apart her life.

The father(s) (We don't know if it's one or two.) is/are not in the picture and not paying child support. She moved down with her boyfriend for his job so, at one point, I assume he had a decent job and would be someone with the ability to pay. But maybe he went crazy and lives at a nudist community in Washington state freezing his balls off--we don't know.

And child support is not cure-all. Men are often ordered to pay based on what they earn; so there are men out there that are ordered to pay just $100/month or something like that. At the same time, there are men sleeping in their cars to make child support payments. The system is shaky.

And, yes, I do blame deadbeat parents. But I can't chalk it all up to individual character issues; society has a role here, too.

[Edited on March 7, 2007 at 9:39 PM. Reason : Getting caught up.]

3/7/2007 9:34:13 PM