Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You know the tragic part of this? It's working out great for them. They have a very large sector of the African American community back on the plantation where they always wanted to them. The left has never let go of slavery. They insisted on it in the 1800's and they still insist on it to this day.
Hey dumbshit. The human race is not dying out. It sure as shit isn't dying out because of gays.Hey dumb-shit....two women cannot have children. Two men cannot have children. It is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce. If they can't reproduce - they can't have a family. The inability to continue families destroys families.The list is endless...
- Liberalism promotes homosexuality (that destroys families)
Lol wtf?
Was your family destroyed by homosexuality perhaps? Maybe some liberal told you about how gays ought to be able to marry, so the forbidden temptation became too great for you to pass up?
God Almighty the things that have to be explained to liberals. Now wonder they need government to survive. How do these people even tie their shoelaces in the morning?
Do you agree or disagree with the Cato Institute's assessment?OK
I think I found a right wing group that can identify and explain how different and actual policies are destroying the American family.
A snippet from a magazine using the site as reference:
"For the next few decades, means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families penalized marriage. A mother generally received far more money from welfare if she was single rather than married. Once she took a husband, her benefits were instantly reduced by roughly 10 to 20 percent. As a Cato Institute study noted, welfare programs for the poor incentivize the very behaviors that are most likely to perpetuate poverty. Another Cato report observed:
“Of course women do not get pregnant just to get welfare benefits.... But, by removing the economic consequences of out-of-wedlock birth, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid such pregnancies. A teenager looking around at her friends and neighbors is liable to see several who have given birth out-of- wedlock. When she sees that they have suffered few visible consequences ... she is less inclined to modify her own behavior to prevent pregnancy.... Current welfare policies seem to be designed with an appalling lack of concern for their impact on out-of-wedlock births. Indeed, Medicaid programs in 11 states actually provide infertility treatments to single women on welfare.”
The marriage penalties that are embedded in welfare programs can be particularly severe if a woman on public assistance weds a man who is employed in a low-paying job. As a FamilyScholars.org report puts it: “When a couple's income nears the limits prescribed by Medicaid, a few extra dollars in income cause thousands of dollars in benefits to be lost. What all of this means is that the two most important routes out of poverty—marriage and work—are heavily taxed under the current U.S. sinstituteFrom Front-page magazine
The group referenced is the Cato institute
OK, thanks for being patient with, RWs. I will go to the Cato Institute and other rw think tanks to get a fuller answer and solutions to what is needed to stop the destruction.
OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.
First, I don;t see any evidence this actually happens. Second, you really want to starve a family a couple of hundreds of dollars a month to teach them a lesson?
No, we want people to not have children they can't afford to/aren't willing to support.
According to the 1965 Moynihan Report, the rate of out of wedlock black children was 23.6 percent, not 7 percent.
Nearly One-Quarter of Negro Births are now Illegitimate. Both white and Negro illegitimacy rates have been increasing, although from dramatically different bases. The white rate was 2 percent in 1940; it was 3.07 percent in 1963. In that period, the Negro rate went from 16.8 percent to 23.6 percent.
That wasn't even close to what I said. Liberal policies don't work, period. If a woman can go on public assistance, ebt cards, housing, etc. she doesn't really need a guy around, especially if she can nail him with child support, which he should be paying anyway.It's easy. When a woman can marry Uncle Sam she doesn't need a guy hanging around.OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
In other words, liberal policies would work better if the government gave the assistance to the father? Because the whole point of the father is to be used by the woman and child?
I hate to say it but your argument tend to suggest there really is no benefit for a man to start a family.
The unmarried birth rate for blacks has dropped, while the unmarried birth rate for whites has been rising.
Yeah, sure that would work. A guy knocks up a chick and get a fat government check for his troubles.That wasn't even close to what I said. Liberal policies don't work, period. If a woman can go on public assistance, ebt cards, housing, etc. she doesn't really need a guy around, especially if she can nail him with child support, which he should be paying anyway.It's easy. When a woman can marry Uncle Sam she doesn't need a guy hanging around.OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
In other words, liberal policies would work better if the government gave the assistance to the father? Because the whole point of the father is to be used by the woman and child?
I hate to say it but your argument tend to suggest there really is no benefit for a man to start a family.
I read what you posted and what you have implications!
You suggested that if the woman can get the financial assistance without the man, then there is no reason to keep the man around.
That imply a solution, give the child and assistance to the man. No, you did not say this, but if this was done, would not the woman stay to raise the child? Would this also assure that the man can keep his role as the bread winner?
By the way, if the man is able to pay child support, then why exactly did the woman get rid of him? Are you suggesting the man is not making enough so the woman uses public assistance to maximize the amount she receive?
The list is endless...
- Liberalism promotes homosexuality (that destroys families)
Lol wtf?
Was your family destroyed by homosexuality perhaps? Maybe some liberal told you about how gays ought to be able to marry, so the forbiden temptation became too great for you to stick around?
Society was.
Please..Like we never caught on to your grand plan
Right from alinsky 1971 play book.
Weird, I thought a lot of guys just like sex.That wasn't even close to what I said. Liberal policies don't work, period. If a woman can go on public assistance, ebt cards, housing, etc. she doesn't really need a guy around, especially if she can nail him with child support, which he should be paying anyway.It's easy. When a woman can marry Uncle Sam she doesn't need a guy hanging around.OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
In other words, liberal policies would work better if the government gave the assistance to the father? Because the whole point of the father is to be used by the woman and child?
I hate to say it but your argument tend to suggest there really is no benefit for a man to start a family.
It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?
Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.[Society has now been "destroyed" because I get to file joint taxes? What do you take for your hyperbole syndrome?
A tremendous illustration of what simpletons the liberal minions are. He actually thinks family = gay marriage. Two completely and totally separate concepts.Gay people getting married did not break up your, or anyone else's marriage.
You do stupid like nobody else antontoo. If I were a liberal, I would cringe every time you posted. Sadly though, most of them are too stupid to realize how embarrassing your posts are to the ideology.
I knew of one couple that the female got all assistance for her and their 2 kids. as far as social services went, they didn't know he was in the picture. So he worked and made an income, they pretended he wasn't involved and she collected assistance. They were doing rather well.OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.
First, I don;t see any evidence this actually happens. Second, you really want to starve a family a couple of hundreds of dollars a month to teach them a lesson?
Hey dumb-shit....two women cannot have children. Two men cannot have children. It is impossible for homosexuals to reproduce. If they can't reproduce - they can't have a family. The inability to continue families destroys families.The list is endless...
- Liberalism promotes homosexuality (that destroys families)
Lol wtf?
Was your family destroyed by homosexuality perhaps? Maybe some liberal told you about how gays ought to be able to marry, so the forbidden temptation became too great for you to pass up?
God Almighty the things that have to be explained to liberals. Now wonder they need government to survive. How do these people even tie their shoelaces in the morning?
Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?
Thank your for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about religion. It was always about receiving the EXACT SAME government cash and prizes heterosexuals get. Same probate tax breaks, same Social Security survivor benefits, etc.Well thank you for the rare moment of honesty. Gay marriage was never about marriage. It was always about what perks and benefits the homosexual community could get from the government. The irony is that in most cases, you actually get penalized for filing joint taxes. My wife and I have had to file separately 5 out of the past 6 years.[Society has now been "destroyed" because I get to file joint taxes? What do you take for your hyperbole syndrome?
I knew of one couple that the female got all assistance for her and their 2 kids. as far as social services went, they didn't know he was in the picture. So he worked and made an income, they pretended he wasn't involved and she collected assistance. They were doing rather well.OK. I need some one to explain exactly how liberal policies destroyed families.
I heard a claim that public assistance chase the male parent out of the home--how exactly?
I really need some clarity on this claim. Is there some special rule to receiving that penalizes families with both parents? Is there some other argument?
Serious replies, please
Families might stay together if they are economically dependent on the male bread winner since the female is left to raising the kids the male is left to bring in the money. The traditional family structure really doesn't exist anymore but if you think of the family unit as that then welfare may end that economic dependence on the male. She then leaves when she realizes that their is another option than staying with him.
First, I don;t see any evidence this actually happens. Second, you really want to starve a family a couple of hundreds of dollars a month to teach them a lesson?
I turned them in. They were investigated, she lost the assistance and they ended up getting married.
Even couples who genuinely love each other go through rough times. Being financially dependent on each other caused them to stay together through those rough patches - a decision that they would often later be thankful for.It's weird...I thought people stayed together because they love each other not because the man makes money. Guess I'm old fashioned?
Liberals keep making it easier and easier for married people to separate. That's not a good thing.
Liberals are NOT the brightest. Problem is, they think they're the smartest people in the room and they're the first to tell you so.Yeah, sure that would work. A guy knocks up a chick and get a fat government check for his troubles.
