Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill ramps up the Left's assault on marriage

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 weeks ago  •  90 comments

By:   MSN

Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill ramps up the Left's assault on marriage
The institution of the family has never been weaker. And by further punishing marriage, President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion spending agenda will only weaken it further.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The institution of the family has never been weaker. And by further punishing marriage, President Joe Biden's $3.5 trillion spending agenda will only weaken it further.

© Provided by Washington Examiner

Marriage used to be the foundational building block of society. In 1960, 75% of all households included a married couple and 44% included a married couple with children. Today, just 49% of all households include a married couple and just 19% contain a married couple with children.

Many Democrats treat marriage as a tool of patriarchal oppression, but decades of research show that it is highly beneficial not only for children but also adults.

Even after controlling for race and income, children born to married parents reach adulthood healthy, wealthy, and gainfully employed at higher rates than those born to unmarried parents. Married adults are themselves healthier, wealthier, and happier than their unmarried counterparts. No institution has a better track record than marriage of fostering successful life outcomes.

For 60 years, the Left has responded to this, as night follows day, by trying to supplant families with social engineering programs. Virtually every means-tested program — Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public housing, and Obamacare, to name just a few — punish people by stanching the flow of benefits to those who get married.

By expanding these programs, Biden's $3.5 trillion spending agenda makes these marriage penalties worse. According to a new paper by the Niskanen Center, Biden's Earned Income Tax Credit expansion would by itself cause couples to lose $2,500 per year if they tie the knot.

Some couples would suffer more than others. Couples without children in which one partner makes significantly more than the other would suffer the smallest penalties. Couples in which a single mother earns about the same as her partner would suffer the most.

Biden's Medicaid and Affordable Care Act expansions also punish marriage. Working families know these marriage penalties exist and don't think they are fair. A black working mother in Atlanta recently told a focus group about another mother who had chosen not to get married so she could keep her federal benefits: "I just feel like they should do something when it comes to married couples, because it's sad that she has to choose between marrying a man she loves or losing the benefits that she has. That shouldn't be a choice that any working American or any American should have to make."

No one should have to choose between social benefits and marriage. But that is exactly the choice the Left has been forcing on generations of people. Biden now intends to make the problem worse.

Tags:Editorials, Marriage, Joe Biden, government spending, Family

Original Author:Washington Examiner

Original Location:Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill ramps up the Left's assault on marriage


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Now, why would Democrats promote single-parent families when the facts are clear that people, especially children, do better when two parents are married and living together?

Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women | Center for Equal Opportunity (ceousa.org)

It seems as though Democratic policies are specifically encouraging for women to have children out of wedlock even though they know it harms a good portion of their constituency specifically.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @1    2 weeks ago
Now, why would Democrats promote single-parent families when the facts are clear that people, especially children, do better when two parents are married and living together?

You know democrats aren't that big on facts.  Well, that is, unless they make them up.  And their constituency?  They could care less about them.  That's been apparent for decades.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one week ago

Stupid lefties in Texas are forcing unmarried women to have unwanted babies. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2  Split Personality    2 weeks ago
Now, why would Democrats promote single-parent families when the facts are clear that people, especially children, do better when two parents are married and living together?

Nucking Futz, Democrats do not support any such thing.  They may support safety nets for those who find themselves in that situation.

Oeousa.org

An opinion website from 2020 that doesn't believe discrimination exists in the USA quoting a 2018 report 

which quotes "final' opinions from a 1998 study which concludes that as many as 1 in 3 births start out or end up

as single parent families which can be blamed on the Democrats?

How fucked up is that logic?

If you truly believed that, maybe you should start supporting abortion to prevent that.

It seems as though Democratic policies are specifically encouraging 

"It seems" is a cute way of not owning your own outrageous shit.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  JBB  replied to  Split Personality @2    2 weeks ago

You might note nobody put their name on this shit.

As far as we can tell the author is Vladimir Putin...

An enemy bent on subverting progress in America.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  JBB @2.1    2 weeks ago

Its from the Washington Examiner.

No author.

Not an editorial.

just another piece of journalistic crap "tagged" as editorial.

Journalistic cowardice,

jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
Its from the Washington Examiner. No author.

So which parts in the article do you object to?

The part where it says "Even after controlling for race and income, children born to married parents reach adulthood healthy, wealthy, and gainfully employed at higher rates than those born to unmarried parents. Married adults are themselves healthier, wealthier, and happier than their unmarried counterparts. No institution has a better track record than marriage of fostering successful life outcomes."

or where it says "

By expanding these programs, Biden's $3.5 trillion spending agenda makes these marriage penalties worse. According to a new paper by the Niskanen Center, Biden's Earned Income Tax Credit expansion would by itself cause couples to lose $2,500 per year if they tie the knot.

Some couples would suffer more than others. Couples without children in which one partner makes significantly more than the other would suffer the smallest penalties. Couples in which a single mother earns about the same as her partner would suffer the most."?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2    2 weeks ago
Nucking Futz, Democrats do not support any such thing.  They may support safety nets for those who find themselves in that situation.

Okay. Their policies do.

as single parent families which can be blamed on the Democrats? How fucked up is that logic?

Not nearly as fucked up as the logic involved in thinking that is what the article or I stated. Democratic policies, whether intentional or not, are at least partly responsible no matter how you look at it.

If you truly believed that, maybe you should start supporting abortion to prevent that.

FFS, I fully expect people on here to know by now that I am not anti-abortion, but here it is so there can be no future doubt about my stance on abortion:

I BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE ALL THE ABORTIONS SHE WANTS AND CAN AFFORD TO HAVE.

If my position is at all unclear on this now, please let me know. I'll see if I can state it any plainer.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
2.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    2 weeks ago

Then I will amend my statement to state sponsored and supported abortion

to prevent single parent households.

Do what's best for the country ( in some peoples opinions ) and drop the Hyde Amendment.

Hand those abortion pills out like candy, that will fuck with the Dem's evil plots big time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
Then I will amend my statement to state sponsored and supported abortion

I would prefer you get the facts straight prior to accusing me of taking stances I don't.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2    2 weeks ago
Democratic policies, whether intentional or not, are at least partly responsible no matter how you look at it

Democrats have never understood unintentional consequences.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
3  Dulay    2 weeks ago
For 60 years, the Left has responded to this, as night follows day, by trying to supplant families with social engineering programs. Virtually every means-tested program — Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public housing, and Obamacare, to name just a few — punish people by stanching the flow of benefits to those who get married.

What an ignorantly obtuse statement. 

As the author states, those programs are 'means tested', yet contrary to the authors claim, they are NOT 'marriage tested'. 

Oh and BTFW, the Right has supported and even demanded that 'means testing' be part of legislation. So the it's bullshit to blame the Left. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1  Ender  replied to  Dulay @3    2 weeks ago

Sounds like faux outrage. Then they can gin up support to hurt the programs.

Notice they they can all complain about it yet not offer any way to help the programs.

They want to demonize and dismantle.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    2 weeks ago
 

Biden's $3.5 Trillion Spending Bill Ramps Up The Left's Assault On Marriage

What assault on marriage?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 weeks ago

The answer lies in the article above. Did you even read it? Here let me help. Enjoy.

"For 60 years, the Left has responded to this, as night follows day, by trying to supplant families with social engineering programs. Virtually every means-tested program — Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public housing, and Obamacare, to name just a few — punish people by stanching the flow of benefits to those who get married.

By expanding these programs, Biden's $3.5 trillion spending agenda makes these marriage penalties worse. According to a new paper by the Niskanen Center, Biden's Earned Income Tax Credit expansion would by itself cause couples to lose $2,500 per year if they tie the knot.

Some couples would suffer more than others. Couples without children in which one partner makes significantly more than the other would suffer the smallest penalties. Couples in which a single mother earns about the same as her partner would suffer the most.

Biden's Medicaid and Affordable Care Act expansions also punish marriage. Working families know these marriage penalties exist and don't think they are fair. A black working mother in Atlanta recently told a focus group about another mother who had chosen not to get married so she could keep her federal benefits: "I just feel like they should do something when it comes to married couples, because it's sad that she has to choose between marrying a man she loves or losing the benefits that she has. That shouldn't be a choice that any working American or any American should have to make."
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1    2 weeks ago

Please post a link to this 'marriage penalty' that you insist exists Jim. I'll wait...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

No one has explained how 'the lefts assault on marriage' is happening in the first place much less how it has been 'ramped up'.    

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

They have to ignore the FACT that there has ALWAYS been a difference between single and married in the EITC benefits since those benefits were passed by Congress. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

It won't be provided because it doesn't exist.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

It's right up above your fucking comment. Read.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

It's right above her comment where I posted it for your edification. Perhaps if you don't read the article, the helpful comments provided you constantly would ease your mind.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

We know this 'marriage penalty' doesn't exist.  One person's opinion does not make it a 'marriage penalty'.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.8  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

 

For your further edification..............and your friend above too............

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Still no proof.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
4.1.10  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

I find it rather sad that there are some on this "discussion board" that refuse to read and discuss what is said. They would rather just argue against it. 

About all they can bring to the conversation is "Nah ah".....   

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

Sad is it not?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

Well some posters only post anti-left hit pieces free of truth or facts.  Plus projection, deflection, and denial.  

What's to read and discuss regarding LEFT BAD - 'RIGHT' GOOD.  Despite all proof to the opposite.   

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
4.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

Instead of automatically assume it's an anti-left hit piece why don't you actually read what is presented?  Part of the proposed $3.5T bill that the Democrats are trying to push thru will have a negative financial impact on some married couples, mostly to the couples that can least afford it.  That's really not a left - right thing, it's damaging to married couples.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
Instead of automatically assume it's an anti-left hit piece why don't you actually read what is presented? 

A great suggestion which will be totally ignored.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

It's nonsense.  You're debating something that isn't happening.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
4.1.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.15    2 weeks ago
You're debating something that isn't happening. 

You say things like that a LOT. Denial perhaps? Or maybe projection? Or maybe deflection?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

The article states:

Virtually every means-tested program

The programs, including the EITC is MEANS TESTED Jim. 

The author, whoever the fuck THAT is, can 'relabel' it all they want. Neither you or I needs to accept that label. I don't but you be you Jim. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.13    2 weeks ago
Instead of automatically assume it's an anti-left hit piece why don't you actually read what is presented? 

There is no need to 'assume' anything about the article Snuffy. It states it's bias loud and clear. 

For 60 years, the Left has responded to this, as night follows day, by trying to supplant families with social engineering programs.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 weeks ago
What assault on marriage?

The one described in the article you didn't read.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2    2 weeks ago

The imaginary one's in the article about a bill that hasn't passed yet and may never see even a third of it get through

The House or the Senate.

Sounds like something one not need to invest much energy into...lots of editing left to do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
The imaginary one's in the article about a bill that hasn't passed yet and may never see even a third of it get through

The House or the Senate.

Sounds like something one not need to invest much energy into...lots of editing left to do.

Some of us read the article and know that it didn't JUST talk about the Democratic Party's little wish list in their $3.5 trillion waste. Some of us look at decades-old policies by Democrats.

Some of us recognize facts.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
4.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.2    2 weeks ago
Some of us recognize facts.

Some of us recognize speech patterns and biases in the sources one chooses to seed.

Not everything you agree with on the internet is factual.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.3    2 weeks ago
Some of us recognize speech patterns and biases in the sources one chooses to seed.

Then point out specifically what you claim is untrue instead of making blanket declarations.

You claimed "imaginary" things.

List them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

So there is no assault on marriage by the 'leftists' and there never has been.  Got it.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5    2 weeks ago

There is one and they’ve been at it since the mid 1960’s with their policies.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Dulay  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.2    one week ago

What policies are those Xx? Cite one. 

It may behoove you to review the movements to make marriage MORE inclusive for all adults and recognize the liberal ideology of those that supported those movements. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

No assault on marriage, ever, by the 'leftists'.  Got it.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
6.2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    2 weeks ago

“Reality tells many of us differently.”

As it “tells many of us differently”, do tell, aside from a religious rite, how ‘marriage’ is and end all and be all. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
As it “tells many of us differently”, do tell, aside from a religious rite, how ‘marriage’ is and end all and be all. 

Well, let's start by setting things straight, I see no where where anyone has claimed that marriage is the end all and be all. So moving on from that nonsense......

Studies have shown the benefits of marriage for adults and children alike. To deny those facts is to deny reality. Overall, children do better in a two-parent home. They are far less likely to end up in prison and far more likely to go to college.

Gee, sounds like something all should be supporting instead of complaining about.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7  Veronica    2 weeks ago
Couples in which a single mother earns about the same as her partner would suffer the most.

They aren't married so why does it bother you since this "article" claims MARRIED people are being punished - OBVIOUSLY that is wrong.

AND I love how some on the right get to define not only marriage but family as well.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7    2 weeks ago
They aren't married so why does it bother you since this "article" claims MARRIED people are being punished - OBVIOUSLY that is wrong.

Uh, the article describes the penalties IF they get married.

SMH

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.1  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    2 weeks ago

UHHHHHHH   It isn't really an article is it?  It is just op/ed slop you dug up to dig at Biden.  Admit it.  

I have been to the Niskanen Center site and looked through their archives and cannot find the support for this article - how about you provide it so people can actually see that you aren't pulling shit out of your ass.

There is this one - that is sponsored by Mitt Romney (not Biden).

There is this one: " The Child Tax Credit provides tax relief and income support to families in the form of an advanced tax refund".  It lists LOTS of benefits.  

So where is this paper your "article" is based on - come on link it.

And who the FUCK are you to decide on what is a family - what about divorced parents - should they be left out?  No longer "married" - so I guess we should PUNISH them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
And who the FUCK are you to decide on what is a family - what about divorced parents - should they be left out?  No longer "married" - so I guess we should PUNISH them.

I can decide what is a family for myself, same as you. I didn't decide for anyone else, so why ask me that inane question?

I also didn't say one fucking word about punishing single parents, so get off that shit.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.3  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1    2 weeks ago

And I didn't hear you complain when Trump's bullshit tax policy raised taxes on my hubby & me because we are MARRIED and file jointly.  Same Income - $2000 more in taxes.

But you do not want single parent families to get any breaks.  

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.4  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Because you want the government to favor one person's definition of a family over what is reality out there. SINGLE parent families are reality - deal with it.  You want married couples with children to get all the breaks...

You do not want them to catch any breaks so therefore PUNISHING single parent homes - get off you own shit.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.5  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Abd how about addressing the "paper" this "article" is based on DOES NOT EXIST?????

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.3    2 weeks ago
And I didn't hear you complain when Trump's bullshit tax policy raised taxes on my hubby & me because we are MARRIED and file jointly.  Same Income - $2000 more in taxes.

Well, thank God you are now paying your fair share!

But you do not want single parent families to get any breaks.

What a stunning example of making shit up and attributing it to me.

Debating my actual words would be more productive (and harder, of course).

Try THAT sometime.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.8  Veronica  replied to  GregTx @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

Thank you.  Now I shall read.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.9  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.6    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.10  Veronica  replied to  GregTx @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

I actually agree they should look at Romney's plan more closely and that seems to me to be a better solution.  Thanks for the link.  I could not find it on their page.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.11  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.5    2 weeks ago
Abd how about addressing the "paper" this "article" is based on DOES NOT EXIST?????

Just because you have failed to find it has absolutely NOTHING to do with its existence.

BTW, Greg must have just done an AMAZINGLY fast job of inventing a whole article since you know it doesn't exist.

What did Reagan say?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.12  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.9    2 weeks ago
You have no clue.  But you are amusing.

Debate my words, not shit you make up and attribute to me.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.13  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.12    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif   I repeat~ you have no clue, but you are amusing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.14  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.13    2 weeks ago

I repeat, stop making shit up and attempting to debate your invention like I stated it.

It is a dishonest tactic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.13    2 weeks ago
you have no clue

So you think I have no clue, but then I am not the one who claimed something didn't exist when it quite clearly does.

Interesting take on things there!

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.16  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.14    2 weeks ago
And I didn't hear you complain when Trump's bullshit tax policy raised taxes on my hubby & me because we are MARRIED and file jointly.  Same Income - $2000 more in taxes.
Well, thank God you are now paying your fair share!

Your words - that is what I replied to - so not making shit up.... You are amusing & very predictable.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.17  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.15    2 weeks ago

LOOK at the post I was responding to.  YOU clearly said something amusing & I responded to it - stop making shit up & using red letters doesn't make you any more right.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.18  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.16    2 weeks ago
Your words - that is what I replied to

YES, MY words.

And I am very glad you re paying your fair share, albeit seemingly grudgingly.

And?

BTFW----here is the shit you MADE UP, since apparently you wish to make it seem as if I responded to something ELSE:

But you do not want single parent families to get any breaks.

I never wrote that crap, and never have even hinted at any such thing. You made it UP and then attempted to debate it. Fuck that crap, I won't let you get away with it any longer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.19  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.17    2 weeks ago
using red letters doesn't make you any more right.

No, it doesn't make me more right, just right.

What in my post pointing out you saying a thing doesn't exist when it clearly does is false?

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.1.20  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.18    2 weeks ago
YES, MY words.

So I guess I am not putting shit in your mouth - an apology would be nice.

And I am very glad you re paying your fair share, albeit seemingly grudgingly.

So speaks the person who bitches and moans over every tax increase instituted by a Democrat.  AND also a person that lives in a taker state.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.21  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.20    2 weeks ago
So I guess I am not putting shit in your mouth - an apology would be nice.

I JUST pointed out the part that was invented by you. How could anyone POSSIBLY miss that??????

FFS, I even QUOTED the EXACT thing I responded to again for your edification.

Just so there would be no confusion or rearranging of words.

My mistake, maybe I should highlight every point so you will stop overlooking them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.22  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.1.20    2 weeks ago
an apology would be nice.

People in hell want ice water, too.

How about an apology for your false claim about no article existing?

So speaks the person who bitches and moans over every tax increase instituted by a Democrat.  AND also a person that lives in a taker state.

I don't want to pay more in taxes no matter WHO institutes them. Where I live doesn't have a fucking thing to do with it, but kudos for the underhanded slight!!!!

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.2  Split Personality  replied to  Veronica @7    2 weeks ago

Too funny that anyone thinks that a majority of people consider tax brackets and income tax ramifications before tying the knot

whether the pregnancy or the wedding was voluntary.

Dems, always bad, Reps always purer than fresh fallen snow, especially where marriage vows are concerned ...  // SS

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @7.2    2 weeks ago
Too funny that anyone thinks that a majority of people consider tax brackets and income tax ramifications before tying the knot

Where do you see anyone saying that here?

But to pretend it never enters anyone's minds is silly as hell.

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.2.2  Veronica  replied to  Split Personality @7.2    2 weeks ago

Yea & the "paper" this "article" is based on does not exist.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
PhD Participates
7.2.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Split Personality @7.2    2 weeks ago

“Reps always purer than fresh fallen snow, especially where marriage vows are concerned ...”

The ‘marriage’ debate is but a cover. In my small family, my father and sister divorced three times each, my mother and brother only twice. Four folks, 10 divorces, six kids estranged…and all card carrying GOP acolytes.

Anecdotal to be sure, but an example that marriage is not an end all cure to our societal woes. There are a lot of unhealthy behaviors out there that lead to many fractured individuals…all the more reason to focus on mental health before religious rites…but just my opinion.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.4  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.2.2    2 weeks ago
Yea & the "paper" this "article" is based on does not exist.

really?

Then why thank anyone for looking up the link you couldn't seem to find?

You thanking him for imaginary crap now?

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
7.2.5  Veronica  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.4    2 weeks ago

Funny it took someone else to find it - I know I know you don't like to actually have to look for anything to back up your hatred.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.2.6  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @7.2.5    2 weeks ago
Funny it took someone else to find it - I know I know you don't like to actually have to look for anything to back up your hatred.

Gee, you probably have access to the very same internet that Greg and I do.

Funny some of us look and find while others look and claim nonexistence for the article.

 
 
 
Split Personality
PhD Principal
7.2.7  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.1    2 weeks ago
But to pretend it never enters anyone's minds is silly as hell.

Now who is putting words in someone else's mouth?

I dare say that the majority of people get married because they love or like each other so much

mentally, sexually, psychically, whatever that they don't put much weight in the taxable issues.

Try telling your fiance that you can only marry him/her in Montana for tax reasons.

i don't think that conversation will end well.

Tax matters are no more on their mind than when they buy or lease a car

and pay whatever property taxes or sales taxes the state demands. 

It's silly to pretend otherwise.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago
"Virtually every means-tested program — Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, public housing, and Obamacare, to name just a few — punish people by stanching the flow of benefits to those who get married." "Biden's Earned Income Tax Credit expansion would by itself cause couples to lose $2,500 per year if they tie the knot."

This is basically just conservative whiners crying "Tax dollars that are spent to help the disabled are staunching the flow of benefits to the abled! Able bodied Americans lose $10,000 in annual benefits simply by not getting disabled, how is this fair? All these benefits for the disabled, orphans, widows, single parents, hundreds of millions in tax dollars spent on them is slapping the second or third plate of food right out of the hands of straight white married Christian conservatives hands!"...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8    2 weeks ago
This is basically just conservative whiners crying "Tax dollars that are spent to help the disabled are staunching the flow of benefits to the abled!

Not even in the same universe as to what is actually being discussed here.

SMH

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1    2 weeks ago
Not even in the same universe as to what is actually being discussed here.

How so? Is it not claiming that by giving single parents an additional tax credit of $2,500 because it's often financially more difficult to raise a child as a single parent is effectively taking that $2,500 tax credit away from married couples? Do you really believe that this $2,500 tax credit is going to disincentive-ize a couple from getting married? This is the same moronic conservative "pull yourself up by your boot-straps" mentality towards those in need, the belief that by cutting off aid for those in need it will force them to stand up on their own two feet, force them to get "traditionally" married like conservative Christians expect so they can stop spending tax dollars on "sinners".

When you believe a benefit being given to another American due to some difficult circumstances, whether it be disabled, orphaned, widowed or finding themselves raising a child as a single parent, is somehow depriving those without difficult circumstances of such impressive benefits then by all means, disable yourself, get divorced and try raising your kids alone or give your children up for adoption so they can enjoy those amazing tax benefits conservatives are whining about not receiving.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.2  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
How so?

You went off on some tangent about people who are disabled.

You have apparently missed the entire point of the article anyways, so I will leave it to you.

Not anything that was being discussed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

"When you believe a benefit being given to another American due to some difficult circumstances, whether it be disabled, orphaned, widowed or finding themselves raising a child as a single parent, is somehow depriving those without difficult circumstances of such impressive benefits then by all means, disable yourself, get divorced and try raising your kids alone or give your children up for adoption so they can enjoy those amazing tax benefits conservatives are whining about not receiving."

LOL!  They're always whining about something aren't they?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
8.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
You have apparently missed the entire point of the article anyways

I understood the article perfectly well. The complaint from whiny conservatives is that Biden's EITC expansion is giving an additional $2,500 tax credit to single parents because they are in a difficult circumstance, very much like tax dollars that go to help others in difficult circumstances like the disabled.

The seed first makes the claim that married couples are "healthier, wealthier, and happier than their unmarried counterparts" which basically confirms that single parents are often in difficult circumstances and do face hardships and challenges that their married counterparts do not. Then it goes on to whine and complain about tax benefits for those in difficult circumstances as if they believe that money should be going to those without such hardships and challenges like being a single parent.

"No one should have to choose between social benefits and marriage."

If getting married is so beneficial why would anyone really trade that for the $2,500 tax credit or health insurance benefits? Isn't the "health, wealth & happiness" marriage apparently provides a benefit that single parents are being denied?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.4    2 weeks ago
I understood the article perfectly well. The complaint from whiny conservatives is that Biden's EITC expansion is giving an additional $2,500 tax credit to single parents because they are in a difficult circumstance, very much like tax dollars that go to help others in difficult circumstances like the disabled.

Further proof you don't get it.

The complaint is that single people are receiving more in benefits than married people. Not the fact that they receive any benefits at all.

Should we not have the same tax policies for all?

Many married people are struggling, too, but that doesn't seem to matter to some folks.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

So, now that it has been firmly established that the article is indeed real, does anyone have anything to actually say about the article?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

Yes!  It’s a great article that was well researched and makes points that are obviously correct to an objective, rational mind.  

 
 
 
Moose Knuckle
Freshman Participates
10  Moose Knuckle    2 weeks ago

As a rich person I am excited that most of the new entitlements will be available to privileged people such as myself, I was a bit shocked they didn't exclude me based on income. As for the tax increases? They are leaving so many loopholes for wealthy it won't change a thing.

This is what I love about Nancy, she is ass raping the middle class as usual. God bless progress!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  Moose Knuckle @10    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

GregTx
XXJefferson51
Gordy327
Snuffy
Paula Bartholomew
JohnRussell


45 visitors