I've read this theory that dems deliberately used research on what women get from men in order to campaign on reolacing men with the goverment and corporate, wondering if you haapen to have seen any sources on that.
It is and isn't. It depends on where you live and how well-paying the job is, and also what sort of lifestyle you want. You can pull off a middle class lifestyle in areas where the cost of living is low, but if it starts to creep up into the high territory...well....good luck.
“It must feel a little odd for you to being here, giving testimony about your personal experiences, and be told, essentially, that the problem is really Biden, gasoline, and inflation,” Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat, said, addressing the witnesses. “Apparently, what you had to say didn’t break through, or there’s a principle going on here that says government mandates are horrific, we should avoid these at all costs.”
Democrats need to come with a little warning label: (F) for faggot feminist.
"Free shit" isn't a bad idea, in terms of incentivizing actions. If done properly, the reward is directly related to the incentivized action, meaning fewer people will take advantage of it.
In example, in Singapore a few years back, birth rates were rather low, and so the government put up a reward: If you have a child, you will be given a crib filled with diapers. Didn't look like a bad crib by the pictures of it, either, but those can be surprisingly expensive, so it's a load off the mind of people attempting.
No one will purposefully have a kid just to get some diapers and a crib, but people on the fence but sincere in their desire might choose to, knowing a time window of a clear benefit exists. Or, it could put it into their mind as a possibility, when that possibility didn't exist prior: marketing. It makes a lot more sense than "just fuck up the tax code some more" or "throw money at them".
Tax breaks or nothing because it's not the government paying for anything it's us paying for it and the government can't be trusted not to propagandize or fuck your kids.
So you suggest conceding on paid family leave (because the business pays) and pushing hard against giving them any money directly from the government, because it will make inflation worse.
I don't like to compromise with them, but I will admit that it's more likely to succeed than just flipping them off and calling them leeches.
The government has purposefully replaced men with itself in order to gain access to children to groom.
I've read this theory that dems deliberately used research on what women get from men in order to campaign on reolacing men with the goverment and corporate, wondering if you haapen to have seen any sources on that.
It will never be viable. We have machines that do chores, if they're not contributing money, they're not providing value.
We've all seen how much of a disaster letting women raise children has been.
No, we’ve seen what a disaster letting the state raise children has been.
It is and isn't. It depends on where you live and how well-paying the job is, and also what sort of lifestyle you want. You can pull off a middle class lifestyle in areas where the cost of living is low, but if it starts to creep up into the high territory...well....good luck.
Democrats need to come with a little warning label: (F) for faggot feminist.
Or just "WARNING: Does not understand even basic economics."
(F)emocrats.
"Free shit" isn't a bad idea, in terms of incentivizing actions. If done properly, the reward is directly related to the incentivized action, meaning fewer people will take advantage of it.
In example, in Singapore a few years back, birth rates were rather low, and so the government put up a reward: If you have a child, you will be given a crib filled with diapers. Didn't look like a bad crib by the pictures of it, either, but those can be surprisingly expensive, so it's a load off the mind of people attempting.
No one will purposefully have a kid just to get some diapers and a crib, but people on the fence but sincere in their desire might choose to, knowing a time window of a clear benefit exists. Or, it could put it into their mind as a possibility, when that possibility didn't exist prior: marketing. It makes a lot more sense than "just fuck up the tax code some more" or "throw money at them".
This is where ration books actually worked. Until theyre used as currency.
The NSDAP had a program for this. Newlyweds were given a low interest loan and a quarter of it was forgiven for every child.
And that's why I hate stormcucks.
Why? Hungary has a similar program today.
Because I shouldn't have to pay for some overly-privileged whiny bleeder to play housewife.
I don't want to be married, and I don't want to subsidize those who make that poor decision.
So you're mad that healthy families are being encouraged... because you're an incel?
Not sure what's healthy about marriage, it's basically slavery without the possibility of one day acquiring freedom.
I mean in theory I wouldn't mind the goverment paying for expenses to raise kids, with a mother and father who wanted to have kids.
But you know the first thing women are going to run to do is get pregnant and try to collect the money for themselves, with no father around.
Tax breaks or nothing because it's not the government paying for anything it's us paying for it and the government can't be trusted not to propagandize or fuck your kids.
Which is the crime here.
Kinda weird. They dont want white babies... but it seems they mostly molest white boys and girls.
Yet another wealth transfer from us to our masters.
u/WW1Wilson
You should give your input on this!
So you suggest conceding on paid family leave (because the business pays) and pushing hard against giving them any money directly from the government, because it will make inflation worse.
I don't like to compromise with them, but I will admit that it's more likely to succeed than just flipping them off and calling them leeches.