Jump to content

2016 Democratic Thread


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 7, 2016 -> 10:46 AM)
Marriage as a social construct makes sense though, whatever name you decide to give that construct. It allows the government to tax households rather than individuals. It sets up an easy mechanism for group health insurance. It makes the process by which property transfers from a decedent's estate much simpler. It makes a simple mechanism for pooling and discharging debt. Not to mention the fact that the marriage industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which is good for the economy.

 

So, let me ask you this - do you have an issue with the government being involved in co-habitation? Do you have an issue with people who are not religious making civil commitments to one another? If the answer to both those questions is "no," then your issue is exclusively with the name that the state attaches to that contract.

I have an issue with any special benefits applied to committed one to one, one to many, many to many relationships that those on their own cannot have as well. Its favoritism and it's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 08:20 AM)
http://people.com/politics/clinton-advisor...t-leaked-email/

 

Chelsea for President 2024 campaign not off to a roaring start.

 

Ha, I didn't like Chelsea when she had the job at NBC news for no reason. But the leaked emails has improved her image to me. Her Haiti email was brilliant and her internal push was I remove Doug band! I'd vote for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:20 AM)
They know he's going to lose so he's going to go down "swinging". The GOP then gets to distance themselves from him as he goes down in flames

 

It also helps him set up the "the system is rigged, I would have won if..." narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:27 AM)
Why I support Hillary Clinton:

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...hild-tax-credit

 

I wanted family and childcare to be the primary focus but I'd rather that be second place to this.

 

That's difficult for me to understand without my morning coffee. Is that system "phasing out" people making over 70k/110k?

 

edit: and if you're lowering the credit to people who pay no income tax, aren't you effectively just paying people $1,000 per kid that they have?

Edited by JenksIsMyHero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 11, 2016 -> 09:32 AM)
That's difficult for me to understand without my morning coffee. Is that system "phasing out" people making over 70k/110k?

 

edit: and if you're lowering the credit to people who pay no income tax, aren't you effectively just paying people $1,000 per kid that they have?

 

It helps offset the costs of raising a child, but in no way does $1k make it 'profitable' to have a kid.

Edited by StrangeSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would help bring back a program that was removed in 90s. I understand if you disagree, but the generational effects of deep poverty are undeniable. This gives those kids more of a chance to move up. The deep poverty never gets discussed because these are those without jobs, but that in many cases due to mental health and other problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...