Quote:

---

Because, unlike government debt, it is secured by tangible assets, desirable assets that others are beating a path to our door to buy, in any case, our Gold mines continue to pump out value, our iron and coal are sold on the world stage, and we have untapped wealth, our education system is world class and we educate many overseas students. What this says is it is our wolrd view that will eventually prevail

---

In what way is the U.S. different? We export petroleum products and coal. Our universities are filled with foreign students. We have enough natural gas in the ground to last over a hundred years. Both countries have the same basic problem, a large liberal class that lives in a fantasy world and threatens to take over. We spend huge sums of money on dead-end green energy ideas. We pay people to sit at home when jobs are abundant and encourage irresponsible lifestyles that are destructive to the family unit. Those are the things that will bring us down.

The main difference between Australia and the US economies is the Aussies want the rich to pay a fair share and that CAN fund tax breaks for middle and lower classes that actually will circulate funds through the whole economy, boosting overall profits. Our tax cuts sucks trillions from circulation, adds to the debt, which boosts rich guys, but does little for average Americans, except increase debts amid prices rising in needed commodities.

This dynamic only sets up to destroy any wage gains seen in a tight labor market.

Quote:

---

The main difference between Australia and the US economies is the Aussies want the rich to pay a fair share and that CAN fund tax breaks for middle and lower classes that actually will circulate funds through the whole economy, boosting overall profits. Our tax cuts sucks trillions from circulation, adds to the debt, which boosts rich guys, but does little for average Americans, except increase debts amid prices rising in needed commodities.

---

You want the rich to pay a fair share? Are you kidding? The top 5% of taxpayers already pay about 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing. How much fairer a system do you want? Do you really believe that stuff?

In what possible way do you believe that tax cuts suck "trillions from circulation"?

60 corporations paid NO taxes and many filed for a refund and where do you think the debts by the dufus come from? You are lucky it was capped by law, which is exactly why corporate taxes rates were made permanent but ours was NOT. By my logic if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes?

You really want to keep funding rich guy tax cuts with YOUR money? Do you really think tax havens and rich guy deductions trickle down to YOU? Review YOUR link to Australia's economic plan and READ that Australians agree with ME, and not you!

Quote:

---

3. Making multinationals and big business pay their fair share

• $12.9 billion in tax liabilities raised from tax compliance activities since July 2016.
• New funding for the ATO to target tax avoidance by multinationals, big business and high‑wealth individuals

---

Maybe rich guys paying a fair share doesn't wipe out the debt TODAY, but the Australian model certainly does over time and pays for other important government functions and goals and delivers a tax cut for poor and middle class folks and small businesses.

Quote:

---

60 corporations paid NO taxes

---

There are 1.7 million corporations in our country. That means, by your figure, that 1,699,940 paid taxes and 60 did not.

Quote:

---

You are lucky it was capped by law, which is exactly why corporate taxes rates were made permanent but ours was NOT.

---

I have no idea what you are talking about other than to say there is no such thing as a permanent tax rate. It can be changed in any year by a simple legislative act.

Quote:

---

By my logic if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes?

---

OK. If we go by your logic, the top 5% make about 35% of the income, so we would need to drastically lower their taxes. You need to stop drinking the liberal Kool Aid and start thinking for yourself.

Quote:

---

You really want to keep funding rich guy tax cuts with YOUR money?

---

Already pointed out that it is actually the other way around. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so it is the wealthy who fund them.

Quote:

---

Do you really think tax havens and rich guy deductions trickle down to YOU? Review YOUR link to Australia's economic plan and READ that Australians agree with ME, and not you!

---

For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

Quote:

---

For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

---

Spirious argument, Income tax is predicated on the idea that those who earn income should contribute. It is a liberal idea that tax rates should be progressive to discourage accumulation. Your government is indeed self serving, but does not serve the people. What happens in a smaller economy is that ideas are tested and proven. What do we think of you? Beyond comprehension. What a wasted opportunity. Every time a "leftist" government has been in control they have embarked on costly social reform, I think this might also be your experience. The difference here is that it seems to be enacted without stuffing it up pandering to the market because we are more engaged in the idea of consensus politics than you are. So ignore what has been successful somewhere else and remain in ignorance

Quote:

---

So ignore what has been successful somewhere else and remain in ignorance

---

A little humility would be in order. Sometimes I would love to see the U.S. cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to take care of itself. If we had done that during the Cold War the world would look much different and much worse with the Soviet Union still in business. It's easier when you are a small country and take care of no one other than yourself. When people need help, they don't turn to Australia.

So yeah, some of your criticism is warranted, but not your constant disparagement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A little humility would be in order. Sometimes I would love to see the U.S. cut our defense budget in half and tell the rest of the world to take care of itself. If we had done that during the Cold War the world would look much different and much worse with the Soviet Union still in business. It's easier when you are a small country and take care of no one other than yourself. When people need help, they don't turn to Australia.

So yeah, some of your criticism is warranted, but not your constant disparagement.

---

As I said reman in ignorance. Australia has stood beside you in conflicts where you are clearly wrong, where your european allies haven't. Other nations of the world know we are reliable, not fair weather friends. I saw a representation in a recent TV series that I thought accurate. Americans, great people but America something else. I feel the same way, so stop taking it personally

This is an example of what I mean

]https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/pa...50b7dec2fbe057

Instead of removing the weapons and therefore opportunity from the community, you teach children to hide in the certainity that some of them are going to face a murderous attack


[/FONT]

Quote:

---

As I said reman in ignorance.

---

Yes, Great Master.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There are 1.7 million corporations in our country. That means, by your figure, that 1,699,940 paid taxes and 60 did not.
I have no idea what you are talking about other than to say there is no such thing as a permanent tax rate. It can be changed in any year by a simple legislative act.

---

I forget, with you I have to specify exactly as there are many types of corporations. Some are larger than others. I meant THESE.

Quote:

---

OK. If we go by your logic, the top 5% make about 35% of the income, so we would need to drastically lower their taxes. You need to stop drinking the liberal Kool Aid and start thinking for yourself.

---

My logic says that NO taxes were paid on 80 billion bucks. Don't know what flavor Kool-Aid that is but it can't be good.

Quote:

---

Already pointed out that it is actually the other way around. The bottom 50% pay basically nothing, so it is the wealthy who fund them.

---

Payroll taxes ain't taxes? Okay https://www.theguardian.com/business...-the-bottom-90 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States

Quote:

---

For the 79th time, the top 5% pay 2/3 of the income tax. Even with all the deductions, they still pay 2/3 of all federal income tax. And why would I care what some small country thinks of us or worry as to who they might agree with? I like Australia well enough, but I'm not concerned as to whether or not they like what we do. Our government's job is to serve Americans first.

---

Same theory different scale, Circulate the money from the bottom up. Goes right to the economy, and right to the top, just not as fast, but steadily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yes, Great Master.

---

At last, you have found your place

Quote:

---

Payroll taxes ain't taxes?

---

Social security taxes do not fund the federal government. It's a completely different situation. You're grasping at straws rather than just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

---

I forget, with you I have to specify exactly as there are many types of corporations. Some are larger than others. I meant THESE.

---

If a corporation makes a profit, what do you think happens with those profits?

Quote:

---

My logic says that NO taxes were paid on 80 billion bucks. Don't know what flavor Kool-Aid that is but it can't be good.

---

Why are you changing the subject? You said that your "logic" required that "if the top 5% have whatever amount of the money, should they not pay that percent in taxes?" So are you saying that the top 5% should only pay 35% of the taxes instead of 64%? I'm just following your logic.

Quote:

---

Same theory different scale, Circulate the money from the bottom up. Goes right to the economy, and right to the top, just not as fast, but steadily.

---

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The bottom half already pay basically nothing in federal income tax. The top 5% carry most of the burden. Am I in favor of taking money from wealthy people, most of whom are wealthy because they work hard and smart, and just handing it over to poor people so we can follow your strange economic theory? Well no, I'm not.

Quote:

---

At last, you have found your place

---

You are a citizen of a small country. You have no idea of what it means to carry the burdens the U.S. has to carry. Stop acting like you are some kind of world superpower. It's easy to sit in the safety and security the U.S. has provided for decades and cast stones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not sure what you are asking for. The bottom half already pay basically nothing in federal income tax. The top 5% carry most of the burden. Am I in favor of taking money from wealthy people, most of whom are wealthy because they work hard and smart, and just handing it over to poor people so we can follow your strange economic theory? Well no, I'm not.

---

You have the wrong take on this, the wealthy reap the benefits and should pay for the protection society affords them. Also no one knows whether they will be wealthy tomorrow or not, so not helping the poor is downright disingenuous. The harder you work and the more you accumulate the more you need that protection and buy yourself a gun is not a good option. You have heard the phase but for the grace of God, go I. think on it a while

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have the wrong take on this, the wealthy reap the benefits and should pay for the protection society affords them. Also no one knows whether they will be wealthy tomorrow or not, so not helping the poor is downright disingenuous. The harder you work and the more you accumulate the more you need that protection and buy yourself a gun is not a good option. You have heard the phase but for the grace of God, go I. think on it a while

---

---

I don't know what I have to do to get this to sink into your heads. The top 5% pay almost 2/3 of income taxes. That allows the bottom half to pay almost nothing. So the poor do not have to pay taxes. And you don't think that is helping the poor? I'm all for helping the poor, but when governments do it, yours or ours, it quickly degenerates into a "vote for me and I'll give you money" kind of situation. And then you wake up and find yourself 22 tril in debt. As for buying a gun for self protection, it's a great idea. You can easily lose your life waiting on police to arrive. If you want to strip yourselves of the ability to defend yourself and your family, then go ahead, but we choose not to. And I'll say it yet again. You forcing another person to help the poor is not charity, it's robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't know what I have to do to get this to sink into your heads. The top 5% pay almost 2/3 of income taxes. That allows the bottom half to pay almost nothing. So the poor do not have to pay taxes. And you don't think that is helping the poor? I'm all for helping the poor, but when governments do it, yours or ours, it quickly degenerates into a "vote for me and I'll give you money" kind of situation. And then you wake up and find yourself 22 tril in debt. As for buying a gun for self protection, it's a great idea. You can easily lose your life waiting on police to arrive. If you want to strip yourselves of the ability to defend yourself and your family, then go ahead, but we choose not to. And I'll say it yet again. You forcing another person to help the poor is not charity, it's robbery.

---

You still don't get it, people pay tax because they have income, the means to pay. I agree that taxation is theft but if you elect a government taxes come with it otherwise you will have extortion by the police force, but then you have that too. Instead of bleating like shorn sheep you should be lifting the poor with employment so they can join the ranks of tax payers

Quote:

---

You are a citizen of a small country. You have no idea of what it means to carry the burdens the U.S. has to carry. Stop acting like you are some kind of world superpower. It's easy to sit in the safety and security the U.S. has provided for decades and cast stones.

---

My opinion is no less valid. We don't want to be a superpower, but we are are a power in our part of the world. We don't want to lord it over others, but we too have to project power to keep China out of the small nations of the Pacific. Don't tell us we have no idea of your burdens when we have stood beside you in battle. You were once a leader now you are a despot

Just continue to blissfully sleep under the protection of the most generous despot in history

Running a deficit to give the rich a windfall is legalized stealing.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/de...ding-tax-line/

Quote:

---

Why do these individual tax cuts expire in the law? Republicans say they expect a future Congress will extend those cuts, rather than allowing taxes for many to increase. But in order to pass their tax bill through budget reconciliation, a process requiring only a majority vote in the Senate, Republican lawmakers could not add more than $1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Nor could they have a bill that added to the deficit beyond that 10-year window.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls the expiring cuts “gimmicks.” It notes that “the ‘easy’ options” for Republicans to make the final bill meet those requirements were to have some of the tax cuts expire — and that’s what GOP lawmakers did. While the final bill costs an estimated $1.46 trillion over 10 years, CRFB says the actual cost could end up being $2.2 trillion, when these sunsetting tax cuts are actually extended.

---

Generous my arse!

Quote:

---

Running a deficit to give the rich a windfall is legalized stealing.

---

I am as against Trump's deficits as I was against Obama's. They are both irresponsible in that regard, but at least Trump has a very healthy economy.

You do realize that your link concluded that democrats have been lying about the Trump tax cuts?

"The Republican tax plan was signed into law just last month, and Democrats already have a well-worn, and misleading, talking point about it: 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent."

Now when the top 5% pay 2/3 of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay about nothing, then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

Quote:

---

then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

---

You remove them from the system, then you can deal with inequity in the system

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I am as against Trump's deficits as I was against Obama's. They are both irresponsible in that regard, but at least Trump has a very healthy economy.

You do realize that your link concluded that democrats have been lying about the Trump tax cuts?

"The Republican tax plan was signed into law just last month, and Democrats already have a well-worn, and misleading, talking point about it: 83 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent."

Now when the top 5% pay 2/3 of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pay about nothing, then how do you enact tax cuts that will benefit the bottom 50%?

---

I have no problem getting the facts out, and we all should take a politicians words with more than a grain of salt. As I have said before, Trust, but VERIFY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You remove them from the system, then you can deal with inequity in the system

---

Agreed if removing them from the system means a much better wage. That is starting to happen but won't get rolling for a few years in increments the way the law is written. Mathematically though there will always be a bottom half when compared to the whole, but there are more factors involved that need to be addressed, like rich guy deductions, and incentives to hoard and hide money as well as pay equity, which I define as a part of corporate governance. For example the calculation of benefits and perks, that all workers can benefit from, not just management or the boards and execs.

Obviously I advocate for new management for our government.

About 3% of American workers earn minimum wage, so that is not the problem. Raising the minimum wage is suspect in many ways. It keeps teenagers from getting entry-level jobs. It results in fewer workers having jobs since it encourages automation by employers. It takes away the freedom of an individual to work for less than minimum wage if he/she chooses to.

What is really working now is the fact that we have a healthy economy and so there is increased competition for good workers, hence wages are going up. That is always the best answer.

And to say yet again, the idea that the wealthy are not paying their fair share is nothing more than liberal propaganda. Anyone who has not been drinking the liberal kool-aid too long, and who has more than five free minutes on their hands and internet access can see quickly that it is absolutely untrue. It is a lie spread by the political class, pure and simple.

You mean 3% work for just $7.25 dollars, since that's the Federal minimum wage by law? Some states are higher and have passed $10-$15 dollars in increments as I said. Another factor besides wages for your consideration is PRICES, in all commodity sectors. On second thought never mind since it's fruitless to debate someone on fiscal policy/or law when they know nothing about it, and keep spouting republican trickle down economics to justify legal robbery of the citizenry. To keep human value in the hands of the coronated elite monied class, while the oldest trick in the book is perpertrating the whole sheeple theory against we the people as written by law.

Liberals are not the only ones playing politics are we?

Quote:

---

keep spouting republican trickle down economics to justify legal robbery of the citizenry.

---

Find where I have advocated for that. Otherwise, admit you are just making it up as you go, because that's what you are doing.

Quote:

---

You mean 3% work for just $7.25 dollars, since that's the Federal minimum wage by law?

---

Yes, that's how it is. Many of them are teen-agers working a part-time job. Most adults who do start at the fed minimum wage stay there for a couple of years and then begin to move up.

My idea, which I used to tell my students all the time, is to make yourself valuable. Learn to do something that pays well. Become a welder, plumber, brick mason, truck driver, nurse, doctor, teacher, or any one of hundreds of other jobs that pay well. Get better at your job every day. Work hard and keep your big mouth shut. Work 60 hours a week if need be to support yourself. Live in freedom, get off of Uncle Sam's plantation, and stop depending on the almighty government to promise you a pay raise if you will only vote for him/her. Save enough money to invest (Yes, it can be done) and stop borrowing money for silliness. You don't need a new car. Live smart. Be an self-supporting, freedom loving American, free from nursing at the breast of the federal government.

That is a message I suspect I will never hear from you. If you have ever said it, I don't remember it.

That's great advice for kids still living at home with some sort of support system, but adults with kids require a LOT more. Maybe that's the difference between us since a large bulk of my experience is with adults trying to rebuild their lives from trauma and mistakes, and circumstances beyond their control. Had you paid attention you may have gleaned that from what I have written, but now you know as obviously we have differing perspectives and that's OKAY.

Quote:

---

That's great advice for kids still living at home with some sort of support system, but adults with kids require a LOT more. Maybe that's the difference between us since a large bulk of my experience is with adults trying to rebuild their lives from trauma and mistakes, and circumstances beyond their control. Had you paid attention you may have gleaned that from what I have written, but now you know as obviously we have differing perspectives and that's OKAY.

---

I do see your point. I have worked with recovering drug addicts for well over ten years now. My experience recently has been they can get out of jail or out of a recovery center and have a job within a week. It's incredible.

Now a single mom with kids is in a bind. No doubt about it. That is why we should all join together in this country in calling for a return to some basic common sense and morality. We should tell young women, "Don't be STUPID and get pregnant outside of marriage." The consequences are devastating for both the woman and the child. The sorry man can just go off chasing another woman, but the mother is in a bad spot.

Can we join together and at least agree on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Now a single mom with kids is in a bind. No doubt about it. That is why we should all join together in this country in calling for a return to some basic common sense and morality. We should tell young women, "Don't be STUPID and get pregnant outside of marriage." The consequences are devastating for both the woman and the child. The sorry man can just go off chasing another woman, but the mother is in a bad spot.

Can we join together and at least agree on that?

---

Why is it all on her? Why can't that male take responsibility to not go in for the attack every time a female gets within three feet of him OR if he just can't control himself (poor dear), pay child support and be a father to those kids?

The problem is women with kids ,and those circumstances vary, NEED immediate assistance, not lectures and that's my FOCUS. I have often asked what is your plan AFTER the deed or event is done. An alarming thing I have seen is it's not just women who need IMMEDIATE help, but FAMILIES, both married and unmarried. The hardship to those people often extends to their immediate families who cannot sustain that type of burden for long because their resources are stretched to the limits themselves.

It's a very complex problem my friend that is well beyond JUST morality, but circumstance.

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to young women to do what is in their best interest. I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. I guess we'll let the problem just continue. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Do not have sex outside of marriage. A middle schooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve existing problems, but surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.

Quote:

---

surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.

---

This is certainly needed in more ways than one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to young women to do what is in their best interest. I often am amazed at just how it is that liberals will not do even a wildly common-sense call such as to tell young women not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. I guess we'll let the problem just continue. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Do not have sex outside of marriage. A middle schooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve existing problems, but surely we can develop some national courage and do the smart thing. You disappoint me.

---

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to men of every age to do what is in women's (and their own) best interest. I often am amazed at how conservatives will not do even a wildly common-sense thing such as to tell men of every age not to get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. We all realize men have no self control. Apparently, you don't give a hoot if the problem continues. It's on the same level as being afraid to tell smokers that it's really important for them to stop smoking.

Complex? It is far from complex. Men, do not have sex outside of marriage. A middleschooler can understand it. Granted, it does not solve horniness problems, but surely men can develop some courage, self control, and do the smart thing. Read books instead. Get busy at work, school, and with hobbies. Volunteer and help "the least of these" at a nursing home, hospital, food bank, soup kitchen, animal shelter. Don't disappoint me!

Quote:

---

And thus we see the problem. You will not even join in a call to men of every age to do what is in women's (and their own) best interest. I often am amazed at how conservatives will not do even a wildly common-sense thing such as to tell men of every age not to get a woman pregnant out of wedlock. Oh well. We all realize men have no self control.

---

Absolutely I agree with you and join in the call now in the terms you have described. Of course I've done this many times before. Still, with me on board your call, do you now have the courage to join with me in calling for young women to avoid sex outside of marriage and out of wedlock births?

What is your response??

Quote:

---

but surely men can develop some courage, self control, and do the smart thing. Read books instead. Get busy at work, school, and with hobbies. Volunteer and help "the least of these" at a nursing home, hospital, food bank, soup kitchen, animal shelter. Don't disappoint me!

---

And none of this solves the horniness problem as you put it. Can you imagine pulling out your copy of War and Peace when out on a date, no, today you might advocate pulling out your phone. This will not impress. The woman has to clearly say No! And mean it, but young women are not taught this, they are taught to insist on a condom, which is sort of saying sex is OK

Still waiting, WG. What is your response. Shall we make a call to men and women both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

And none of this solves the horniness problem as you put it. Can you imagine pulling out your copy of War and Peace when out on a date, no, today you might advocate pulling out your phone.

---

Just so they don't pull out something else....

Quote:

---

This will not impress. The woman has to clearly say No! And mean it, but young women are not taught this, they are taught to insist on a condom, which is sort of saying sex is OK

---

Nope! The guys have to say no. After all, you and JL insist they are the stronger and more reasonable sex, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Still waiting, WG. What is your response. Shall we make a call to men and women both?

---

I've made my response. To males: As much as she pleads for it, like a whimpering child wanting a cookie, JUST SAY NO!

Quote:

---

I've made my response. To males: As much as she pleads for it, like a whimpering child wanting a cookie, JUST SAY NO!

---

When I typed my question I already knew what your response would be. You just don't have the courage to take a stand with women. Sometimes I think you are so afraid of being labeled a conservative, evangelical Christian that you just can't summon up the courage to take a firm position. Maybe you are so in love with liberal politics that you are afraid to abandon your orthodoxy. At any rate, that's why I no longer like to respond to your posts. Too many words, too little willingness to take a stand. I was disappointed with Tal. Your response was spot on what I had expected.

Quote:

---

JL insist they are the stronger and more reasonable sex, right?

---

Nope. Never said that. You're just making it up as you go along because you know you cannot defend your position.

How long has the religious type been imploring no sex outside of wedlock? How well has it worked? What enforcement of such a position do you propose?

What should be done after the deed is done?

Quote:

---

How long has the religious type been imploring no sex outside of wedlock? How well has it worked? What enforcement of such a position do you propose?

---

Well, you seem to lack the conviction to make the call yourself, so don't be so critical of others who do. Maybe we genuinely care about women and don't want to see them having to raise a child, or children, alone. But it actually worked amazingly well until the 1960's. Out of wedlock birth rates were single digit back then. Now it is about 30%, and approaching 75% in the black population. That is a disaster.

How well did it work? From an article linked below. "Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father. Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent."

Again, you disappoint me. It's such a logical, common-sense position to take that worked for centuries. I have no idea why anyone would shrink back from it.

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/w...rate-nearly-75

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You just don't have the courage to take a stand with women.

---

And you don't have the courage to admit that all you males MUST HAVE SEX and that's the entire problem.

Quote:

---

Sometimes I think you are so afraid of being labeled a conservative, evangelical Christian that you just can't summon up the courage to take a firm position.

---

Sticks and stones....

Quote:

---

Maybe you are so in love with liberal politics that you are afraid to abandon your orthodoxy.

---

My "orthodoxy" is as ridiculous as yours.

Quote:

---

At any rate, that's why I no longer like to respond to your posts. Too many words, too little willingness to take a stand.

---

I have to take a stand? Oh, I did. And males are incapable of sticking to it. And how ruffled your male feathers would be if women demanded a ring AND marriage before allowing sex.