JD Vance Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 956
  • Views: 33K
  • Politics 
Kraftyheel89 said:
I haven't seen evert single post on this thread, but I can not believe nobody is pointing out an obvious fact here. Vance is singling out childless women and making a ridiculous point that they have no vested interest in our future.

Why does he not care about fatherless hetero men? He did mention Pete but that was his attack on gays (and doesn't Pete have an adopted chikd, I am not sure). What about all the men that have no children? What about the men that impregnated a woman/women then ran off? What about men like Lindsey Graham?
Click to expand...
Buttigieg does have two adopted children. I think the reason Vance is so focused on single career women is simply because of the sexism that very much exists in the party. Vance is hardly unique with his views, plenty of other Republicans share them. There has been a lot of talk for years on the right about "white race suicide" and the necessity of white women to start having more white babies to keep the white population up. Add in all the incels and it seems as if they have a lot of embittered younger white guys who can't get married or even get dates (gee, I wonder why?) who blame their single-ness on women focusing on their careers instead of traditional roles. What they don't seem to realize is that even if many of these women chose to get married they'd never get hitched to one of them, for obvious reasons. The reason they're not as focused on men is because they want to force women to have more babies, first by eliminating abortion, then by going after contraceptive rights. Of course attacking IVF certainly seems to contradict that goal.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
I haven't seen evert single post on this thread, but I can not believe nobody is pointing out an obvious fact here. Vance is singling out childless women and making a ridiculous point that they have no vested interest in our future.

Why does he not care about fatherless hetero men? He did mention Pete but that was his attack on gays (and doesn't Pete have an adopted chikd, I am not sure). What about all the men that have no children? What about the men that impregnated a woman/women then ran off? What about men like Lindsey Graham?
Click to expand...
Mayor Pete and his husband have two children.
 
CFordUNC said:


No way Vance is going to participate in a VP debate.
Click to expand...

Damn GIFs - Get the best gif on GIFER
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Buttigieg does have two adopted children. I think the reason Vance is so focused on single career women is simply because of the sexism that very much exists in the party. Vance is hardly unique with his views, plenty of other Republicans share them. There has been a lot of talk for years on the right about "white race suicide" and the necessity of white women to start having more white babies to keep the white population up. Add in all the incels and it seems as if they have a lot of embittered younger white guys who can't get married or even get dates (gee, I wonder why?) who blame their single-ness on women focusing on their careers instead of traditional roles. What they don't seem to realize is that even if many of these women chose to get married they'd never get hitched to one of them, for obvious reasons. The reason they're not as focused on men is because they want to force women to have more babies, first by eliminating abortion, then by going after contraceptive rights. Of course attacking IVF certainly seems to contradict that goal.
Click to expand...
What right-wingers don’t realize is that women who have well-paying jobs and/or inherited money and/or have a well-off partner will simply go abroad for an IUD or the “under the skin” birth control, or an annual trip to get birth control for 3 months or 6 months or a year. These women can afford to fly to Paris or London or Prague for birth control.
 
Zoo_View said:
What right-wingers don’t realize is that women who have well-paying jobs and/or inherited money and/or have a well-off partner will simply go abroad for an IUD or the “under the skin” birth control, or an annual trip to get birth control for 3 months or 6 months or a year. These women can afford to fly to Paris or London or Prague for birth control.
Click to expand...
The ones that know that don’t care — in fact, they are probably counting on it.
 
superrific said:
You know better than this. Increasing a marginal rate is economically very different than creating deductions or credits. I'm not sure it's correct to say that the tax code discriminates against childless couples. For that, you'd have to know whether there are positive externalities from child-rearing. I suspect there are.
Click to expand...
It definitely discriminates. The question is whether there are good policy reasons for that discrimination.

And there is really no economic difference between charging a higher rate to childless couples and giving tax breaks to couples with children. Let's say the government needs to raise $100 to fund its operations and the tax population is divided into groups of people, C and NoC. If the government decides to give NoC a tax break, that means C is going to need to take on more of the burden of funding the government.

Of course, that is not how it works in reality. But as a theoretical matter, tax breaks and tax hikes are the same thing. The government is making a policy-based decision to tax two different groups of people at different rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top