[oldnemesis]

(11-09-2012 10:35 PM)raliv Wrote:  

Also, I wonder if red pill and game websites will be labeled hate speech and ban-hammered when Obama appoints Leftist Supreme Court Justices. Similar to what they do in Socialist Europa.

Could you please point to the text of the law banning red pill and game websites in Socialist Europa?

Just making sure that your opinion should be taken seriously, and you're not a kind of guy spitting bullshit he heard from some retarded talk show host at TV without even checking it.

[oldnemesis]

(11-10-2012 12:32 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

I wonder what the excuses will be in 2016? It was Bush's fault? It was Ronald Reagan's fault? It was Howard Taft's fault? At what point do you hold people accountable?

I can tell you what - I'm party-neutral, I'm not even registered with any party, and I don't vote on primaries. If the Republicans came with a reasonable smart candidate who'd was at least straight and clear as Obama about what he is going to do, and had a record of success, I might have voted for him.

Instead they again came up with a candidate suited for old hillbilly Jesus freaks which I have nothing common with except the skin color. And if they do it again, they'll lose again. Straight and simple.

[iknowexactly]

(11-09-2012 08:08 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 12:18 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Scumbag Roosh: says politics is biggest source of forum beef; starts inflammatory political thread.

What is inflammatory about it? I just want to understand why supporters voted for him based on things he promised.

The logical question is for you: what do you think the next president should do-- realistically-- no one is going to legalize hard drugs for instance.

I don't think he can do a whole lot of good, our owners are too powerful, he might if he could. I think he's a pragmatist that will make some small changes in favor of the working people if the entrenched owning class allows, like getting us health insurance.

I'd like to see Obama stand up against Wall Street. We should have nationalized at least part of the stocks of those banks instead of lending them money. Def won't happen

Do you think , ever, that those same banks would have lent ANY money to a citizen needing help, that same citizen who funded their bailout? It is hilariously unimaginable.

Everything, excepting every 200 year type black swan events, happens in politics because the rich want it to, they hold up scapegoats as fake causes of what happens, before and after the events ( Unions, Moslems, Races, Commies..). Hardly anyone sees the inner workings.

[Smitty]

(11-10-2012 04:12 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Do you think , ever, that those same banks would have lent ANY money to a citizens needing help, that same citizen who funded their bailout? It is hilariously unimaginable.

I think part of the reason those banks were in trouble in the first place was because they lent money to people who otherwise would not have qualified. Toxic mortgages.

But I understand and somewhat agree with your broader point that taxpayers should not be forced to support businesses (banks) that will not even conduct business with them (taxpayers) today.

I guess it's a good thing only half the people in the U.S. actually pay taxes.

[username]

(11-09-2012 11:44 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

1. Campaign finance reform (a need for which he is keenly aware).

2. End to NAFTA/CAFTA etc.

3. More tariffs on Chinese products.

4. Raise marginal tax rate (on wealthy).

5. Raise corporate taxes (i.e., close loop-holes that allow the GEs and Exxon-Mobiles to pay zero taxes or, in some cases, get a refund).

6. Dis-incentivize off-shoring of jobs (import taxes).

7. Improve national healthcare (Obamacare).

8. Appoint real progressives to the Supreme Court.

9. End stupid foreign wars of occupation (Afghanistan).

Except for #8, many of the "conservatives" I know would be all for these especially #3 and #5.

My wish list:
1 - Marijuana is mainstream and there is no use in spending billions of dollars and hundreds of lives per year to battle this. However, the government still should enforce drug policies against other drugs that are more dangerous and harmful like meth.

2 - Don't let big corporations pay 2% and 3% tax while small business pay 30%+, it fucking sucks and is destroying small businesses and rewarding big businesses.

3 - Stop borrowing trillions to fund the government and get shit balanced. Get Bill Clinton involved if needed and do something similar.

[iknowexactly]

(11-10-2012 04:17 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

I guess it's a good thing only half the people in the U.S. actually pay taxes.

Kind of makes a good glib sound byte, but that's not correct. Maybe half people don't, specifically, pay income tax.

Weird how people just repeat things someone said, when even a few seconds of thought would show the statement is false.

The only people that don't pay taxes, are

1) very wealthy people who live off tax free bond interest in states that don't charge sales tax or, presuming they own land, property tax. I don't know if there is such a state.

2) People who never buy anything.

Most states have sales taxes, so anyone who lives and buys some stuff pays some taxes. Also, it that figure--47%-- of working age people, or doe sit include 5 year olds? I don't know.

[Smitty]

(11-10-2012 05:54 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(11-10-2012 04:17 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

I guess it's a good thing only half the people in the U.S. actually pay taxes.

Kind of makes a good glib sound byte, but that's not correct. Maybe half people don't, specifically, pay income tax.

Weird how people just repeat things someone said, when even a few seconds of thought would show the statement is false.

The only people that don't pay taxes, are

1) very wealthy people who live off tax free bond interest in states that don't charge sales tax or, presuming they own land, property tax. I don't know if there is such a state.

2) People who never buy anything.

Most states have sales taxes, so anyone who lives and buys some stuff pays some taxes. Also, it that figure--47%-- of working age people, or doe sit include 5 year olds? I don't know.

You are right, mea culpa. I should be more specific, since we are talking about Federal bailouts.

Sentence revised:
I guess it's a good thing that only 53% of the U.S. population actually pay Federal income tax.

[Zebra_Cakes]

(11-09-2012 09:21 PM)murrb Wrote:  

Chris Christie 2016

He was only nuthugging obama after sandy so Bruce Springsteen, his idol would be friends with him.

I like him as a person. If he would move more towards the center, I would probably give the man my vote, but with the state of the current Republican party, I don't think it'll happen. Not to mention a lot of Republicans are butthurt over his praise of Obama.

[Bad Hussar]

(11-09-2012 09:28 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Well, I've noticed a lot of happiness in his re-election on the internet. I'm curious as to the reason why.... what do supporters expect he will do that warrants that response?

I think I know what Romney supporters think he will do.

Not the target demographic, obviously, but I think young women are relieved that abortion and other reproductive issues will remain unchanged.

Not sure what American men can hope to get from Obama. Maybe blue collar guys are hoping their unions, and their own positions, will be strengthened under Obama. Students may be hoping against hope that he'll raid Wall Street to pay off their student loans.

As an outside observer it doesn't seem like much can get done in his second term. The extreme hostility between Obama and the republicans is obvious to even a casual observer. The two clearly don't like or respect each other. Since it looks like the republicans will have at least one of the houses for the next 4 years I would guess nothing much is achieved in this period. Obama is no Clinton, so he's never going to compromise. And any republican who compromises will be booted out by a Tea Party candidate the next election cycle.

So I don't think anyone should have high expectations regarding the next four years. Just take the last 2 years and double them.

[iknowexactly]

(11-12-2012 12:21 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 09:28 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Well, I've noticed a lot of happiness in his re-election on the internet. I'm curious as to the reason why.... what do supporters expect he will do that warrants that response?

I think I know what Romney supporters think he will do.

And any republican who compromises will be booted out by a Tea Party candidate the next election cycle.

So I don't think anyone should have high expectations regarding the next four years. Just take the last 2 years and double them.

From the demographics of the recent Repub losses, this is a whole new ball game, and the Repubs have to disavow the wing nuts and modernize. Or debase the whole psychological environment and start a war to dumb down the masses.

No one believes in trickle-down or the benevolent boss anymore. The boss is out to fuck your daughter, make sure his kids get in the elite school, not her, pay you nothing then fire you when he ships his jobs overseas to China.

Worse, the demographics are already happening and will continue to happen that fuck the repubs. Here are the growing groups that are pro-dem:

1) Younger 2) Hispanic

1) Under 25 voters went WAY democratic-- probably they'll keep doing it and those who are 16 + now and will be voting soon and are not buying trickle-down

2) Hispanics are not scared to have kids and want them to have health insurance and a more European life, like, one with vacations.

I would not want to be a Repub strategist right now. The narrative that you can trust the rich or, alternately , that a ruling class does not exist is blown.

Young and hispanic don't buy Repub's sanctimonious culture distractor BS when all those pols are doing is working for the rich.

Labels like conservative and liberal are becoming meaningless. It now down to who are you going to take from and who are you going to give it to, and people would rather have health insuraNce than wars.

We're catching up to European thinking, a couple of centuries behind.

That's right socialism, you live in a SOCIETY which your millions relied on or you couldn't possibly have them; you didn't make it on your own in a log cabin in the woods so shut up about how taxes are theft. Go hunt deer to live if you don't need a society and are a genius island.

How do they keep serving their donors? A whole new lie-or war- is needed to keep the plebes distracted

[Jaydublin]

(11-12-2012 01:44 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 12:21 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 09:28 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

^^ Well, I've noticed a lot of happiness in his re-election on the internet. I'm curious as to the reason why.... what do supporters expect he will do that warrants that response?

I think I know what Romney supporters think he will do.

And any republican who compromises will be booted out by a Tea Party candidate the next election cycle.

So I don't think anyone should have high expectations regarding the next four years. Just take the last 2 years and double them.

From the demographics of the recent Repub losses, this is a whole new ball game, and the Repubs have to disavow the wing nuts and modernize. Or debase the whole psychological environment and start a war to dumb down the masses.

No one believes in trickle-down or the benevolent boss anymore. The boss is out to fuck your daughter, make sure his kids get in the elite school, not her, pay you nothing then fire you when he ships his jobs overseas to China.

Worse, the demographics are already happening and will continue to happen that fuck the repubs. Here are the growing groups that are pro-dem:

1) Younger 2) Hispanic

1) Under 25 voters went WAY democratic-- probably they'll keep doing it and those who are 16 + now and will be voting soon and are not buying trickle-down

2) Hispanics are not scared to have kids and want them to have health insurance and a more European life, like, one with vacations.

I would not want to be a Repub strategist right now. The narrative that you can trust the rich or, alternately , that a ruling class does not exist is blown.

Young and hispanic don't buy Repub's sanctimonious culture distractor BS when all those pols are doing is working for the rich.

Labels like conservative and liberal are becoming meaningless. It now down to who are you going to take from and who are you going to give it to, and people would rather have health insuraNce than wars.

We're catching up to European thinking, a couple of centuries behind.

That's right socialism, you live in a SOCIETY which your millions relied on or you couldn't possibly have them; you didn't make it on your own in a log cabin in the woods so shut up about how taxes are theft. Go hunt deer to live if you don't need a society and are a genius island.

How do they keep serving their donors? A whole new lie-or war- is needed to keep the plebes distracted

The money will run and you can bet on that

[Bad Hussar]

(11-12-2012 01:44 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Labels like conservative and liberal are becoming meaningless. It now down to who are you going to take from and who are you going to give it to, and people would rather have health insuraNce than wars.

We're catching up to European thinking, a couple of centuries behind.

That's right socialism, you live in a SOCIETY which your millions relied on or you couldn't possibly have them; you didn't make it on your own in a log cabin in the woods so shut up about how taxes are theft. Go hunt deer to live if you don't need a society and are a genius island.

How do they keep serving their donors? A whole new lie-or war- is needed to keep the plebes distracted

I'm with you on rather having health insurance than wars. Any sane person would be. But if you're not going to actually take the steps that result in US/North American energy independence, rather than just talk about it, Middle East wars instigated by the US are inevitable.

They have a saying in Israel that goes something like "Here in Israel we have Greek salaries and Swedish prices". I fear that a socialist USA will be similar, in that you'll have the worst of both Capitalism and Socialism. You'll have very high taxes but social services much poorer than exist in Northern Europe. i.e. I don't think the USA will be able to come anywhere close to replicating the Scandinavian system, even if taxes rise to Scandinavian levels. The money will just go to assorted "special interests".

[polymath]

I hope he closes Guantanamo. I don't find him to be a bad president, but I don't like men who can't keep their word.

[Tuthmosis]

I accidentally rated this thread five stars. Smart phones.

[iknowexactly]

(11-12-2012 02:31 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 01:44 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

That's right socialism, you live in a SOCIETY which your millions relied on or you couldn't possibly have them; you didn't make it on your own in a log cabin in the woods so shut up about how taxes are theft. Go hunt deer to live if you don't need a society and are a genius island.

How do they keep serving their donors? A whole new lie-or war- is needed to keep the plebes distracted

I fear that a socialist USA will be similar, in that you'll have the worst of both Capitalism and Socialism.

That's possible, and why I argue for dropping the labels (liberal etc.) and talking money, let's just look at the money which is numbers we can both see, and compromise on who gives/gets what, because we can argue about the philosophies forever and never get to an agreement.

Right now the facts are deliberately obscured because people like warren buffet ( of course there aren't many) pay the same tax rates as their secretaries ( according to him.) But htey also own the TV stations.

[iknowexactly]

(11-12-2012 02:09 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(11-12-2012 01:44 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

[quote] (11-12-2012 12:21 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

^^ Well, I've noticed a lot of happiness in his re-election on the internet. I'm curious as to the reason why.... what do supporters expect he will do that warrants that response?

I think I know what Romney supporters think he will do.

And any republican who compromises will be booted out by a Tea Party candidate the next election cycle.

How do they keep serving their donors? A whole new lie-or war- is needed to keep the plebes distracted

The money will run and you can bet on that

I thought it was all gone already to China, along with the jobs the ruling class exported. Isn't that the whole root of the manufactured "crisis"?" Did we suddenly make less widgets than we did before?

You're right some will, but it just doesn't have the same panache to be a flight capital guy in Andorra or Antibes as it does being a big shot strutting around in NYC or LA.

Yes, I think they have a nice fat exit tax, haha they don't want to let them go. Do Paul McCartney and Sting still live in England? Bowie split for Switzerland.

That's fair, right, use the huge military protection budget of the USA so you have a safe haven to make your fortune, hire/use 2 zillion us workers, sellout and fire them, and take "your" wealth (your suckers created it) and take it to Switzerland. It's lovely!

[Bad Hussar]

(11-12-2012 07:14 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

You're right some will, but it just doesn't have the same panache to be a flight capital guy in Andorra or Antibes as it does being a big shot strutting around in NYC or LA.

Yes, I think they have a nice fat exit tax, haha they don't want to let them go. Do Paul McCartney and Sting still live in England? Bowie split for Switzerland.

That's fair, right, use the huge military protection budget of the USA so you have a safe haven to make your fortune, hire/use 2 zillion us workers, sellout and fire them, and take "your" wealth (your suckers created it) and take it to Switzerland. It's lovely!

And yet lot's of rich people stay in NY and CA where state and city level taxes are much higher than other areas of the US. Why do they do it? I mean in business you examine each tiny expense to make sure that it's justified, but then you're blase about paying 35% corporate taxes rather than 10%.

I guess for the very rich a lot of their wealth is actually the result of laws passed by governments on their behalf. So a hands off government would mean less money for them. Also, there are so many loopholes and ultra smart tax accountants and lawyers that no sophisticated NY or CA company is paying that much more than they'd pay in a tax haven anyway.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I expect this among the positives (yes, I'm ambitious :b ):

- Restore Dodd-Frank to its original form or reintroduce some other Glass-Steagall themed bill that slaps Goldman Sachs and other big banks silly
- Pass a sizable fiscal stimulus based on infrastructure investments. Get economy out of the recession and employment back to pre-crisis levels.
- Confront Republicans on the matters of "fiscal cliff", unlike his pathetic cowering before.
- Appoint a Supreme Court nominee that will help reverse Citizens United
- Increase taxes on the rich / close tax loopholes such as carried interest
- Complete Obamacare
- Not start any other wars (any small, Libya-scale interventions are ok if needed though)
- Institute a small carbon tax (NOT carbon-credit trading program)

I also expect this among the negatives, sadly:

- More VAWA-themed or rape-definition-expanding, laws under the guise of "protecting women"
- Even greater enforcement of alimony collection
- More federal funding of bullshit feminist orgnaizations that "educate the American public about the misogyny in the society".
- Growing rates of single motherhood and the praise it receives
- Continued growth in divorce rates

[deepcov3r]

(11-13-2012 09:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

- More VAWA-themed or rape-definition-expanding, laws under the guise of "protecting women"
- Even greater enforcement of alimony collection

Yeah, the thing with gubmint acting as a collection agent will just get worse and worse, to some degree it's transnational now, your half-vietnamese kid's mother can apply to your home state from overseas and get child support, I don't think many do it but internet access is spreading and then it just becomes a matter of programmers establishing the link between your bank account and hers.

Government programmers have been far, far behind the inventiveness of banks etc, but in the last couple years, at least in California, I've seen a lot more good applications The problem is most of it is directed at more effectively getting money out of citizens.

I had a car stolen and damaged so bad I took it off the road and let the tow yard keep it, but the DMV doesn't match theft reports and registrations. So I got charged for not registering a car that doesn't even exist anymore, and they took like 300 out of my tax refund. They hook up the parts of the system that collect money, not the parts that would protect you.

[oldnemesis]

(11-13-2012 09:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I also expect this among the negatives, sadly:
- Even greater enforcement of alimony collection

I guess you're confusing alimony with the child support here. Child support is enforced by the state through various means, but alimony is not. If it isn't being paid, trying to get it is similar to trying to collect any other judgment in your favor.

And if you're talking about child support, I can't understand why is this negative? Do you want to support someone else kids through higher taxes? I'd rather force their father to pay for them.

Quote:

- Growing rates of single motherhood and the praise it receives

Just to make clear, are you talking about single motherhood or kids born out of wedlock? The latter isn't a big deal at all.

Quote:

- Continued growth in divorce rates

Reference please. AFAIK they're stabilized, and now declining.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(11-14-2012 01:58 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 09:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I also expect this among the negatives, sadly:
- Even greater enforcement of alimony collection

I guess you're confusing alimony with the child support here. Child support is enforced by the state through various means, but alimony is not. If it isn't being paid, trying to get it is similar to trying to collect any other judgment in your favor.

Maybe it makes a difference that Croatia has alimony (alimentacija), but it's not alimony like "payments for the wife", it's just what you'd call "child support".
Still, given that child support is frequently inflated, i.e. child support has alimony rolled in to "preserve the former lifestyle", contains no mechanism to ensure that it is actually being spent on the child, and is generally a lot higher than 50% of the actual costs of raising a child, does it make a significant difference how those two are collected? Child support has jumped the shark a long time ago in it being significantly different from alimony.

(11-14-2012 01:58 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

And if you're talking about child support, I can't understand why is this negative? Do you want to support someone else kids through higher taxes? I'd rather force their father to pay for them.

Because child support often has alimony stealthily rolled into it. Some small level of child support is reasonable of course, but you know that's not what I'm talking about. Particularly when we're not talking about some cads abandoning their families, but rather Beta providers being thrown out.

It seems to me that you're afraid of us paying for the kids that unmarried mothers irresponsibly have with cads. I am too. Who isn't?

But the fact that they'll get or won't get something from those cads is not relevant to female motivations in the first place. They know that they will experience no shame for doing it (because the society is PC now), and that they won't die in poverty (because the state will ensure that doesn't happen), and that is enough. Forcing those guys to pay child support, while of course it should be done, will not solve or even slow down the problem. The problem is in the female motivation.

(11-14-2012 01:58 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 09:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Growing rates of single motherhood and the praise it receives

Just to make clear, are you talking about single motherhood or kids born out of wedlock? The latter isn't a big deal at all.

I mean just single women who raise children alone. These are divided into women who had children while married and then divorced, and those who had children out of wedlock in the first place (without a stable partner, see below). Both forms of single motherhood are bad, as evidenced by numerous studies about single-parent (or rather, single mother, since they are 85% of single parents)'s children outcomes, even when income differences and other factors are controlled for. Example. Is there a significant difference between the two forms? Both have the same negative effects, it's just that single motherhood following a divorce is socially accepted (i.e. "I'm not a trashy teen mother!").

Obviously, it's growing very fast. I don't know if post-divorce single motherhood is growing at the same rate, but it's safe to assume that both are growing.



If you mean kids being born out of wedlock to stable couples who stay together, no, of course that's not a problem. I don't care if they have the paper or not. But that's practically marriage, isn't it? And I don't think it's that common. Certainly it can't account for more than half (if that) of the increase in green lines in the graph above.

(11-14-2012 01:58 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-13-2012 09:00 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

- Continued growth in divorce rates

Reference please. AFAIK they're stabilized, and now declining.

Haven't heard of it declining, but even if it were, would you really want to count that as some kind of achievement? It's still a massive number, and a part of the drop is just due to less people getting married in the first place, or people postponing marriage more and spending more time being divorced.

I think Dalrock explained it better than I did:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/...to-change/

[j r]

Why all the love for reversing the Citizens United ruling and for campaign finance reform? We just saw Romney lose by a pretty significant electoral margin despite all the money that went to PACs. That should be proof enough that money doesn't change the process all that much. Why the need to shit all over the first amendment?

[Belize King]

(11-09-2012 08:22 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 08:53 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

What do you hope he will accomplish in the next four years that he hasn't in the past four?

What he accomplishes is dependent on congress as well. He's not an autocrat. What I hope he accomplishes:

Get us out of Afghanistan
Enact Obamacare
Raise taxes on the wealthy to close the deficit
Cut the military budget
Look out for the interests of the middle class
Reform entitlement spending
Stay out of Iran
Be a fair broker on Israel/Palestine
Keep Wall Street regulations in place


Beyond that, I like him because he's pragmatic and not ideological. He's a thinker, he's calculating. He doesn't rely on his gut like Bush did. I've never heard him come off as a demagogue. I think he tries to reach across the aisle and compromise. It's too bad the Republicans don't feel the same way. I think he handled the Hurricane Sandy situation well, I think he did the right thing helping out GM and Chrysler and saved a lot of jobs. I think he looks for international cooperation instead of going it alone. His experience living overseas I think gives him a broader perspective of the world that someone like Romney doesn't have.

This list above isn't exhaustive but these are a few things off the top of my head as to why I support him and what I hope he gets done.

ps - That popcorn guy is by the far the best emoticon we have. Cracks me up every time!

I believe those are the most realistic goals. If he could accomplish that list, it would be a good term.

People want to put the presidency on a pedestal like God. He can only accomplish what he is allowed to. Congress are shitbirds who won't allow him to get anything through. Congress knows we need to cut spending. It won't happen. Congress knows we need to raise taxes. It won't happen. Congress knows we need entitlement reform. It won't happen. Congress knows we need immigration reform. It won't happen. Congress knows we need tax reform. It won't happen. Congress knows we need to raise fuel taxes to maintain and improve our infrastructure. It won't happen. Congress knows the drug war is a lost battle and need new direction. Shit won't happen

We have shitbags in Washington. Our Union sucks balls. As I stated before, shit won't change till the dirt bag baby boomers die off or rescind power. 20 years that will happen. I hope they don’t infect the future "leaders" of our Union.

[Belize King]

(11-09-2012 12:12 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think people are just relieved that Romney isn't president. Instead of people pertying like the first time he got elected, the bars were ghost town on Tuesday night after the election.

Haha. Players don't take election day off. You should have ran "rock the vote" game during the day.

[oldnemesis]

(11-14-2012 05:14 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Maybe it makes a difference that Croatia has alimony (alimentacija), but it's not alimony like "payments for the wife", it's just what you'd call "child support".

Still, given that child support is frequently inflated, i.e. child support has alimony rolled in to "preserve the former lifestyle", contains no mechanism to ensure that it is actually being spent on the child, and is generally a lot higher than 50% of the actual costs of raising a child, does it make a significant difference how those two are collected?

Yes, it is the same in Russia, what is called "alimony" is really child support. But here in the US alimony is a completely different thing from child support, with significantly less government enforcement.

This seem to be a typical manosphere whining. In fact most people I've met who complain about the child support being inflated didn't have any kids, and have no idea how much the things like daycare cost. Just wonder if your "small level of reasonable child support" includes such things as:

- An larger (extra room) apartment/house in a better school district (this could be HUGE);
- Daycare/afterschool if the parent works full time;
- Extra classes (swimming, soccer, whatever else);
- Extra health insurance + copays (could easily add up to $200 a month here in California);

Quote:

Forcing those guys to pay child support, while of course it should be done, will not solve or even slow down the problem. The problem is in the female motivation.

Yeah, I've heard that before, so what I gonna ask you is this: if you believe this is the problem, how do you realistically propose to fix it?

Quote:

I mean just single women who raise children alone. These are divided into women who had children while married and then divorced, and those who had children out of wedlock in the first place (without a stable partner, see below).

So you were talking about single motherhood and not about children born out of wedlock. Those two things are not related to each other in any way, as single motherhood may (and often does) follow the children born in the marriage.

Quote:

Obviously, it's growing very fast. I don't know if post-divorce single motherhood is growing at the same rate, but it's safe to assume that both are growing.

But now you posted the graph about the children born out of wedlock, which has no direct correlation with single motherhood.

Quote:

If you mean kids being born out of wedlock to stable couples who stay together, no, of course that's not a problem. I don't care if they have the paper or not. But that's practically marriage, isn't it? And I don't think it's that common. Certainly it can't account for more than half (if that) of the increase in green lines in the graph above.

Well, it could be 90% of it. Or 1% of it, since you don't know it doesn't really matter as your opinion would be a pure speculation.

Quote:

Haven't heard of it declining, but even if it were, would you really want to count that as some kind of achievement? It's still a massive number, and a part of the drop is just due to less people getting married in the first place, or people postponing marriage more and spending more time being divorced.

Well it was you who complained about "Continued growth in divorce rates" in the post above. Now you seem to be correcting yourself.

Quote:

I think Dalrock explained it better than I did:

If you take Dalrock seriously, you gonna have significantly more problems like that.