Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so this is what I dont get...I post a link that asserts that single mothers collapsed the economy, and virtually everyone counters that they didnt...YET, everyone who has responded to the link, cited the VERY same thing that the article's author cited as the reason that we have been toppled. credit surpassed money...too much debt...which is exactly what the article addressed.
-- single mothers were the prime targets/beneficiaries of sub prime lending
-- They defaulted on those loans.
-- divorces initiated largely by single mothers, and oow births means more houses were being sought, than singular nuclear families would have needed. (Two single/divorced people must look for houses, rather than one family living in the same house.)
-- This flooded the market with "buyers" which raised home prices.
-- Home prices were then inflated for real families who otherwise COULDVE afforded homes.
-- And we are right back at publicly subsidized bad decisions by single mothers.
While I agree that conditions were unsustainable and thus the economy was ripe for a collapse, and that many other ancillary components also contributed to the collapse, I do think that the overwhelming majority of the collapse rests on the shoulders of the entitlement program. (another way of saying -- those who abused credit)
Hi solytaire
I highlighted the reason. Single mothers or any other victim class is the baited trap or anvil for the hammer. The higher classes sap the class below them with the poor. The poor then rotate that capital into the Wall Street class. Stop looking at the pawns.
so this is what I dont get...I post a link that asserts that single mothers collapsed the economy, and virtually everyone counters that they didnt...YET, everyone who has responded to the link, cited the VERY same thing that the article's author cited as the reason that we have been toppled. credit surpassed money...too much debt...which is exactly what the article addressed.
You're oversimplifying a very complex situation with the intention of blaming the whole thing on women. Housing prices didn't skyrocket all over the nation but only in certain areas such as California, Florida, Arizona, Las Vegas and quite a few other areas and in a great many of those places there were large numbers of people who were moving there from other states. This was the situation in Phoenix, I know because I lived there and saw what was happening. Other states with poor economies such as the so called rust belt which would include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania did not have a huge increase in housing prices. Those facts prove that your theory of divorcing couples and single mothers looking for houses caused the price increase is false. It's simply a matter of supply and demand which was also made worse by the fact that speculators were buying houses and selling them in a short period of time to make a quick profit which helped to escalate the increasing cost to buy a home. Sorry but you can't blame this mess on women, that's just not what happened.
I addressed the statement you added, which was that single mothers depended on child support payments to pay their mortgages. I read the article, which said nothing about child support payments, and suggested that fathers who did not make their payments may have contributed to the problem. You ignored my comment.
Yes I did, as I was preparing to travel at that time...I cant direct you to any part of the article that states such...but the author himself said such on his radio interview as he was outlining his article..unfortunately, soundbites arent so easily found. This may have to suffice as a cross reference for now..until I can find the .wav file of the radio soundbite that is.
I highlighted the reason. Single mothers or any other victim class is the baited trap or anvil for the hammer. The higher classes sap the class below them with the poor. The poor then rotate that capital into the Wall Street class. Stop looking at the pawns.
Im not, Im looking at the beneficiaries on both ends.
You're oversimplifying a very complex situation with the intention of blaming the whole thing on women. Housing prices didn't skyrocket all over the nation but only in certain areas such as California, Florida, Arizona, Las Vegas and quite a few other areas and in a great many of those places there were large numbers of people who were moving there from other states. This was the situation in Phoenix, I know because I lived there and saw what was happening. Other states with poor economies such as the so called rust belt which would include Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania did not have a huge increase in housing prices. Those facts prove that your theory of divorcing couples and single mothers looking for houses caused the price increase is false. It's simply a matter of supply and demand which was also made worse by the fact that speculators were buying houses and selling them in a short period of time to make a quick profit which helped to escalate the increasing cost to buy a home. Sorry but you can't blame this mess on women, that's just not what happened.
No one is blaming women...Your blind defense of women is prompting you to try to polarize something that isnt binary...Im talking about single mothers...not women. And I wouldnt say that the information you've presented disproves anything Ive said..those states were doing abysmal, because they were losing population anyway...of course they had low housing prices, they could barely fill apartment leases.. IMO You're introducing very irrelevant aspects to my point, in order to shield single mothers. carry on.
Hello, Gwynedd. This approach is not compatible with the pickup artist approach that Brauwyn is talking about. With that mindset, there is no waiting for a "resolved" woman. The guy just moves on and keeps trying until he finds one who is not resolved.
Hi JustJulia,
Is it really making a point to bring up any individual? I suppose I could dig up some bra burning feminist who turned some guy that looked at her the wrong way into Swiss cheese. Why the fascination with discussing the men you seem to hate? Do I see any one posting good examples of men? Do you see the implication? If you bring up over and over again all these bad men, I just assume that is what such women with think of all men. Curious that this is not apparent.
Yet there is a reason for these men's attitudes and perhaps you are one of the few who will understand the argument.
There are well defined biological paths to take and modern society is laying track for one of them. The more promiscuous the female society becomes, the more men are biologically driven to be repulsed by long term contact with females. Its a biological reaction were men are trying to seek rationalization. That is what the contradictory chatter is all about. PUA pump and dump is a problem.
It has happened because women's sexual freedom has just become a sexual arms race which is ravaging the female population with attractive men not committing. Many serial killers aim specifically for prostitutes for this reason. Their psycho-sexual angst reaches such and extreme, that they act out on their revulsion. That is why it will also ironically be of a sexual nature. Just look at some forms of erotica and see the sensualist sexual hatred and it becomes obvious. Its the male hate-sex drive.
The reaction people have to rot is a biological impulse to stay away from toxicity and virulence. Its an impulse, not a decision. The male impulse to female promiscuity is to keep him away from cuckoldry. Those men are clearly affected by it. Certainly the more they bed the kind of women who sleep with them, the protective hatred against cuckoldry must increase.
This is a PUA opinion of the dark side of what he does. The evolutionary psychology behind it is screaming in my ear and its saying "sex without bonds". The male drive is protecting itself from falling into commitment with a woman who will cuckold him
Yet this is true: single mothers simply cannot raise boys to be men...and I mean even the best single mothers, because whether I want to admit it or not, there are some excellent ones out there...But Ive come to realize this harsh fact of life.
p.s...I highly doubt that single fathers can raise functional women...but I have no evidence of this personally.
Things brings to mind another argument that surfaces regarding gender discussions, the wage gap. To be clear, I don't have much of an opinion on this in either direction. What is often toted, tho, is that men earn more because they are willing to work longer hours, travel, etc. All things that steal time from the family. If this is the case are they raising their boys or are the moms doing the job?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Hi solytaire
I highlighted the reason. Single mothers or any other victim class is the baited trap or anvil for the hammer. The higher classes sap the class below them with the poor. The poor then rotate that capital into the Wall Street class. Stop looking at the pawns.
Agreed. I read not too long ago that many financial institutions that set up camp in lower income neighborhoods, in the past, only offered specific types of loan packages. That's shady.
Is it really making a point to bring up any individual? I suppose I could dig up some bra burning feminist who turned some guy that looked at her the wrong way into Swiss cheese. Why the fascination with discussing the men you seem to hate? Do I see any one posting good examples of men? Do you see the implication? If you bring up over and over again all these bad men, I just assume that is what such women with think of all men. Curious that this is not apparent.
Yet there is a reason for these men's attitudes and perhaps you are one of the few who will understand the argument.
There are well defined biological paths to take and modern society is laying track for one of them. The more promiscuous the female society becomes, the more men are biologically driven to be repulsed by long term contact with females. Its a biological reaction were men are trying to seek rationalization. That is what the contradictory chatter is all about. PUA pump and dump is a problem.
It has happened because women's sexual freedom has just become a sexual arms race which is ravaging the female population with attractive men not committing. Many serial killers aim specifically for prostitutes for this reason. Their psycho-sexual angst reaches such and extreme, that they act out on their revulsion. That is why it will also ironically be of a sexual nature. Just look at some forms of erotica and see the sensualist sexual hatred and it becomes obvious. Its the male hate-sex drive.
The reaction people have to rot is a biological impulse to stay away from toxicity and virulence. Its an impulse, not a decision. The male impulse to female promiscuity is to keep him away from cuckoldry. Those men are clearly affected by it. Certainly the more they bed the kind of women who sleep with them, the protective hatred against cuckoldry must increase.
This is a PUA opinion of the dark side of what he does. The evolutionary psychology behind it is screaming in my ear and its saying "sex without bonds". The male drive is protecting itself from falling into commitment with a woman who will cuckold him
Things brings to mind another argument that surfaces regarding gender discussions, the wage gap. To be clear, I don't have much of an opinion on this in either direction. What is often toted, tho, is that men earn more because they are willing to work longer hours, travel, etc. All things that steal time from the family. If this is the case are they raising their boys or are the moms doing the job?
Agreed. I read not too long ago that many financial institutions that set up camp in lower income neighborhoods, in the past, only offered specific types of loan packages. That's shady.
Hi Braunwyn,
In other words, do we expect the poor not to take a free gift? Its ridiculous. The enemy is Wall Street, Goldman Sax and JP Morgan and friends. They set up a nice little patsy with AIG. Unfortunately most people can only follow a few steps of logic and the swindle is invisible to them, kill the poor and nothing more.
Things brings to mind another argument that surfaces regarding gender discussions, the wage gap. To be clear, I don't have much of an opinion on this in either direction. What is often toted, tho, is that men earn more because they are willing to work longer hours, travel, etc. All things that steal time from the family. If this is the case are they raising their boys or are the moms doing the job?
I would contend that fathers who play the traditional role, do raise their children...the mere observation of a man providing for his family by earning of money is an exemplary lesson to a son. A woman cant teach this, because while she can certainly work hard, what she cant convey to her son is how his desire for women correlates with his work ethic/earning potential in his pursuit of a woman....women will be pursued by men whether she has money or not...it is not the same for men.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
