Impolite posters (davipu)

[RVertigo]

if we had a predetor that fed on humans we whouldn't have overpuplation problems.

We have a few...

Disease...  Flu Pandemics...  AIDS...  Bubonic...  ETC!

Then we have territory, resource, and religious wars...

[Phaedrus]

and how is that a idiotic statment? if we had a predetor that fed on humans we whouldn't have overpuplation problems.

It wasn't an idiotic statement. I was just being a smartass. Pay attention  

[davipu]

I love YOU's a smartass.

[Badger]

I would *like* to think it's due to the fact that children are not at fault for the fact that their parents might have had more children than they could afford. Most of the social programs (eg. Social Security, Welfare, etc) have come from the Democatic party. I wonder if this is true for the tax exemptions for children?

Just to clarify...what I referred to aren't exemptions, they are credits, and they are in addition to the exemptions.  One credit apparently wasn't enough, so they threw in another just for good measure.  They are not based on need, thus making them more like entitlements rather than social programs.

As someone who grew up on government assistance (I still can't look at unsliced cheese in the deli counter without feeling a little sad*), I understand that need-based services are necessary for exactly the reasons you state...there is no reason to punish the innocent.  I understand that there are people that need the funds...and there should be a way for those people to get the assistance they need.  However, providing a tax credit is just the goverment's way of incenting people to procreate.  Where's the tax credit for sterilization?  I know that as a DINK, my wife and I pay more in taxes than if we were both single....just another way that the goverment tries to encourage "correct" behavior through financial motivation...

As a human being and a mother, I can't blame the children for something that's not their fault. Unfortunately, removing the tax exemptions would hurt those that are blameless: the children.

I'm not trying to be down on people that have children.  I hope I'm not being offensive (that's not my intent).  What I am railing against is the social, political, and economic encouragement and insistence that people have as many children as humanly possible.  This is illustrated by things like the national celebration when some asshat has 8 children (at the same time) by choice...and the resulting outpouring of social and financial support, as if they should be beatified for their 'miraculous' use of modern science.

Now, I couldn't disagree with the tax exemptions/credits disappearing when the parents reach a certain level of income, but that's not likely to happen under this administration.

To be fair, there are reductions that kick in above certain income levels.  I didn't look at the worksheet to figure out how they worked.

* One of the assistance programs in Massachusetts would provide some staples for families will children, this included things like a deli-sized block of uncut american cheese, 1lb commercial blocks of butter, and a few other things.  For a good deal of time, we pretty much survived on grilled-cheese sandwiches.  I'm not sure if other places have similar programs.

[Phaedrus]

I love YOU's a smartass.

[Phaedrus]

Pandy - So you are saying that working adults that choose to be single with no kids should have to pay more in taxes than those working adults who choose to have children?    That hardly seems right.

Of course a cut off at this point would harm the children already in existence. But if there were a cut off date so in time the policy would be phased out, that would be ideal. That way, the children alive now would still benefit but in the future parents would have to take their financial status into consideration when having children. People would be more willing to stop and think "Gee, can I afford to support kids?" Less children would be born into poverty that way also.

In other words: Children are a choice. If you can not support them on your income, you should not have them, and you should not expect others who do not have kids to support them for you.

[RVertigo]

Pandy - So you are saying that working adults that choose to be single with no kids should have to pay more in taxes than those working adults who choose to have children?    That hardly seems right.

Not only do childless people have to pay for other people's kids, we have to deal with their screaming kids and get really dirty looks when we ask the parent to take the screaming kid to the bathroom and drown them in the toilet.

So unfair.

[pandy]

I'm not trying to be down on people that have children.  I hope I'm not being offensive (that's not my intent).  

I don't find you offensive at all.  You're participating in a respectful exchange of ideas, and I respect you GREATLY for that!  

What I am railing against is the social, political, and economic encouragement and insistence that people have as many children as humanly possible.  This is illustrated by things like the national celebration when some asshat has 8 children (at the same time) by choice...and the resulting outpouring of social and financial support, as if they should be beatified for their 'miraculous' use of modern science.

I couldn't agree more with you here. I had one child by choice, partly because I don't even really LIKE children all that much , and partly because I felt that providing for one was what I could financially handle (and do it right), and partly because I didn't want to fill the world with little pandyz! Think of it as a public service of a sort.  :lol:

I absolutely agree that it's not in the best interests of our country, our wallets, or our planet to be having dozens of children (I think I heard a story of someone having had 16 children so far, and they're not sure if they're finished...appalling...adopt some children that are already here if you have that great a love of children!). I know this is a heated issue, and we all have differing opinions. I believe in financial responsibility, but we also need to provide for the innocents. Where do we find that balance? Well, that's a questions that Republicans and Democrats have been struggling with for decades.

[pandy]

Not only do childless people have to pay for other people's kids, we have to deal with their screaming kids and get really dirty looks when we ask the parent to take the screaming kid to the bathroom and drown them in the toilet.
So unfair.

I feel the same way. *I* should not have to put up with other peoples' screaming little darlings, and I have the absolute WORST kid karma. No matter WHERE I go, there will be screaming children. People think I'm kidding until the spend a day with me or go to lunch with me! Then they learn! I'm not kidding! We choose to have a meal in the bar of some restaurants to lessen the likelyhood of children, and--I kid you not--a table of about FIVE children sat right next to us...in the BAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :x

I believe that it's the parents who raise such little darlings who should be the ones who are drowned in the toilet!  

[pandy]

Pandy - So you are saying that working adults that choose to be single with no kids should have to pay more in taxes than those working adults who choose to have children?    That hardly seems right.

Not quite sure where I said that, but feel free to point it out to me!  :dunno:

In other words: Children are a choice. If you can not support them on your income, you should not have them, and you should not expect others who do not have kids to support them for you.

While I agree in principle with the above, I also have to say that this is a middle-class mentality. The poor might submit that they have just as much right to bear children as the rest of society.

In a perfect society, we wouldn't NEED social programs. Believe me, I'm all for financial responsibility... But, having been one of those starving, throw-away children that our society rails against, I just can't stand to see the children suffer. They're the innocents here. I'd like nothing better than to see ALL of our children happy, fed, and...  :lol: polite.

Is it fair for some to pay more than others?  :dunno: It's hard to say what's fair. I don't like paying as much as I do in taxes, especially when I know my tax dollars are going for $800 toilets, $300 hammers, and $50,000,000 elections that the people don't want. That $ could feed a lot of children.

Believe it or not, I'm not at all a bleeding heart... I'm one of the ruthless Republicans (who's been more for the Dems lately...well...for years now.... ), but I don't want to see the innocents suffer (even if I'm not too fond of the little darlings).

[Blueknyt]

right to have children, fine, limit to what you can support and not rely on breeding to ensure your retirement care. or one kid after another to chain a husband down. that only works Half the time thesedays.

[pandy]

or one kid after another to chain a husband down. that only works Half the time these days.

You seem a bit cynical when it comes to the female half of our species, Blueknyt.

[RVertigo]

I've known several women that have gotten pregnant to keep a man.  It didn't work in the long term...

[pandy]

I've known several women that have gotten pregnant to keep a man.  It didn't work in the long term...

Yup, I know they exist...I've known a couple of them myself. However, men can take responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy fairly easily!  

[RVertigo]

Uh yeah...  Real damn easily.

But, when a man thinks they're off the hook 'cause the chick is on the pill, then men don't worry about it...

The person that controls the birth control controls the pregnancy.  That's why most women have the control.

[Phaedrus]

The person that controls the birth control controls the pregnancy.  That's why most women have the control.

Depends on what you are using as a contreceptive  

I've made some rather poor decisions in my days..trust me.   But my rule now is that if I wouldn't want to have a child with her, then I don't go 'unwrapped'.

[Blueknyt]

after rereading yeah, there were very few hits about men, save my own admissions anyway. Men can and often are just as bad.

and yeah, cant say all my dealings nor witnessing of the female species has been all  positive, but not all negitive either.  i will say at times its hard to figure out and while one must work at a relationship, it shouldnt be pushing a boulder up and endless mountain either.

[Blueknyt]

i have one child, i will have only one child and not another, even by mistake.

[Jake D]

I used to think it was arrogant to think the world needed another person in it "just like me", ie., my child.  But the older I get, the more I start to think that maybe that is EXACTLY what this world needs.  

[pandy]

But my rule now is that if I wouldn't want to have a child with her, then I don't go 'unwrapped'.

The beauty is that either the male or the female or both can be in control of the birth control! The complaint that "she said she was taking care of it" or "he said he was taking care of it" doesn't fly. If YOU don't want a child, then YOU take responsbility for making sure you don't have one! Simple!  :mrgreen:

And I don't mean YOU specifically, Phae...I just liked what you said, so yours is the msg that gets mine tacked on!