Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Earth to Hooper, Earth to Hooper! Come in, Hooper!
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm #712968
dawsonctParticipantHooper, you NEED to re-examine your incredible heartless statement about pulling the social safety net out from under people so their would be a larger pool of American-born orphans up for adoption. That is an amazingly vile statement. Do you REALLY want America to become more like 19th century, Dickensian England? (If you’ve never read Charles Dickens, do yourself, and your fellow Americans, a favor).
I worked for Children’s Home Society of Washington during the very prosperous 90’s. Even during those flush times in America, we had trouble finding parents for all the children our agency handled. And of course, the ultra-cons had more of a problem with us placing children in the loving homes of same-sex couples than they did with the fact those kids didn’t have a loving, secure adult in their lives.
Concern for children ends once they’ve cleared the labia, I guess.
There is NO SHORTAGE of adoptable kids already in America. Penalizing a parent and child for an unforeseen financial downturn sounds like something a totalitarian state would do.
—
I guess that would be okay, as long as it is right-wing totalitarianism, eh?
January 6, 2011 at 7:03 pm #712969
hooper1961Memberable bodied and minded people need to work. what is heartless about this?
and what is heartless about strongly encouraging (ie not supporting bad decision) a single (especially teenage) to give the kid up for adoption. if someone chooses to bring a new one into this world don’t they have a responsibility to do the right thing for the child? i as a taxpayer do not feel i should be required to pay for bad decisions by able bodied and minded others.
January 6, 2011 at 7:19 pm #712970
miwsParticipantWe talking about able bodied and able minded wealthy banking and corporate execs here, hoop?
Mike
January 6, 2011 at 7:27 pm #712971
TDeParticipant“i as a taxpayer do not feel i should be required to pay for bad decisions by able bodied and minded others.”
And yet every tax dollar you pay supports a government comprised of able bodied and minded people who make astoundingly bad decisions for the rest of us, regardless of how we feel about it…like taking us to war in far away countries, deciding that corporations can contribute as much as they want to sway elections in their favor and sending piles of money overseas to corrupt governments, etc., etc. Why is so important to you that people with children not be given a little extra from your tax dollars when the majority of your tax dollars are supporting the bad decision makers way on up the political food chain.
And yes, let’s encourage a lot more adoptions.. yanking children away from mothers because maybe they weren’t married when they gave birth and you think they are too young? And who will pay for the adoption homes and agengies? Are you kidding me? Are you a sociopathic thinker, unable to empathize or sympathize with anyone else but yourself and your situation? Scary dude.
January 6, 2011 at 9:35 pm #712972
hooper1961Membertde i did not support the wars. those people who drive gas guzzling suv’s and then scream bloody murder when gas prices rise are responsible. the iraq way was and is about oil.
regarding kids having kids; i know one who fathered a kid when he was 17 he married the girl and with his and wife’s parents support the kid without welfare payments.
January 6, 2011 at 11:05 pm #712973
JoBParticipantHooper 1961
I was one of those unwed mothers 40+ years ago. I got pregnant the night before my boyfriend shipped out.
I gave my child up for adoption and have lived to count not only my own cost but to see that of my son.
You may feel comfortable making choices for someone else but having lived the consequences I am not.
January 6, 2011 at 11:12 pm #712974
hooper1961MemberJoB – I am not making choices for someone else; just don’t expect the taxpayers to support your choice is all that I am saying.
January 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm #712975
maplesyrupParticipantFWIW, I have 3 kids, still fairly young, and think the child tax credit is crazy. What would be fair is to tax people like me more. Seriously.
January 6, 2011 at 11:37 pm #712976
hooper1961Membermaplesyrup i agree and so is the mortgage interest deduction.
January 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm #712977
JanSParticipantyou don’t want those single teenage girls having babies? Teach your sons to keep it zipped…period. Teach birth control at an early age. Abstinence? Let’s get serious here. Teenagers are notoriously “it won’t happen to me” people. Communicate with them frequently about the consequences…but don’t ever think it’s easy to give up a child. Again..who will be the decider…you, Hoop? And…, lastly, couples adopting want that perfect baby from birth too often, and reject those who are a bit older, who may need just as much love, but aren’t perfect…that’s why they go to foreign countries, not because there aren’t enough children to adopt here. There are more than enough. They just aren’t the “perfect” kind.
January 6, 2011 at 11:57 pm #712978
JoBParticipanthooper 1961
of course you expect the taxpayers to subsidize individual choices…
as long as you approve of them.
heaven forbid someone should become pregnant even though the doctor told her she would never have children (boy, was he wrong!)
or should become sick and need a transplant to live to support their children
or should be downsized by an American company increasing jobs overseas
or have their pension bankrupted by a company reorganization
or …
What exactly do you pay taxes for?
To subsidize the big companies doing the downsizing in the US while they increase jobs overseas?
That’s where the real money goes.
January 7, 2011 at 12:07 am #712979
hooper1961Membernational defense (it should be less), infrastructure are basic government services.
January 7, 2011 at 12:09 am #712980
RarelyEverParticipantum, just to clarify – my earlier post was in response to genesee hill’s comment that he/she always votes for school levies, even though he/she does not have kids of his/her own.
my observation is that there are too many parents who vote against school levies because they perceive them as just another tax. as in, i want it, but you pay for it. :(
January 7, 2011 at 12:10 am #712981
JoBParticipanthooper 1961
and where do you think the greater portion of those tax dollars spent on national defense go?
They go to defense contractors and defense department sub-contractors.
can’t resist adding…
tunnel = infrastructure :))))
January 7, 2011 at 12:12 am #712982
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
so.. you think individuals without tax shelters should bear the brunt of American taxation while individuals with tax shelters and big business get tax breaks?
the two you mention are the two still available to the employed middle class… while there are a whole lot of methods for the more wealthy to reduce their taxable income.
We are past child rearing age and haven’t had a mortgage for the past couple of years and paid far more in real tax dollars than friends with twice our income and tax friendly “businesses”.
So.. not only did we pay more in taxes (actual dollars) we paid a much higher percentage of our income in taxes than friends who made twice the income. Is that what you think is fair?
Heaven forbid that the middle class should get a tax break…
but lets make sure the wealthy..
who have access to a multitude of tax loopholes to reduce their taxable income…
aren’t penalized by higher tax rates …
we wouldn’t want them to pay the same real percentage of their income that their wage slaves do.
**heavy heavy sarcasm alert**
January 7, 2011 at 12:18 am #712983
hooper1961Membersimplifying the tax code by eliminating all loopholes could save a lot money in reduced paperwork alone; and would likely cost some accountants their jobs.
January 7, 2011 at 12:23 am #712984
maplesyrupParticipant“you don’t want those single teenage girls having bbies? Tech your sons to keep it zipped…period.”
It goes both ways, Jan.
January 7, 2011 at 12:28 am #712985
maplesyrupParticipant“so.. you think individuals without tax shelters should bear the brunt of American taxation while individuals with tax shelters and big business get tax breaks?”
Where did I say that, JoB? Paying additional taxes to fund additional consumption of resources doesn’t necessarily equate to “bearing the brunt of taxation.”
“So.. not only did we pay more in taxes (actual dollars) we paid a much higher percentage of our income in taxes than friends who made twice the income. Is that what you think is fair?”
People choose to have kids. I’m sure I’ll get flack for that but it’s true. Sorry. What I don’t think is fair is that people who choose not to have kids have to pay more for services for other peoples’ kids. Even worse is giving people a tax *break* for choosing to place an additional burden on other taxpayers.
Look, I’m not rich. More taxes for me would suck. But looking at it objectively, tax credits for children is decidedly unfair.
January 7, 2011 at 1:32 am #712986
redblackParticipanti almost hate to say it, but i have to side with maplesyrup.
giving people tax credits for doing something that they are inclined to do naturally is crazy.
if you can’t afford the full cost of having a kid, you shouldn’t have a kid – or expect a tax break for doing so.
having said that, i think that services cost far too much in this country, and that profits for things like health care and mass-produced groceries are exorbitant.
i understand that the child tax credit is meant to offset those costs, but do i really need to ask why it’s so?
January 7, 2011 at 2:00 am #712987
JoBParticipantmaplesyrup…
i think the point i am trying to make is that everyone is looking at ways they can make the little guy pay more…
while turning a blind eye to the fact that those with wealth often pay far less than those without.
my friends with double our income and nearly half our actual taxes have no children.
What they do have is two small businesses that they use to expense everything possible.
yes, i know i could play that game too but i would feel really dishonest doing it unless i had the kind of energy it would take to actually work at a business.
and no my friend does not have that kind of energy either…
my friend has no more energy than i do for the same reason:(
January 7, 2011 at 2:06 am #712988
JoBParticipantsometimes it’s really easy to forget that the majority of those who post here on the forum are in the lucky category..
with incomes adequate to meet our needs and perhaps even provide some security.
there are some pretty well dressed people at the food bank these days.
January 7, 2011 at 2:22 am #712989
hooper1961Memberjob – it is not easy running a small business. my gf used to operate a small cafe, worked 100+ hours a week and was lucky to sell it for essentially nothing except getting out of the monthly lease.
January 7, 2011 at 2:31 am #712990
dawsonctParticipantAgain Hoop, I’ve asked this before, aren’t the American PEOPLE the single most important and basic part of what America is? Are WE not the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the American infrastructure?
—
The Roman civilization failed; what good are all those fancy aqueducts and roads doing for THEM?
Once a government begins to ignore the needs of the majority of the people, then that society is doomed to failure.
As the ostensible caretakers of our government, we can avoid that future.
January 7, 2011 at 2:46 am #712991
Genesee HillParticipantRarelyEver:
Thank you for the kind words. I am a “he”. Though it may irritate some, I am a home owner, (when I vote for property tax levies, I pay)and will be 60 years old this coming June. I always vote for “quality of life”. Always. I have had tough times, as well as good times. I have been on “the ropes”. I know the depths of despair. I am as far away as one can be from a “saint”.
But, I feel that it is important to look out for “the common good”. It bothers me that, during these tough times, many people choose to “attack” those on the bottom end of the economic spectrum.
It bothers me that the exceptionally wealthy are getting even more wealthy. It REALLY bothers me that there are apologists in my income level. Those that attack Social Security, health care benefits, unemployment, and Medicare.
January 7, 2011 at 2:47 am #712992
dawsonctParticipantI chose not to have kids, but I certainly hope the one who is my doctor when I get old(er) is well-educated. The chances of that are much better in a more egalitarian society with a good, well funded public education system.
Instead of cutting funding to public education to balance budgets, we should instead be throwing every available resource we have, as a state and a Nation, into public education.
How many teachers could the price of a cruise missile hire?
—
You want to defend our Nation and lower the tax burden for all? Educate the children, through college/trade school. Don’t let professional organizations set limits on the number of students programs admit. If they have the desire and the grades, they should be able to pursue any degree they would like.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.