If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote:
Coffee's For Closers wrote: In article , says... "Phil" wrote in Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am not so brain dead as to claim that children are the only hope I will ever have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no difference whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else. The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part. Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged" idiotology: The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At that point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health care and education until the "person" dies. If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in my own future. No child CHOSE to be born. Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
"DB" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should be handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it does. I agree, nothing worse than letting the bean counters run the show! Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to bring in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and we know that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your clothes and clean your **** when you're too old to take care of yourself? I disagree from the standpoint that we need so many taxes in the first place. "Family" should be the first place to look for help, the way it was before liberals decided to tax everyone and let the federal government decide who is worthy and the way some countries still operate. The taxes we pay are more than enough for a federal government with a balanced budget. The problem is that so many want the government to be the 'end all' for all problems and even uncomfortable situations that they keep demanding more and more "agencies", bureaus, laws, rules and regulations that cost billion$ but do damned little about whatever was the problem in the first place. The larger the government gets, and it is every growing, the worse it does and the more it costs to do less. Phil #3 Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything. Yes, we can all see that thru the present Child Support system, Veterans Administration anda host of other government services that nobody wants to bother about. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
"Michael Coburn" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote: Coffee's For Closers wrote: In article , says... "Phil" wrote in Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am not so brain dead as to claim that children are the only hope I will ever have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no difference whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else. The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part. Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged" idiotology: The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At that point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health care and education until the "person" dies. If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in my own future. No child CHOSE to be born. Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?) First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women *volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy. Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same ability to forego parenthood as women currently have, abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for convenience is to start with. Phil #3 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
"Chris" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message m... "DB" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message ... "Carmen D" wrote in message ... MY MENTALLY RETARDED 10 YEAR OLD SON RECEIVES SSI AND JUST THIS MONTH I GOT A LETTER FROM SOCIAL SECURITY THAT HIS PAYMENT FOR DECEMBER WOULD BE REDUCED 80 DOLLARS DUE TO AN ADVANCED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT I RECEIVED FROM HIS DAD A MONTH EARLY BECAUSE HIS DAD WAS GOING ON VACATION. MY QUESTION? WILL MY SONS FUTURE PAYMENTS GO BACK TO THE NORMAL PAYMENT? Why don't you ask THEM? Anyway, it really shouldn't matter because regardless of how much money you get, either way it's all FREE! Chris, if you had any notion of how much money, time and energy it takes to look after a handicapped child, you wouldn't be so quick to criticize her. This country needs a decent health care program so that $80 is not a major concern for struggling families! How about daycare support for working parents too that a can't afford the staggering costs of private daycare centers? There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should be handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it does. No problem with such government agency so long as it operates on a voluntary basis. Anyone who wants to participate can do so, and those who don't will have the right to not do so. Not unlike any other insurance operation. Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything. If anyone thinks the health care in the US is bad now, just let the government have control of it for a few years. $300 hammers will be nothing compared to the cost of medical supplies and equipment after the government gets through with it plus the idea is that if the gov't is paying for your medical treatment, it'll also demand you endure their choices of lifestyle, treatment, physicians and medications, perhaps even where one lives and/or works, etc., or no health benefit for failing to follow the gov't's mandate... "for your own good", of course. Phil #3 You forgot one thing, the government people also have to get THEIR cut for managing your personal medical care. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer to eliminate paying some middle man when it comes to my healthcare. Believe it or not, it's actually cheaper. I also do not want the government to dictate my lifestyle under the guise of controlling "healthcare costs". Phil #3 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:31:01 -0600, Phil wrote:
"Michael Coburn" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote: Coffee's For Closers wrote: In article , says... "Phil" wrote in Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am not so brain dead as to ignore that children are the only hope I will ever I somehow mistyped what I intended to type and the word "ignore" in the above sentence was mistyped as "claim", reversing the meaning of the sentence. I am editing that history but admitting to it. It was a slip of the keyboard. have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then my retirement isn't going to be very prosperous. It makes no difference whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else. The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part. Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged" idiotology: The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At that point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health care and education until the "person" dies. If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in my own future. No child CHOSE to be born. Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?) First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women *volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy. That is total crap. Sex does not necessarily result in childbirth nor should it automatically result in childbirth. You are some sort of Neanderthal throwback with a religious mental block. Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same ability to forego parenthood as women currently have, abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for convenience is to start with. Phil #3 But you are a moron throwback. In the pragmatic solution described above the child must be separated from the parents (that includes the mother) in order to be cared for by the state. I would go further and insist that in order to stay out of debtors prison that the parents would have to submit to reversible verifiable contraception. Until the child you have already produced can be supported by you alone then you have no right to produce more children. There will be a lot of drones. But let us be clear: The child is what matters to the future. Not the parents. The child is blameless and not culpable until the age of majority. These are the rules of a pragmatic and rational society. Children matter. But only rational adults can make sure that the future is a better place. Religion of course, pines for hardship and suffering. Religion prays for the Apocalypse. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
"DB" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should be handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it does. I agree, nothing worse than letting the bean counters run the show! Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of children. Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to bring in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and we know that's not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your clothes and clean your **** when you're too old to take care of yourself? I would say that's a personal problem. Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything. Yes, we can all see that thru the present Child Support system, Veterans Administration anda host of other government services that nobody wants to bother about. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
SSI ?
"Michael Coburn" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:31:01 -0600, Phil wrote: "Michael Coburn" wrote in message [snip] First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women *volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy. That is total crap. Sex does not necessarily result in childbirth nor should it automatically result in childbirth. You are some sort of Neanderthal throwback with a religious mental block. So you don't believe in personal responsibility for women. What about men who don't want to become a parent? I am not religious by any stretch of the imagination. I don't believe in any gods nor follow any dogmatic belief system. I just find killing the unborn to be a barbaric means to avoid the responsibility for one's actions. Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same ability to forego parenthood as women currently have, abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going into how morally reprehensible killing one's offspring for convenience is to start with. Phil #3 But you are a moron throwback. 'Nuff said. Since you have now proven yourself to be incapable of discourse, you are deleted. [snip remainder of rant) Phil #3 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|