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.
I'll tend to agree. Obviously the most logical way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and having kids before you're ready is abstinence. (honestly who really ever is ready, because when you think you are, sometimes s*** hits the fan... but that is another topic). However; we're human, and as humans we do have urges so it's unrealistic to think that it is that easy to just not have sex. So yes, I have no issue with safe sex being promoted, because I practiced it in my heyday! But, the parents also need to do their part to educate their kids on this topic. Too many parents don't, and then they'll turn around and b*** about the schools doing it.
I don't however, think that we as taxpayers should have to cover someone elses birth control.
I'd rather spend the money on helping them not get pregnant which is rather cheap than later on down the road having to pay for the kids education, health insurance, and general well being. For someone and I'm not just talking about you btw but for someone who does not like welfare than why not encourage more people to practice safe sex and make things easier for them to get a hold of contraceptives? I would much rather me pay for a condom or a birth control pill then the women/lady/girl have a kid and give it up for adoption considering our foster care system is garbage and most who go in end up coming out deeply troubled and later on from there end up being an even larger burden on us when they end up entering juvy or prison.
So a burger flipper working part-time at minimum wage who spends 100% of his wages on basic necessities (food, housing, etc.) has a huge (to him) tax increase because he is suddenly taxed at the same rate as a lawyer who works 70-hrs/week for $250,000/year who get a decrease in taxes? Your "fair" system is to make the people who already can't afford food and housing pay more taxes, while the people who are maxing out retirement contributions get a tax cut? You have an interesting definition of "fair".
About the only good thing in your scenario would be if the winners of the sperm lottery (Sam Walton's Heir's, Romney, etc.) also have to pay the flat rate on ALL their income including dividends.
The only way this would work is if the "working poor" get additional assistance from the government to offset their higher taxes.
So a burger flipper working part-time at minimum wage who spends 100% of his wages on basic necessities (food, housing, etc.) has a huge (to him) tax increase because he is suddenly taxed at the same rate as a lawyer who works 70-hrs/week for $250,000/year who get a decrease in taxes? Your "fair" system is to make the people who already can't afford food and housing pay more taxes, while the people who are maxing out retirement contributions get a tax cut? You have an interesting definition of "fair".
About the only good thing in your scenario would be if the winners of the sperm lottery (Sam Walton's Heir's, Romney, etc.) also have to pay the flat rate on ALL their income including dividends.
The only way this would work is if the "working poor" get additional assistance from the government to offset their higher taxes.
So that's why you build ghettos. That's why you build dirt cheap housing and stuff the poor in cramped conditions. So that the poor can pay their fair share.
What you call fiction is indeed happening daily in this country. Single moms, multiple kids, several baby daddies! That's just fiction? Riiiiiiiiiiigggggggghhhht!
I have no issues helping people. They also have to WANT to help themselves! It's called give and take! But apparently some of you on the left just want to take! Yes... s*** happens! Sometimes there are things that happen that are out of your control. But at some point people need to take responsibility for their OWN actions!
Why did you waste your time restating and thus proving my basic point that you want the government to enact public policy based on your ignorant opinions about the lives of complete strangers?
That is how you want our government to function.
What a joke.
I want government policy to based on REALITY, data, trail and error, with the goal of helping, and not my or your ignorant thoughts about the lives of complete strangers.
You don't choose your parents. If you are born poor you are not going to have the same education as someone that is wealthy.
So, why does the government incentivize the 3 times higher birth rate of those receiving public assistance by PAYING them to do nothing more than breed?
Oh wait, we already know... they're the Democrats' voter base.
So a burger flipper working part-time at minimum wage who spends 100% of his wages on basic necessities (food, housing, etc.) has a huge (to him) tax increase because he is suddenly taxed at the same rate as a lawyer who works 70-hrs/week for $250,000/year who get a decrease in taxes? Your "fair" system is to make the people who already can't afford food and housing pay more taxes, while the people who are maxing out retirement contributions get a tax cut? You have an interesting definition of "fair".
About the only good thing in your scenario would be if the winners of the sperm lottery (Sam Walton's Heir's, Romney, etc.) also have to pay the flat rate on ALL their income including dividends.
The only way this would work is if the "working poor" get additional assistance from the government to offset their higher taxes.
Why did you waste your time restating and thus proving my basic point that you want the government to enact public policy based on your ignorant opinions about the lives of complete strangers?
That is how you want our government to function.
What a joke.
I want government policy to based on REALITY, data, trail and error, with the goal of helping, and not my or your ignorant thoughts about the lives of complete strangers.
Please state where I said ANYTHING about the government enacting this as public policy? If anything I want the government LESS involved in our daily lives, not more of it! It's called at some point using personal accountability! Or has personal responsibility and accountability something that we've become allergic to in this country? "Oops I f***** up numerous times and made several poor choices! But gimme gimme gimme, because SOMEBODY has to pay for it!" Same with the bailouts that Bush started, and Obama continued! Sure let's reward the big banks with billions of dollars for their poor business decisions and the Wall Street hacks who gambled with our money! Let's give them MORE money and golden parachutes at the expense of the taxpayers! Wow! That was a brilliant idea!
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.
Or has personal responsibility and accountability something that we've become allergic to in this country? "Oops I f***** up numerous times and made several poor choices! But gimme gimme gimme, because SOMEBODY has to pay for it!" Same with the bailouts that Bush started, and Obama continued! Sure let's reward the big banks with billions of dollars for their poor business decisions and the Wall Street hacks who gambled with our money! Let's give them MORE money and golden parachutes at the expense of the taxpayers! Wow! That was a brilliant idea!
