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.
For some reason I'm thinking that she's not going to be a burden on the taxpayers.... Maybe I'm just missing something here, but can you explain exactly how this pregnancy is going to cost me (or you) a single dime?
I'll give you a two part answer ... and I'll apologize initially if I happen to veer off the topic a little. First, it's a fact that Governor Palin's children attend public schools, which is a burden on Alaska's taxpayers. Public schools also have a cost burden on the rest of us because public education as it is today is also funded through the NEA (a Federal agency). On a local level, if you own a home and actually look at the breakdown of your property tax bill, nearly 70% of it likely goes to public schools (at least it does where I live). I don't have children, yet I'm paying an enormous cost out of my pocket each year to subsidize the education for kids that aren't mine, simply because I chose to be responsible & not impregnate anybody. Read: SOCIALISM!
It's basically the same answer regarding how Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a burden on taxyapers. You know very well that the majority of teenagers who have babies are not financially prepared for the expense & upbringing that a child demands. So who ends up paying for the expense? You guessed it! TAXPAYERS ... in the form of government funded children's health initiatives, and public schools. The only exception to that is if the grandparents (the Palins) cover the cost ... which seems unlikely being that Sarah Palin's own children are attending government funded school (not private school).
Public schools.. that's how she's going to burden us... ooookkk.....
I'm not a proponent of the current public school system either, but get serious. You're grasping here.
Quote:
You know very well that the majority of teenagers who have babies are not financially prepared for the expense & upbringing that a child demands.
I asked specifically how THIS pregnancy was going to cost us money. Arguments about "the majority of teenagers" do not apply.
So all you have is public school. I'm also a single male with no kids, and I abhor the financial sinkhole known as "public schools", but really - you're reaching here. The bottom line is that this pregnancy doesn't affect either me or you in any way whatsoever. So where's your hostility really coming from?
Public schools.. that's how she's going to burden us... ooookkk.....
I'm not a proponent of the current public school system either, but get serious. You're grasping here.
I asked specifically how THIS pregnancy was going to cost us money. Arguments about "the majority of teenagers" do not apply.
So all you have is public school. I'm also a single male with no kids, and I abhor the financial sinkhole known as "public schools", but really - you're reaching here. The bottom line is that this pregnancy doesn't affect either me or you in any way whatsoever. So where's your hostility really coming from?
Didn't you know that Alaska will now have to raise taxes in 6 years to send this child to school..But then again maybe not, by then the mother will be 23 and may even be paying school taxes herself.
I'll give you a two part answer ... and I'll apologize initially if I happen to veer off the topic a little. First, it's a fact that Governor Palin's children attend public schools, which is a burden on Alaska's taxpayers. Public schools also have a cost burden on the rest of us because public education as it is today is also funded through the NEA (a Federal agency). On a local level, if you own a home and actually look at the breakdown of your property tax bill, nearly 70% of it likely goes to public schools (at least it does where I live). I don't have children, yet I'm paying an enormous cost out of my pocket each year to subsidize the education for kids that aren't mine, simply because I chose to be responsible & not impregnate anybody. Read: SOCIALISM!
It's basically the same answer regarding how Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a burden on taxyapers. You know very well that the majority of teenagers who have babies are not financially prepared for the expense & upbringing that a child demands. So who ends up paying for the expense? You guessed it! TAXPAYERS ... in the form of government funded children's health initiatives, and public schools. The only exception to that is if the grandparents (the Palins) cover the cost ... which seems unlikely being that Sarah Palin's own children are attending government funded school (not private school).
If you feel you're being cheated so much go out and impregnate a couple of women and get your moneys worth.
You tax-whiney conservative are making a great argument for the Pro-Choicers.
ABORTIONS MEAN LOWER TAXES
Every abortion will save enough money to buy 10,000 Depleted Uranium Tipped bullets to spray all over the ground in Iraq and leave behind to cause birth defects in the future Iraq paradise we will have created.
Public schools.. that's how she's going to burden us... ooookkk.....
I'm not a proponent of the current public school system either, but get serious. You're grasping here.
I asked specifically how THIS pregnancy was going to cost us money. Arguments about "the majority of teenagers" do not apply.
So all you have is public school. I'm also a single male with no kids, and I abhor the financial sinkhole known as "public schools", but really - you're reaching here. The bottom line is that this pregnancy doesn't affect either me or you in any way whatsoever. So where's your hostility really coming from?
So you're saying that public schools aren't a valid argument in this case?! I'm sorry if that's not enough for you, but the fact is that monster of a system is an ENORMOUS burden on everyone. Unless the parents (Sarah & her husband) are going to pay for the cost of education & what not out of their own financial assets, then it will be a burden to the taxpayers. Somehow, that just doesn't seem likely, seeing how her own daughters are in the public system. Also, I gave an example of how this affects all of us. Schools aren't just locally funded. Anymore, they are basically satellites of the NEA, which is a bloated federally funded agency.
Regarding where my "hostilty" is coming from on this issue: I'm disgusted by the mixed values that many so called moralists & social conservatives have about topics such as this. Conservatives at one time actually practiced what they preached. They believed in fiscal restraint, and not burdening taxpayers ... which included not having kids unless they could damn well afford every aspect of their upbringing on their own terms. They also believed in not getting pregnant outside of wedlock. Nowadays, the message of social conservatives is family values, ban abortion, ban same sex marriage, ban stem cell research, ban this, restrict that. But at the same time, they seem to be a lot more tolerant now of people who get pregnant whether they're married or not, or whether they can afford it or not. Hypocrisy!
Well, I agree! However, I stated in the other thread directly concerning the pregnancy that it seems to be a way of life for liberal minded people (a good share of Democrats) to engage in affairs, and other immoral activity. Today's socially conservative Republicans make it their business to dictate what society's morals should be, such as family values, etc. To me, it's very hypocritical for a Governor who is an advocate for moral values to be so openly supportive of her unwed teen daughter to hump around & become pregnant. If it were me, I'd be ashamed!
This is one reason why I refuse to be associated with the religious right. They're staunchly against abortion, and they're highly pro marriage because of the so called morality factor. However, they seem to take a much more tolerant stand nowadays of people who pop out babies by the barrel, regardless if they're married, and regardless if they have the financial means. Fiscal responsibility apparently doesn't exist anymore, and that's pathetic!
How in the world are you making the leap that Palin's daughter's baby will become a burden on the taxpayers and won't be able to take care of her child. I hope, then, that you're against illegal immigration. Talk about dropping babies that are a burden on the taxpayers. They want to have large families, and they certainly will be at the expense of taxpayers. Hospitals are closing down because of all the free medical care given to illegals. It's actually the Democratic party advocating amnesty for illegals, particularly in California, although both parties are pandering for the vote.
How is having a large family not fiscally responsible? Palin's family is not on welfare. I am quite sure they pay taxes. Isn't it perfectly legal to make the choice to have one or two or three or more children? How is having children that you financially take care of immoral? I don't believe you're advocating abortion just because someone may not be in a financial position to take care of them?
Do you think families with more than three children should pay more taxes because they are a "burden" on the school systems? Do you think all mothers should stay home with their children, and if they don't they're immoral for putting their child in a day care and ultimately a public school--is that what you are meaning when you say we should keep the government out of our lives? Should teachers not be allowed to have children because they have to have others take care of them while they're teaching? Do you not believe the political parties should be concerned about issues that affect America such as abortion? Should they just not bring it up and then they'll be more "moral?" Because conservative Republicans have to address the abortion issue if they are in politics, that renders them not really a conservative Republican? Should our Republicans or Democrats not be concerned about issues that affect America today, or is abortion only an issue that Democrats need to address?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
Ironically, I can't believe that I'm the one being the moralist on this topic. Normally, I would agree that it's a private matter. However, a teenage girl who becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby is an enormous burden on the taxpayers in many ways. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of young girls who have babies can't afford the upbringing, the health care, or the education of their "choice" on their own terms. It is the taxpayers (you & me) who end up bearing the cost.
A good mother and somebody who truly has high moral values wouldn't keep having children, and then stick them in day care & subsidized public schools while she goes off to work. I believe Palin is a conservative Republican in name only. It used to be that a true conservative would practice some restraint, and be a little more fiscally responsible. Some 40 years ago, the Republican platform focussed chiefly on reducing wasteful spending & getting the government out of our lives. Moreover, the same Republican party some 40 years ago DIDN'T include issues like abortion or marriage as part of their campaign like they do now!
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.
