Obama's Report Card...

[~tangerine~]

I think it would be much more fair if people that DID NOT have children got a TAX BREAK. I also wonder why retired people have to pay for education costs through property taxes. Haven't they given enough?

It kills me that people who choose to have children pay less taxes than those of us who have grown children or never had children. The monetary burden for the government is much more for those with families. Health care, education, social services, parks and recreation, etc. are all used more by People with children. Why shouldn't they pay the lion's share for those services through taxes?

The far left has the answer....It takes a community to raise a child, right? That's called "Socialism".

Are you saying you didn't mind paying the taxes when you were raising your child/children, but when they are grown up you shouldn't have to anymore? I think that if the parks, school system, etc... that the money is going towards, keeps the children off the streets making trouble, and allows the kids to grow into productive members of society when they graduate from school... then it really still benefits you.

I have a four year old child, but i owned my own home for eight years before having a child, and i didn't complain. I just hoped the money i paid would make my neighborhood a better/nicer place to live. When i compare the price people pay for taxes throughtout my city, i see the difference, and it matters.

Now elderly people should get a break, that i believe.

edit: i am talking about property taxes... as for tax breaks on yearly tax returns... well i am thankful for any breaks considering the cost of raising a child. When you give 35% of your pay to the government, you don't really feel like they are giving much back anyway.

[allthekingshorses]

I think it would be much more fair if people that DID NOT have children got a TAX BREAK. I also wonder why retired people have to pay for education costs through property taxes. Haven't they given enough?

It kills me that people who choose to have children pay less taxes than those of us who have grown children or never had children. The monetary burden for the government is much more for those with families. Health care, education, social services, parks and recreation, etc. are all used more by People with children. Why shouldn't they pay the lion's share for those services through taxes?

The far left has the answer....It takes a community to raise a child, right? That's called "Socialism".

Maybe when both parents are working to afford things like pre-school and food, gas, heat and internet.... it would take a community(schools, daycare, a neighbor)... because the parents are at work.

[jimmie ray]

Maybe when both parents are working to afford things like pre-school and food, gas, heat and internet.... it would take a community(schools, daycare, a neighbor)... because the parents are at work.

A very delicate subject to delve into. And of course, the situation is not Obama's doing - but something someone in power needs to address, someday. Years ago, when men and women had clearer roles, the man did what it took to provide for the family. If that meant working two jobs, even if the second job was menial labor, he did it. Plus, he made sacrifices to his own "needs". Most women were then able to concentrate on raising the children, at least during the critical years of development. This included social behaviour and certain levels of learning skills. Plus, she made sacrifices to her own "needs". Of course, not every child got the same level of proper guidance, so their first school experience in Kindergarten was not a fast track. And later in life, many would not have the tools or funds to go to college. And you know what? It worked! They learned trades or took menial jobs, they made sacrifices, they raised families.

Too much emphasis is put on early development by sectors ouside the home, and college for all. Where are we now, with too many highly educated people competing for only a fraction of the jobs available, while other professions suffer lack of properly skilled personel?

There is an immigration issue with this country that we need to wake up to. We were a nation of immigrants - people endured hardship to get here, and most certainly endured more long after they arrived, along with discrimination. And you know what? They perservered with it, and built a strong country. Well, we got enough now, go build a strong country somewhere else. Immigrants can come here now, and have jobs ready that our spoiled natural citizens won't touch, along with unlimited benefits, deductions for huge families, unrestricted rights, etc... I don't blame them for flocking here, anymore than I would blame a teenager for planning to kick back at a party school for four years.

The party is over - It IS time for a change, Mr. Obama.

[JimmyPage1977]

Are you saying you didn't mind paying the taxes when you were raising your child/children, but when they are grown up you shouldn't have to anymore? I think that if the parks, school system, etc... that the money is going towards, keeps the children off the streets making trouble, and allows the kids to grow into productive members of society when they graduate from school... then it really still benefits you.

I have a four year old child, but i owned my own home for eight years before having a child, and i didn't complain. I just hoped the money i paid would make my neighborhood a better/nicer place to live. When i compare the price people pay for taxes throughtout my city, i see the difference, and it matters.

Now elderly people should get a break, that i believe.

edit: i am talking about property taxes... as for tax breaks on yearly tax returns... well i am thankful for any breaks considering the cost of raising a child. When you give 35% of your pay to the government, you don't really feel like they are giving much back anyway.

I'm saying that government should not "bill" people who do not have kids and "exempt" people who do, by means of taxation. Yes, when my kids were in school it was my responsibility to provide for them. Our country and states are wallowing in debt due to irresponsible choices made by citizens. People with inadequate resources to raise children, but bring them into the world and force the government to subsidize them. I've worked very hard for more years than most of you have been alive to get where I am and I work in the private sector. Why should I give 40% plus to the government to subsidize people who are making bad decisions?

I don't mind paying my share, but I think that I should get a tax break because:

1. I have no kids in school.

2. I have full health care with no need for government intervention.

3. I never claim unemployment. There should be a benefit for that.

All three of these things make me pay MORE taxes. How does that make sense?

Parents should keep their kids off the streets and out of trouble, parents should insure that there kids are getting an education, parents should feed, clothe, nurture and guide their children. I take good care of my family and resent spending money on people that dismiss the need for family values. Those are the first group of people that look for a hand out from the government and believe that they are entitled to them.

I'm not blaming Obama...and I'm probably in the wrong thread, but it seems relevant to the direction that we are currently headed.

[Pb Derigable]

Maybe when both parents are working to afford things like pre-school and food, gas, heat and internet.... it would take a community(schools, daycare, a neighbor)... because the parents are at work.

Simple idea.

If you can't afford a kid, you should not have a kid. Your mistakes are not my problem.

[JimmyPage1977]

Simple idea.

If you can't afford a kid, you should not have a kid. Your mistakes are not my problem.

BINGO!

[jimmie ray]

I'm not blaming Obama...and I'm probably in the wrong thread, but it seems relevant to the direction that we are currently headed.

As someone posted much earlier in this thread, the main reason Obama was elected was because he is black. The sudden interest in politics among my black coworkers, whom I converse with the most frequently, confirmed that. And I'm glad, because for the first time in my life I started paying attention to what is going on in politics. But now that the jubilation over this milestone is past, and it's time to get to business, I will be scrutinising where these changes are going to occur. I think alot of people, like never before, will too.

[~tangerine~]

I'm saying that government should not "bill" people who do not have kids and "exempt" people who do, by means of taxation. Yes, when my kids were in school it was my responsibility to provide for them. Our country and states are wallowing in debt due to irresponsible choices made by citizens. People with inadequate resources to raise children, but bring them into the world and force the government to subsidize them. I've worked very hard for more years than most of you have been alive to get where I am and I work in the private sector. Why should I give 40% plus to the government to subsidize people who are making bad decisions?

I don't mind paying my share, but I think that I should get a tax break because:

1. I have no kids in school.

2. I have full health care with no need for government intervention.

3. I never claim unemployment. There should be a benefit for that.

All three of these things make me pay MORE taxes. How does that make sense?

Parents should keep their kids off the streets and out of trouble, parents should insure that there kids are getting an education, parents should feed, clothe, nurture and guide their children. I take good care of my family and resent spending money on people that dismiss the need for family values. Those are the first group of people that look for a hand out from the government and believe that they are entitled to them.

I'm not blaming Obama...and I'm probably in the wrong thread, but it seems relevant to the direction that we are currently headed.

I have no kids in publically funded school yet (and may never since i would prefer to send my child to Private school if i see i can afford to). I pay my own healthcare along with my employer's contribution (still costing over $300 a month). In the 25 years i have been working in a full-time status, i have never been on unemployment. I am in a higher tax bracket than the average person, and make more than the average couple combined. I don't "enjoy" the amount of money taken from my hard earned paycheck every two weeks... but if i can live in a neighborhood that is relatively safe, and i can live in a country that is "together"... i won't mind the highway robbery as much. So if the "current" administration can fix some of the disaster "left to them" in the next couple of years or so... i will feel relieved... and not be so worried that the price of things is stretching my dollar way more than it should. I don't dwell on the high taxes i pay... i dwell on the economy ruining my country.

As for the statement about people bringing children into the world who don't have the resources... that is judgemental, unrealistic and unfair. With the high level of poverty in our country, you are saying that a great many people should not raise a family (a natural instinct for the survival of our species for one). I agree it sucks when poor people can't afford children, since back to your point, you and i pay for them. Still, look at what you are saying. Poor people are just as capable as YOU to fall in love and want to marry and have children with their spouse. Should this be a privilege reserved only for the rich now?

I agree it's the parent job to raise their children well. If my tax dollars can provide programs to the children who will otherwise be on the streets, i am happy to contribute. There are parents rich and poor who suck at raising their children.

Our cities and countries are wallowing in debt due to poor management by our government more than any other reason (not the "average" citizen). The last eight years saw some of the worst corruption in our government ever... along with incompetence.

[~tangerine~]

Simple idea.

If you can't afford a kid, you should not have a kid. Your mistakes are not my problem.

Nor should stupid or ugly people be having kids. There needs to be an application process... with IQ test, bank account information, and Tyra Banks.

[JimmyPage1977]

As for the statement about people bringing children into the world who don't have the resources... that is judgemental, unrealistic and unfair. With the high level of poverty in our country, you are saying that a great many people should not raise a family (a natural instinct for the survival of our species for one). I agree it sucks when poor people can't afford children, since back to your point, you and i pay for them. Still, look at what you are saying. Poor people are just as capable as YOU to fall in love and want to marry and have children with their spouse. Should this be a privilege reserved only for the rich now?

Judgmental? Unrealistic? Unfair? WTF is wrong with you?

I guess that because an upper middle class guy has more money than he needs (insert heavy sarcasm), it's perfectly fine for him to pay for someone else's kid's education, health care and food needs, housing, mental health counseling (because Daddy left them before they were born), etc...

Is it really unrealistic for people to save up and plan for a family? Maybe to actually live together for a few years before they have children? Is it unreasonable to be sure that you can adequately support a child BEFORE you bring it into this world?

Unfair? It is unfair for others to have to pay for selfish, irresponsible behavior of people that don't think about the consequences of their actions?

The fact is that poor people, who can't support their kids, have a higher divorce rate (if they ever marry) and the children quite often grow up on welfare with revolving or no Father figure in their lives. Yes there are exceptions, but thinking that poor people are statistically better at raising children is ridiculous.

Should having children be a privilege reserved only for the rich? Absolutely not. It is a privilege and should be reserved for those who make the commitment to provide a stable home, unconditional love, support (both emotionally and financially), guidance to teach right from wrong, show integrity, honesty and MOST OF ALL COMMITMENT to be there until the kids are adults that can stand on their own.

Your views are prime examples of what is wrong with this country....

If someone says, "I can't afford a house." Your way of thinking is that taxpayers should buy them one. It's a natural instinct of this species to have a home. Should owning a home be reserved only for the rich? After all, they will be just as able to mow the lawn as rich people. And by the way, they will need a 5 bedroom, three bath house in a great neighborhood, because they have 4 children that they can't afford to feed.

People living in poverty should not be having children, they should be digging themselves out of poverty. It IS unfair to bring a child into the world and plop them smack dab into poverty.

I'm not judging anyone, just stating what is right.If it's unrealistic for some to support a child, they shouldn't have one until they can afford to support it. If it is important to them, they will find a way. That's America.

[The Rover]

After Obama tanks the Economy with his unsupportable Health Care Plans....

We'll all be consripted into the the Obama Labor Service, or the OLS, as I like to call it . . .

National Socialism - Labor Service Rally at the Zeppelin Field

And, after the Hyperinflation that comes with the unregulated printing of money . . . .

You can burn your stacks of wothless dollars for warmth...

[~tangerine~]

Judgmental? Unrealistic? Unfair? WTF is wrong with you?

I guess that because an upper middle class guy has more money than he needs (insert heavy sarcasm), it's perfectly fine for him to pay for someone else's kid's education, health care and food needs, housing, mental health counseling (because Daddy left them before they were born), etc...

Is it really unrealistic for people to save up and plan for a family? Maybe to actually live together for a few years before they have children? Is it unreasonable to be sure that you can adequately support a child BEFORE you bring it into this world?

Unfair? It is unfair for others to have to pay for selfish, irresponsible behavior of people that don't think about the consequences of their actions?

The fact is that poor people, who can't support their kids, have a higher divorce rate (if they ever marry) and the children quite often grow up on welfare with revolving or no Father figure in their lives. Yes there are exceptions, but thinking that poor people are statistically better at raising children is ridiculous.

Should having children be a privilege reserved only for the rich? Absolutely not. It is a privilege and should be reserved for those who make the commitment to provide a stable home, unconditional love, support (both emotionally and financially), guidance to teach right from wrong, show integrity, honesty and MOST OF ALL COMMITMENT to be there until the kids are adults that can stand on their own.

Your views are prime examples of what is wrong with this country....

If someone says, "I can't afford a house." Your way of thinking is that taxpayers should buy them one. It's a natural instinct of this species to have a home. Should owning a home be reserved only for the rich? After all, they will be just as able to mow the lawn as rich people. And by the way, they will need a 5 bedroom, three bath house in a great neighborhood, because they have 4 children that they can't afford to feed.

People living in poverty should not be having children, they should be digging themselves out of poverty. It IS unfair to bring a child into the world and plop them smack dab into poverty.

I'm not judging anyone, just stating what is right.If it's unrealistic for some to support a child, they shouldn't have one until they can afford to support it. If it is important to them, they will find a way. That's America.

Your sentiments above are beautiful... my point is, you have no right to say who should be a parent. Yes, ideally, everything you say is true. I agree that people should be able to afford children. I also think that anyone who wants to be a parent should be mentally stable too. Not the case all the time, and money isn't a factor. I don't disagree with exactly how you "feel", i just disagree that you or anyone else should have a right to say that financial status should determine is someone should have a child. Just because someone is poor, that does not mean they don't work. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve their situation. For millions in this country, it just may never happen. Stats show there are 36.5 million people in poverty (from 2006).

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...lth/010583.html

I do not feel that anyone in America should: be hungry, be homeless, be denied healthcare (or preventive healthcare for that matter), or be denied a decent Education. These beliefs make me human, sorry to tell you. I do feel that the more privileged should help the less. That doesn't mean i agree with supporting people sitting on Welfare and having lots of babies. I just don't agree that everyone who is poor is capable of improving their life. Especially in today's economy and land of outrageously high unemployment. Just look at all the college grads (some on this board) who can't get a job. My guess is they are lucky to have parents to still help them out.

If you think i implied that poor people are better at raising children, that is incorrect. I just don't feel that because someone has money they will automatically be a decent parent.

I would bet i pay just as much as you (maybe more) out of my salary in "taxes". I don't mind doing my share for my country. If the more privileged don't help the less, we also suffer in many ways. As for housing, nobody should be homeless. No i don't think people who can't afford to buy a house should be given one. I do agree with subsidized housing or whatever it takes so people aren't living on the streets however...

Reality will show that at any time, you could lose your possessions and a great deal of what you have worked hard for, (California Wildfires, Hurricanes, Floods, etc)... and many "middle class" people have been victims of unfortunate circumstances. Where should the money come from to help these people? Same concept as helping the poor... from those who are able to give (winds up being us taxpayers again).

Here is what i really think is wrong with me (since you asked)... i believe i am just very grateful i am not one of the people who lives or ever had the misfortune of being poor. I am counting my blessings.

Hey what the hell, since we are already owe so much to this country, maybe it's time to adopt their policies...

http://geography.about.com/od/populationge.../a/onechild.htm

[~tangerine~]

duplicate

[JimmyPage1977]

Your sentiments above are beautiful... my point is, you have no right to say who should be a parent. Yes, ideally, everything you say is true. I agree that people should be able to afford children. I also think that anyone who wants to be a parent should be mentally stable too. Not the case all the time, and money isn't a factor. I don't disagree with exactly how you "feel", i just disagree that you or anyone else should have a right to say that financial status should determine is someone should have a child. Just because someone is poor, that does not mean they don't work. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to improve their situation. For millions in this country, it just may never happen. Stats show there are 36.5 million people in poverty (from 2006).

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...lth/010583.html

I do not feel that anyone in America should: be hungry, be homeless, be denied healthcare (or preventive healthcare for that matter), or be denied a decent Education. These beliefs make me human, sorry to tell you. I do feel that the more privileged should help the less. That doesn't mean i agree with supporting people sitting on Welfare and having lots of babies. I just don't agree that everyone who is poor is capable of improving their life. Especially in today's economy and land of outrageously high unemployment. Just look at all the college grads (some on this board) who can't get a job. My guess is they are lucky to have parents to still help them out.

If you think i implied that poor people are better at raising children, that is incorrect. I just don't feel that because someone has money they will automatically be a decent parent.

I would bet i pay just as much as you (maybe more) out of my salary in "taxes". I don't mind doing my share for my country. If the more privileged don't help the less, we also suffer in many ways. As for housing, nobody should be homeless. No i don't think people who can't afford to buy a house should be given one. I do agree with subsidized housing or whatever it takes so people aren't living on the streets however...

Reality will show that at any time, you could lose your possessions and a great deal of what you have worked hard for, (California Wildfires, Hurricanes, Floods, etc)... and many "middle class" people have been victims of unfortunate circumstances. Where should the money come from to help these people? Same concept as helping the poor... from those who are able to give (winds up being us taxpayers again).

Here is what i really think is wrong with me (since you asked)... i believe i am just very grateful i am not one of the people who lives or ever had the misfortune of being poor. I am counting my blessings.

Hey what the hell, since we are already owe so much to this country, maybe it's time to adopt their policies...

http://geography.about.com/od/populationge.../a/onechild.htm

The difference between you and I is that I did grow up poor. I have lived in my car. I have went hungry, without health care and have permanent damage to my physical being because of it.

Helping someone who is in trouble is a great thing and I do donate to charities to help unfortunate children and adults. I don't mind paying taxes for some social services. I'm against the government acting as a non-profit charitable organization. History shows that they do a terrible job at using our dollars to help people efficiently. I DO have a problem with people who bring children into this world irresponsibly. There is nothing you can say that makes that acceptable.

I have the right to say whatever I want to say. I can't make stupid people do the right thing, but I can express my opinion that they are, indeed, stupid.

I don't want it to be a competition, but I doubt that you pay more taxes than I do... I have a six figure income. I have done what it takes to go from nothing to having a great career. It took years of hard work, perseverance and commitment.

The current economy is a great example of why people should think about their future before doing things that will make their lives more difficult.

..and for those college educated folks on this board who can't get a job.... get over yourselves and take an agricultural job, a food service job, a cleaning job..... otherwise it will be illegal aliens doing them. There are jobs, it's just that the American youth feels that it's above doing those jobs. School is not experience...work is.

[~tangerine~]

The difference between you and I is that I did grow up poor. I have lived in my car. I have went hungry, without health care and have permanent damage to my physical being because of it.

Helping someone who is in trouble is a great thing and I do donate to charities to help unfortunate children and adults. I don't mind paying taxes for some social services. I'm against the government acting as a non-profit charitable organization. History shows that they do a terrible job at using our dollars to help people efficiently. I DO have a problem with people who bring children into this world irresponsibly. There is nothing you can say that makes that acceptable.

I have the right to say whatever I want to say. I can't make stupid people do the right thing, but I can express my opinion that they are, indeed, stupid.

I don't want it to be a competition, but I doubt that you pay more taxes than I do... I have a six figure income. I have done what it takes to go from nothing to having a great career. It took years of hard work, perseverance and commitment.

The current economy is a great example of why people should think about their future before doing things that will make their lives more difficult.

..and for those college educated folks on this board who can't get a job.... get over yourselves and take an agricultural job, a food service job, a cleaning job..... otherwise it will be illegal aliens doing them. There are jobs, it's just that the American youth feels that it's above doing those jobs. School is not experience...work is.

Well i feel glad that while i never wanted for anything, i still believe that all humans should have basic needs (food, shelter, and healthcare) met. It's a good thing others feel the same way or our nation would be looking more like a third world country.

I agree that the government has been irresponsible in many way, and always will. If people would take a more active role in speaking out (to their govenors and senators at the least) instead of sitting back and complaining, this country might see some change in their favor. But nobody does that.

If you grew up poor, how do you feel about your own parents having had you?

[bigstickbonzo]

As someone posted much earlier in this thread, the main reason Obama was elected was because he is black.

I'd have to say more so than his skin color, he was elected because he was a well spoken man (with no real political experience) who was trumped up by the right people and was following one of the most useless and unpopular Presidents in US History.

[redrum]

I'm trying to decide: Should I just put on some porn or wait for my stimulus check?

[~tangerine~]

I'd have to say more so than his skin color, he was elected because he was a well spoken man (with no real political experience) who was trumped up by the right people

and was following one of the most useless and unpopular Presidents in US History.

I will definitely agree with your second part! Edit: i just saw your Bill Maher comment, lol... i remember him saying that last month on Jay Leno. I think Bill Maher should have run for President

[jimmie ray]

I'd have to say more so than his skin color, he was elected because he was a well spoken man (with no real political experience) who was trumped up by the right people and was following one of the most useless and unpopular Presidents in US History.

All these things, but the voter turnout percentages of primarily black communities were staggeringly different than any previous election year.

[JimmyPage1977]

If you grew up poor, how do you feel about your own parents having had you?

They divorced when I was young. I think that they were foolish to start a family.

[bigstickbonzo]

All these things, but the voter turnout percentages of primarily black communities were staggeringly different than any previous election year.

There's no denying his heritage and skin color won over the black community (in the end), but he pulled alot of moderates, Independents and Republicans, over to his corner. That doesn't happen unless the previous guy was a serious fuck up.

[Reggie1971]

I will definitely agree with your second part! Edit: i just saw your Bill Maher comment, lol... i remember him saying that last month on Jay Leno. I think Bill Maher should have run for President

Bill Maher for President? His favorite hobby is degrading anyone who believes in God or otherwise disagrees with his view of the world. I think I'd rather Fidel Castro as President.

[cryingbluerain]

I think Bill Maher should have run for President

Dennis Miller would get my vote.

[bigstickbonzo]

Bill Maher for President? His favorite hobby is degrading anyone who believes in God or otherwise disagrees with his view of the world. I think I'd rather Fidel Castro as President.

I find Maher highly entertaining and agree with him on several things. I also disagree with him on several issues too, like religion.

Dennis Miller would get my vote.

90s Dennis Miller, YES. He's starting to lose it, but still has the wit.

[wanna be drummer]

There's no denying his heritage and skin color won over the black community (in the end), but he pulled alot of moderates, Independents and Republicans, over to his corner. That doesn't happen unless the previous guy was a serious fuck up.

But that begs the question: Is voting against someone (McCain/Bush) the same as voting FOR someone (Obama)

You may not have liked Bush or McCain, but that doesn't mean, in any way, that Obama was the right guy for the job. Just because Guy A is a fuck up does nto mean Guy B is at all better.