Yeah, right. I know, why stop there? Along with goverment funded toys and playgrounds, we should also have government funded clothing from medium range stores children’s stores, government funded three meals a day for the children, a car for every teenager - what else? I mean, the parents shouldn’t have to pay anything to raise their kids, right?
So, you are back to defending gross selfishness? The kind that demands that others pay for what you want?
As for comparing my “selfishness” for wanting to be able to hold onto some of our money to retire on with that of parents demanding we pay to build and maintain places for their kids to play (if they feel like it)
We all pay for services we ourselves don’t use, get over it.
Right, it’s all because of playgrounds that you don’t have the money to retire. :rolleyes: You lived like a grasshopper before your disability, and now it’s everyone else’s fault that you don’t have something to fall back on. If only you’d taken fewer trips to Vegas…no, couldn’t be that, must be the playgrounds. :rolleyes:
Personally I think it’s the old people with their medicaid.
You keep talking about parks - I’m talking about playgrounds. Places with swings, teeters, like that. Playgrounds are frequently in parks, but they are still separate entities.
Ok. Tho I was thinking more along the lines of things in your city, your neighborhood rather than federal programs.
If it makes you feel any better, I didn’t change my “gripes” from when I was voting. Yes, when there is an issue that I feel strongly about I do write to my congressman and I have donated in the past (can’t afford to now). However, even if I didn’t, you do realize that speaking out against what I consider to be waste means there is a chance I could be changing other voters’ minds?
You all can keep repeating it but it won’t make it fact. I am asking the fed to give me back my money early. The fact that they took my money and, what?, blew it into bits in some war? doesn’t change the fact that they have taken X amount of money from me over the decades with the promise they would give it back. If they actually have to take that money directly from someone’s tax payment because all of the SS money is finally gone, it still doesn’t make it a real taxpayer funded program.
OK, let’s try this. You disagree that an adult is likely to have formed far more bonds with other people than a child, particularly a young child? (I say that because the news seems to really emphasis it when a baby or toddler has died.)
If you have even one child, locally you probably don’t pay for anything you don’t use, one way or the other.
That is called an example - do you know the meaning of that word?
Note that I said I wanted to hold on to our retirement. Since this means five pensions between us as well as a 401K each and a house close to being paid off, that is hardly living like a grasshopper. We also have no debt other than the house. Of course, our 401Ks are worth shit right now but I assume they will recover before my husband retires in 7 - 10 years - provided we still have them and I haven’t had to cash them out to pay bills because our taxes went up. Which they probably will after the election this month…
Typical parent - I shouldn’t be spending my money that I earned on myself, oh lord no! The children are so much more important and they need someplace to play other than their own yards!
If by old people you mean retirees, they are on Medicare. Which they pay a premium towards. Yes, it’s badly messed up because the government can’t run a health plan to save their lives, but it isn’t a freebie.
No, it’s logic. Nobody depends on the infant for survival. The 35 year old who dies in a car wreck has 2 kids who are now orphans, perhaps a spouse that’s devastated and any number of friends and relatives who will miss her… Nobody depends on the infant to do a job, pay any bills, or generally get anything done. The 35 year old had a position at her workplace that now has to be filled, but I bet her boss will feel terrible when they have to hire her replacement. Not to mention any credit debt she may leave behind, student loans, mortgage payments, etc. which will now have to be handled by her spouse alone. The infant hasn’t attended public school or received WIC or a Pell grant to go to college. Society has invested years and years of funding for the 35 year old’s education and well-being. What has the infant contributed to society? Nothing except its potential. The 35 year old works, buys groceries and luxury items which contribute to the economy, pays taxes, and is raising her own kids who will also grow up to do these same things.
So how is the death of a week-old infant more tragic than the death of a 35 year old working mother who society has invested in and who in turn has had years to contribute back to that society? I’m sure the infant’s death must be be devastating to the parents, but I feel a hell of a lot worse for the family and friends and co-workers of the 35 year old.
This is a ridiculous claim. We all pay for things we don’t use. I just looked up the budget for my city to see if there were things in there that I would never use, even if I had a kid.
–Community center in a neighborhood where I don’t live. This place is used by all members of that part of the community, not just kids. I know there are programs for senior citizens in that neighborhood that run out of there. Since I don’t live anywhere near there, I will never use that place.
–Bike lanes and bike trails. Don’t own a bike, don’t plan to get one.
–Landscaping by the inlet. I never go there and I’ve lived here for the better part of 20 years.
–Public tennis courts. Don’t play tennis, never will. Ditto all the public pools. Won’t use them, wouldn’t bring my kid there either.
–Parks I’ll never use in neighborhoods I never visit
–Lots of sidewalks I’ll never walk on in places in the city I’ll never go. There is no sidewalk in front of my house, so by your reasoning, why should I pay for other people’s sidewalks?
The list could go on but you get the idea.
I don’t begrudge any of these people any of these items. I am reasonably satisfied with what I’m getting, I figure the people benefiting from these things are funding stuff that benefits me but not them sometimes too. I think that’s the difference between me and you, one of many.
Do you mean Medicare, because Medicaid is for people who are really poor and can’t afford health insurance and are on (usually) welfare. I’m sure there are more children on Medicaid than old people. From my experience in seeing people in the emergency department, there are far more single moms and children with a “medicaid” health card than old people.
I honestly have a hard time rejecting programs that feed people, so I’d be fine with funding meals for kids. What about Meals on Wheels or Senior Centers where older people can go and socialize and stay a part of their communities? What about homeless shelters and soup kitchens? Not all of their money is government money, but they receive a great deal that way.
I want to live in a society that helps their members. I think the Octo-mom is a sick, sick woman, but I don’t want to see those kids do without basic care because of it. There’s PLENTY of blame to go around in that situation, but absolutely none of it belongs with the children. I’m not saying that you ARE blaming the kids, I just believe that no matter who their mother is… they deserve compassion.
I understand why you feel like you have to defend yourself aggressively here because much of what you say is twisted and exaggerated, but I hope you realize that living in a society where we get our tax money back because we don’t “use” the services wouldn’t work. It’s like insurance. If you don’t have any insurance claims for a year it doesn’t mean you get your money back.
Yeah, I’m back. Just one quick question: on what grounds would you have them do that, take her first child away from her? As I understand it, at that time she had the money to take care of that child.
You can’t really break it down like that because those things have a budget that covers the whole city, not just your neighborhood. So, if you use the community center near you, then the fact you don’t use the one that is in a neighborhood where you don’t live is immaterial.
We don’t have bike trails here so I don’t know how those are funded. Aren’t they the same thing as the parks system? How much maintainance cost is there? Same thing for the landscaping by the inlet.
Our public tennis courts are a part of our parks system. Once they are in, they are almost zero maintainance. We don’t have any public pools.
You do however use sidewalks in places other than in front of your house, so you are using the product of the “sidewalk tax”.
The difference is that you can’t see the difference between paying for public service (like sidewalks) or something folks can’t do anywhere else (without paying a high fee) such as play tennis, and providing playgrounds for children that should have these things in their own yards. Or when they go to the park with their parents, they can bring their toys with them.
Plus, playground use is a rather narrow age group - what? five years? - whereas everything else you listed can be used by all ages.
This was my experience when I was paying Medicaid claims as well - almost all for young children, and a large portion were more or less routine doctor visits.
No, no - I was talking about government funding things for children that their parents can pay for and/or are unimportant. Like playgrounds. It’s one thing to feed people who have no money but quite another to take money that could be doing that and building/maintaining something that will be used by a narrow portion of the population that they jolly well should have in their own yards, if they want their kids to have swings.
Compassion should not equal leaving them with that sick person and then also giving her money. What kind of a life do you think those kids are going to have? If I have to pay for it, then I’d like there to be a much better chance that they are actually going to grow up to be normal and productive.
I don’t want my money back, I want them to quit spending it on extremely narrow special interests and quit coming back for more. If a bunch of mommies want swings and slides at the nearby park, what’s wrong with them raising the funds themselves and asking the city to use them to build the playground? Instead of spending tax money on that, how about they fill some of the potholes on the major boulevard behind my house? Or put it towards the renovation of north city? Do we really need someone to rake the sand under the swings and slide everyday? We have a big Mexican population - why is the taxpayer paying to teach their kids English, when we didn’t for the various Asian populations we also have?
I haven’t been able to find much about what her life was like back then - the Wiki article made it sound like she was living on workers comp. She still had her job then?
Spend the money on what you want. But don’t be surprised if peole think you are selfish if you apply for welfare if you are able to come up with 50 000$ for a dog.
I DO, see above. People who are able to spend 50 000$ on dogs should not apply for welfare, and even less gripe about paying taxes for others, even less for children.
That is not the point. Let’s go back to the original question: who decides who is allowed to get children?
Geez, do try to keep up with your similarly-minded comrades. The anti-child camp has already pointed out that being a parent doesn’t make a person’s death more significant, so maybe it’s best just to strike those points (i.e. parent of 2 orphaned children, working mother) off the list? That means no special consideration for dead children, nor dead parents, and neither for orphaned children of dead parents. And you’re even mentioning that a dead parent won’t be able to raise her kids to grow up to contribute to society? Or is that because you don’t want the child to receive societal “benefits” due because of the deceased parent? And a dead parent won’t be there to pay taxes??? :dubious: C’mon now, don’t you know that parents GET money for having kids, and don’t pay taxes? And how can you call yourself a legitimate child-hater if you’re writing these types of weird child-/parent-centric concerns?
Of course that would have to exclude any mourning family/friends who are children. Remember, the bottom line is no special sympathy or concern (i.e. “feel[ing] a hell of a lot worse”) for any child-age relatives/friends of deceased people. That means go ahead and feel bad for her spouse, her co-workers, her employer, her creditors, her banker, society’s inability to recoup its investment, and even feel bad for her dogs. But do NOT feel bad for her orphaned children.
WTF? I was responding to someone on this page, tardo. Whether the argument has already been had or not, I don’t recall. Considering the 37 pages behind us, probably, but obviously I’m not the only one who missed it. I don’t care about child/parent concerns, I only pointed it out because its logical and relevant to the point. How sorry can you be, really, for a 1 week old who dies quietly in its sleep, compared to a 7 year old who comes home from school to find that he no longer has a mother? I haven’t been involved in the discussions about taxes/benefits/education/medicaid/etc. and though I do consider those posters to be on my side, I don’t necessarily share their same exact views.
You aren’t the boss of me, dude. I’ll feel sorry for whoever I want to, and when I said “family” yes, that included kids. Generally families have kids in them.
We have a big Mexican population - why is the taxpayer paying to teach their kids English, when we didn’t for the various Asian populations we also have?