Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?

We meant it takes a village to pay for your children

Published on September 27, 2007 By Draginol In Democrat

In a discussion I had today, an argument was posed:

Why do conservatives hate insuring kids?

Of course, it's a strawman argument. Conservatives object to paying for other people's personal decisions.

Having a child, is a choice. Liberals are overwhelmingly in favor of "Abortion rights" and therefore see having children as a "choice".

On the other hand, they apparently against choice when it comes to whether other people should have to pay for the choice a woman makes.

As one pregnant left-wing poster put it:

Speaking as an uninsured, unemployed, pregnant Vermonter, it sickens me to think that my child will likely have very little health care in the future. While I'm not given a break for my OB appointments, the clinic my husband attends does have a sliding scale fee structure as well as long term payment plans. And of course, there's the free clinic in town, which has people from New Hampshire and Massachusetts going to it, because it's the only health care they receive at all.

I think the poster has it right on - children get in the way of the money.

You see, she's not being greedy. Her demand that other people have their property confiscated by the government to be given to her isn't greed. No, the greed lies with those who object to having their earnings syphoned off to be given to someone who has chosen to have a child they can't afford.

Comments (Page 3)

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

If you are in business as many conservatives are, it certainly helps on your tax returns to have donations to 501c3s. Be well.

this may be true but new taxes are not donations. nor are forced donations.

Dr Guy

on Sep 27, 2007

and people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads,

Unless you are buying Gas, you aren't paying for them.

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

Unless you are buying Gas, you aren't paying for them.

and unfortunately if you are buying gas. your no longer paying for roads except in emergencies. such as when a bridge collapses.

Tiddler

on Sep 27, 2007

and unfortunately if you are buying gas. your no longer paying for roads except in emergencies. such as when a bridge collapses.

Unless you are buying Gas, you aren't paying for them.

Yes but I still end up paying for the roads other people choose to use. Once my roads and portions of the highways I use have been paid for how come I have to keep paying for all those other roads that I dont use? I dont choose to drive down those roads why should i pay for them? Those are other peoples choices not mine.

Remember my objection is in "having [my] earnings syphoned off to be given to someone who has " chosen to drive these other roads. Why in the hell should I have to pay for them?

Tiddler

on Sep 27, 2007

And yes I am playing out a greater good argument so lets not get too hung up on #$%^& asphalt.

Dr Guy

on Sep 27, 2007

people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads,

You really should read what you write. You are now changing your arguement once again.

As for your second statement, please show a reciept for all the taxes you have paid, all the roads you have driven on, and the cost of those roads. If you do, I am sure the government will reimburse you.

However, since you use roads, your first statement above is then false (you have a car, you use roads). But unless you are the father of that child (or possible one), you have not used that mother.

Locamama

on Sep 27, 2007

this may be true but new taxes are not donations. nor are forced donations.

The Schip bill will be paid for by a new .61 cent tax on cigarettes.

Dr Guy

on Sep 27, 2007

The Schip bill will be paid for by a new .61 cent tax on cigarettes.

I got some nice lake front property in florida to sell you too! ROFL!

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

although i am against smoking. because i am allergic to the smoke.

a new tax is a new tax

Dr Guy

on Sep 27, 2007

although i am against smoking. because i am allergic to the smoke.

a new tax is a new tax

Even if you were for it, it has been proven time and time again. Raise the tax, people quit. It is actually a very good way to get people to quit. But not to raise money.

Tiddler

on Sep 27, 2007

You really should read what you write. You are now changing your arguement once again.

Once again? O.k. So in order for me to be changing it "once again" Dr Guy, I must have changed it "once before". So for any of that to be true I must have made at least 3 different arguments on this thread Dr Guy. Are you able to identify them for us??

Sure I will once Draginol has produced a receipt for all the taxes he has paid, the proportions of that which went to cover his use of infrastructure and services and the proportion which went to "other peoples children". But of course he wont because as most reasonable people would suggest it not neccessary for him to make his point. I appreciate that you might fall outside the bounds of most reasonable people Dr Guy but dont expect me to follow you there.

Like I said Dr Guy, primarily because I knew there would be someone like you on this thread

so lets not get too hung up on #$%^& asphalt.

So let me spell it out for you Dr Guy. Roading was a metaphor for anything that I feel I pay a higher amount for than I actually make a choice to use.

people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads,

However, since you use roads, your first statement above is then false (you have a car, you use roads). .

How does the fact that I have a car(s) and use roads invalidate a statement I made that says people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads?

Clearly you think you're quite the debater so please explain that one..... after you're done listing all my supposedly different arguments that is. And then after you're done tying yourself in knots there just know that it (the first statement) was meant as a parody of the idea that we should only pay and put into what is ours and for what we use.

You're not a dentist by any chance are you??

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

gas taxes also help to pay for mass transit. for those of you who don't know what that means. it means buses, subways, and light rail.

Tova7

on Sep 27, 2007

is it god or the believer that allows the unbelievers to benefit.

Of course. Just as he allows the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

Dr Guy

on Sep 28, 2007

So for any of that to be true I must have made at least 3 different arguments on this thread Dr Guy. Are you able to identify them for us??

You still are not reading. SHow me where I said "ON this thread".

Sure I will once Draginol has produced a receipt for all the taxes he has paid,

Are you challenging his paternity? Are you now claiming he could be the father of the child? That is the only reason you would bring this non-sequitar into the discussion.

How does the fact that I have a car(s) and use roads invalidate a statement I made that says people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads?

Yes but I still end up paying for the roads other people choose to use.

Read what you write. Perhaps then you might start learning reading comprehension better.

I dont fancy myself a great debater, but it is apparent you dont know how, or have a writers block that prevents you from reading your writings.