Draginol Draginol

Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?

▼

Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?

We meant it takes a village to pay for your children

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/10144#comment-78024
from JoeUser Forums

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.

democrat
25,894 views 66 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
What I meant was the responsible person does not take blame for their responsibilities, they always look for someone else to blame.


Wouldn't that make them irresponsible?

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.


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


I agree with Draginol. I shouldn't have to pay for kids education either , and people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads, and pacificists shouldn't have to pay for war, etc.
Lets all reduce our contribution to this society down to the exact amount that we get to take from it. In other words each to his own.

All aboard:Destination Utopia.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it that the Republican president had no problem signing off on a prescription drug benefit passed through a majority Republican congress? I am just cynical enough to believe that it has something to do with the fact that seniors can vote and contribute to campaigns and children can't.




so your saying that the childrens parents can't vote. is that what your saying. in that case you can't vote next year.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think God is a good example here. Yeah yeah I know...don't go there. But just a little, kay? God often blesses a believer in a family of unbelievers.


is it god or the believer that allows the unbelievers to benefit.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
"is it god or the believer that allows the unbelievers to benefit."

Why is that important? God blesses people, people bless other people with that blessing, etc. Blessings are usually better shared or even given away.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
well according to you lefties on this thread. christ was also greedy.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

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

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

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
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?
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
And yes I am playing out a greater good argument so lets not get too hung up on #$%^& asphalt.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

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. 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?

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.

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

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. 

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

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!

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
although i am against smoking. because i am allergic to the smoke.


a new tax is a new tax
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
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??

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.


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??
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?



you are Draginol. you are responsible for paying for my kids now pay up.


oh wait i don't have any kids. so i guess you'll have to pay for my therapy. oh wait i go to the VA and i don't go to therapy my choose.


so i guess you'll just have to pay for me. oh wait you already are so i guess i will have to say THANK YOU.


of course i would rather work. do you have a job for someone whose only real skill is driving. who also has a problem sleeping so can't drive ever time you might want to go someplace. who is real smart but doesn't really use it.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Typical liberal logic... it never really adds up.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Typical liberal logic... it never really adds up.


i think that was my point.

except for the job request
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
You still are not reading. SHow me where I said "ON this thread".


lmao, omg and wtf??

Call me old fashioned Dr Guy but i do tend to make different arguments from thread to thread. Thats typically because the subject is different. Does anyone else here do that or is it just me??

Of course, your objection to this does explain alot about you and your style Dr Guy. Thanks for the insight.

I also tend to act differently in different situations and drive on different sides of the road depending on the continent. And btw if you were going to captialize anything shouldn't it have been the word "THIS".

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.


The second is no proof that the first is invalid. Do you just randomly quote things I say and hope it fits?

That is the only reason you would bring this non-sequitar into the discussion.


No another, and the actual, reason was to demonstrate how ridiculous you were (are) being. Its a reflection technique and it seems to have worked.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top

The second is no proof that the first is invalid. Do you just randomly quote things I say and hope it fits?

Do you randomly ramble on?  I merely proved you wrong using your own words.  Far be it for me to assume you just did not know what they hell you were talking about.  But still, when you are wrong, does it matter on which thread?  And when you prove yourself wrong, does it matter why you did it?

You are really a bore as you have no debating skills, just a nice way to laugh when you cant think of any excuses for your bone head statements.

Sorry I ever took the time to try to enlighten you WITH your own words.  I can see you cant read them either.

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
I merely proved you wrong using your own words.


Simply repeating that you did something doesn't make it so Dr Guy. I realize repeatition is about all you have but its still not enough.

You've taken a statement I made about people without cars and tried to invalidate that with another statement I made about those (in this case me) with cars. If that works for you then great however some of us require a little more rigor in our connexxions.

Keep going though your apples and oranges are the start of a decent fruit salad.