Iriemon

No, I didn't notice it or have any idea what you are talking about.

Iriemon

I disagree with your characterization of fact, but how does that provide care for unwanted babies?

Felicity

Having "taxpayers" is not the same as "increasing taxes." See--you just proved my point.

MC.no.spin

So you want taxpayers to pay for your tampons but not the saving of innocent children?

__________________
"The guy’s a phony. He has no experience, he has no record; he’s not nearly ready to be commander in chief."
Bill Clinton on Obama (from the book Game Change)

Felicity

Geez you libreral monkeys...A flat tax or fair tax and reallocating could solve the problem. But, it's true that getting consensus would be hard--so...like so many liberals, the easy way is the way to go. Don't give people a "choice" (how ironic!) and TAKE MORE.

Iriemon

Neither the flat tax nor the so-called fair-tax would provide more revenues, both are at best revenue neutral and more likely would result in decreased revenues. Neither "solves the problem".

Here you are complaining about taxes necessary to pay for programs for unwanted babies. You want to bring unwanted babies into the world but not the taxes necessary to provide care for them.

It's the typical conservative position.

Felicity

Increased taxes

independent_thinker2002

Borrow money and devalue the dollar.

__________________
☠☠☠☠☠

I am a Tiki Bar Tarte, you wanna mount Le Penseur Bronze

1069

Or, behind door number three, don't put aborted fetuses on life support.
Don't apply any heroic measures toward maintaining their lives.
Save the (fictional) money you would've used for that and apply it instead toward medical care for the born and wanted children of the poor.

Iriemon

Affirming what I said. You are all for requiring the 40 million unwanted children being born, but you don't want to pay for the cost.

I really have little sympathy for the conservative position that seeks to compel the birth of unwanted children but doesn't want to pay for the cost associated with it.