BF2S Forums Pro-Life American Taxpayer? If so, then get mad...

King_County_Downy wrote:

Their mouths can't get pregnant.

JohnG@lt wrote:

So you suggest no penalty then?

(I view welfare as theft as well btw.)

SenorToenails wrote:

King_County_Downy wrote:

Also, tax credits for kids pisses me off. I get taxed like a mofo because I don't have kids. This is probably getting into a whole other discussion though.

Oh, but it's part of the same thing.  You and I get taxed like crazy to subsidize people with kids.  Is that fair?  No.

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

They'd have to for the law to fit.
I'd say to an extent yes, a fetus has a right to what is needed for life.  Why?  It didn't just form all by itself.  The mom most likely made a decision to have sex.  Actions have consequences.

Yes, actions have consequences.  But problems also have more than one solution.  So a woman is pregnant, she can elect for an abortion.  It's a medical procedure that perhaps she should pay for, since it is elective...but as a social program, abortions are cheaper than 18 years of care for a child.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Honestly, this debate was about me paying for an abortions that taxpayers shouldn't have to.  Whether your GF has an abortion or 50 of them -I don't care, kill your kids... I shouldn't have to pay for it.

OK.  I don't like paying for a lot of social services, especially in this great state of New York.  They are expensive and only make people depend on the state for everything.  That is wrong.

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

New York's welfare state is happily dying the way California is. The crushing taxation burden is making people flee the state in record numbers. I only know a handful of people that I went to school with that have stayed. If they went to college, it's an almost 90% chance that they moved elsewhere.

And as soon as I can secure employment out of NY, I will be gone.

Just one big example from a Rochester success:  Tom Golisano.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

They'd have to for the law to fit.
I'd say to an extent yes, a fetus has a right to what is needed for life.  Why?  It didn't just form all by itself.  The mom most likely made a decision to have sex.  Actions have consequences.

Yes, actions have consequences.  But problems also have more than one solution.  So a woman is pregnant, she can elect for an abortion.  It's a medical procedure that perhaps she should pay for, since it is elective...but as a social program, abortions are cheaper than 18 years of care for a child.


OK.  I don't like paying for a lot of social services, especially in this great state of New York.  They are expensive and only make people depend on the state for everything.  That is wrong.

New York's welfare state is happily dying the way California is. The crushing taxation burden is making people flee the state in record numbers. I only know a handful of people that I went to school with that have stayed. If they went to college, it's an almost 90% chance that they moved elsewhere.

There's a natural process for more urban states to become more expensive.  There are rare exceptions to this (like Texas), but usually, taxes naturally increase as local infrastructures must service more people.

Also, note that NY has some of the best schools in the country.  Some of those taxes are well spent on better infrastructures.  Obviously, some of it wasted though....

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

New York's welfare state is happily dying the way California is. The crushing taxation burden is making people flee the state in record numbers. I only know a handful of people that I went to school with that have stayed. If they went to college, it's an almost 90% chance that they moved elsewhere.

And as soon as I can secure employment out of NY, I will be gone.

Just one big example from a Rochester success:  Tom Golisano.

STN wrote:

OK.  I don't like paying for a lot of social services, especially in this great state of New York.  They are expensive and only make people depend on the state for everything.  That is wrong.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-12-21 15:10:11)

Mekstizzle wrote:

pro life people are also paying tax for loads of things that bring about death other than abortions, don't pick and choose your silly little moral values based on your political affiliations, you people are all terrible.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Best schools in the country? Perhaps if you equate money spent per child on education with success. A truer statement would've been 'New York has some of the most expensive public schools in the country.' We also have more overpaid teachers and bus drivers per capita too.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

NY is #16 on this list.  Granted, that's not as high as I figured they'd be, but look at education spending per capita among the top states.

Vermont (#1) spends more per capita on education than any other state.

Now, admittedly, I'm not saying that spending more always equates to better education.  A counterargument is often made with SAT scores.  Utah has higher SAT scores than Vermont despite spending a lot less per capita on students.  Granted, SAT scores aren't necessarily the best way to measure the quality of education, because the rate at which students actually take the SAT is not constant between states.  There is the possibility that Utah isn't testing as high a percentage of their students with the SAT as Vermont is.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Best schools in the country? Perhaps if you equate money spent per child on education with success. A truer statement would've been 'New York has some of the most expensive public schools in the country.' We also have more overpaid teachers and bus drivers per capita too.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

NY is #16 on this list.  Granted, that's not as high as I figured they'd be, but look at education spending per capita among the top states.

Vermont (#1) spends more per capita on education than any other state.

Now, admittedly, I'm not saying that spending more always equates to better education.  A counterargument is often made with SAT scores.  Utah has higher SAT scores than Vermont despite spending a lot less per capita on students.  Granted, SAT scores aren't necessarily the best way to measure the quality of education, because the rate at which students actually take the SAT is not constant between states.  There is the possibility that Utah isn't testing as high a percentage of their students with the SAT as Vermont is.

Long Island has had pretty level returns on education for a good 20 years or so but the teachers salaries have doubled (exclusive of benefits). The property taxes are so high that people are fleeing. My gf's parents pay $50,000 a year in property taxes. They should be reassessing homes and raising the tax rate that way but instead they keep raising the tax percentage by 5-9% per year. They're double dipping and there's nothing the taxpayers can do because the teachers union is all powerful in Albany. The "Working Families Party" is a trap name if I've ever heard one and they're the party of the unions here (and ACORN). They'll bleed us until we're dry and then wonder why they're all getting fired when school districts shut down and merge.