Golfers: What are your favorite holes in the area? See if our Timesland Dream 18 is up to par and nominate your favorite.
The closest you can get to your youth is to start repeatin’ your follies.
What’s on your mind today?
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
For weeks now, Obama has been promoting the “Buffett tax” while ignoring the real failures of his economic policies.His whole campaign is based on diverting public attention away from his dismal record.
Obama claims the “Buffett tax” would “…stabilize our debt and deficits over the next decade…”.
What a ruse! It will do nothing of the sort. In fact it will make the deficit worse.
As proposed, it would place a 30% tax on millionaires. That would generate about $47 billion over the next 10 years. That is a meer drop in the bucket compared to Obama’s expected $8 trillion debt over the same time period.
Here is the kicker! The Senate Dems plan to use this $47 billion to offset the current Alternative Minimum Tax thus removing about 20 million middle class tax payers from being hit with the AMT.
The Joint Tax Committee estimates that repeal of the AMT and the “Buffet tax” together would have the net result of adding $793 billion to the deficit!
The Buffitt tax is not expected to get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. Funny, Reid will bring the Buffett tax to a vote but can’t find the time to pass a budgit.
What is needed is complete tax reform, not political games to foster class envy. Obama is no leader.
The trouble with liberalism is that it is based on resentment. Liberals resent the current social order. They see others as having privileges and they don’t. They believe that power is always in the wrong hands and must be changed, just old fashion envy that has been around since time began.
The above data is part of the public domain and can be found at many sources. Some of those I used are:
foxnews.com Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, 04/15/12
To quote Bruce Bartlett: “Although the Senate vote is doomed to a certain Republican filibuster, the debate is worth having. Sooner or later, taxes are going to have to rise substantially to pay for all the health and retirement benefits that have been promised to aging baby-boomers, and it is a pipe-dream to think that spending will ever be cut enough to avoid that necessity. If the rich don’t pay more then the rest of us will.”
The needed increase in revenue has to start somewhere and the Buffett Rule is as good a place to start as any.
IMHO, the trouble with conservatism is that it is based on protecting wealth and power above an egalitarian society and yes, that causes great resentment. When already prosperous and powerful people receive preferential treatment in the tax, justice, business and commerce structures of this nation, it leaves a bad taste in anyone’s mouth (except most of theirs). Liberals resent the preferential treatment in the current social order. They see others as being given privileges they don’t have and cannot aspire to. Conservatives believe that power should always be in their hands and woe unto this nation when it is not, the scorched earth policy that Bush/Cheney developed seeks to reign again. I think we finally caught on to where that leaves us and it will not happen.
Pretty sure we differ on how we define an egalitarian society. I don’t believe for a moment that the Framers intended for “all men are created equal” to mean the government should take whatever “riches” necessary from the successful or wealthy and give it to everyone else until everyone has the same amount of material goods. I think they had a little loftier goals in mind. Is the argument for this progressive egalitarianism really that trying to making sure one person doesn’t resent another, something you will never accomplish by the way, justifies taking what someone else has worked for and giving to others who may have done nothing to earn it?
Prosperous people getting preferential treatment in the tax code?
Who pays the higher rate of income tax on the last $ made, the guy making $40,000 or the woman making $400,000 (War on women right?)
Who gets to deduct IRA contributions?
Who gets to claim college taxcredits?
Conservatism is based on protecting wealth. Er uh no. Conservatives favor a smaller, less costly and intrusive federal government, the strict interpretations of the Constitution. It is liberalism that is built upon
the distribution of wealth and the equality of outcomes and the Constitution is a “living document.”
Well what do you know, I also do not “believe for a moment that the Framers intended for “all men are created equal” to mean the government should take whatever “riches” necessary from the successful or wealthy and give it to everyone else until everyone has the same amount of material goods”. I have never even dreamed of such a thing much less advocated it or said that the Founders/Framers espoused it.
“e·gal·i·tar·i·an (-gl-târ-n) adj. Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.”
There is nothing in there about redistributing wealth OR protecting one segment of society at the expense of the others.
I do not know where you get your ideas of what “progressive egalitarianism” is, but I dispute that what you have defined is what I believe, embrace or condone. If you want people to fail on their own, they should also succeed on their own and they do not. If you want justice to be available for those with money, it should be available for those without money. If you want education to be available for those with money, it should be available for those without money too. If you want everyone to pay their fair share of taxes that should include those who labor AND those who invest capital. Income is income. If you want politicians to represent us all that should mean they cannot be bought and sold like commodities because people have the money to do so. A fair and truly level playing field does not require anything other than fair rules for all to play by.
The day you agree to take away the helping hand to Exxon and Mitt Romney, I will agree to take it away from the teen mom’s and children. We shall see which one happens first. We do not have an egalitarian nation.
BUD, there may be people in this nation still stupid enough to fall for “what conservatives believe in” but name the modern president who gave us “a smaller, less costly and intrusive federal government, the strict interpretations of the Constitutiom“? It is as elusive as a Unicorn.
I think it’s hysterical that the Obama administration has named their latest tax-increase proposal after a man whose company is currently fighting the IRS over a billion dollars in unpaid taxes.
Then again, this is the same administration that appointed a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury. So it’s not really surprising.
When a middle income taxpayer has to work until Mid-May to pay their taxes each year; the poor person has to work until February; and a wealthy person is able to earn enough to pay their total taxes by mid-January, the system is unfair, period.
The Buffet Rule will move the wealthiest taxpayers tax free day until the end of April a much more realistic tax compared to the middle income taxpayer.
Other Rick – there is nothing wrong with fighting the IRS for tax assessments you believe are incorrect. Only a fool would not. Buffet, like Romney pays the taxes they believe are due under our tax code. The IRS can and often does disagree, but it is our right to fight when we believe they are wrong.
Is this for real?
When Obama was asked about people who were having trouble buying groceries and making ends meet due to high gas prices, his response was that they should buy a hybrid. He thinks people who can’t pay for groceries should buy a new car . . . and Romney is to rich to relate? Riddle me this Batman. Where were all these concerned citizens and media outlets who feared the candidate was too rich when it was John Kerry of the Heinz ketchup fortune that they were backing for president?
Interestingly, the public may not be buying it.
It all comes down to the concept of whether do you believe that the purpose of a federal tax is to just fund the federal government or to punish some behavior and reward other so called sociably acceptable behvior.
A question for you liberals: Is a federal tax that does not generate any revenue and actually adds to the deficit but meets the liberal dogma of “fairness” really justified?
Warren Buffett (well, his companies) have more than one tax issue. One of his companies – NetJets – is in a dispute over whether taxes are actually owed. The Byzantine nature of the tax code has created confusion regarding the maintenance of privately owned and chartered aircraft, and that is what NetJets is disputing. As Rich said, it is his – and anyone else’s – right – obligation! – to contest tax assessments we feel are incorrect, and there are legal channels to pursue this. NetJets and the IRS are following the legal channels to resolve this, and that will be that. In my un-CPA trained opinion, I think NetJets has the stronger case.
But Berskhire Hathaway also owes money for tax assessments as far in the past as 2002 – something they’ve admitted. If Buffett is so concerned about tax revenue, why doesn’t he have his company settle up now in the non-disputed cases, and actually pay when owed moving forward?
The article discusses the slightly disingenuous nature of the claim that his secretary pays more in taxes than he does (the income is already taxed before it reaches him).
It is really hard to believe The Other Rick, I mean we have been so serious about tax collection and cheats for so long in this nation.
Trying to divert the point onto Buffett’s company being like every other on the planet does not mitigate the issue. The wealthy investor should not be rewarded for gambling and workers punished for labor. Not in this nation or any other. It is not right.
He was not the only billionaire to support this legislation either and you know it.
Chuck, what I heard the President say was “as long as gas prices are going up, people are going to feel like I’m not doing enough. I understand that, because people get hurt when they’re going to the gas station and seeing those prices rise every day,” But of course your unsourced point could be right.
Obama does not need to “start packing” and neither does Willard Mitt Romney the Wall Street Raider who believes in baptizing dead people.
Let’s revisit that “hateful attack” on Ann Romney:
Romney to Welfare Mothers: ‘You Need to Go to Work’
Wow, wonder why the “dignity of work” was not important for his wife?
Yet another reason a corporate raider from Wall Street should never be president of this nation.
And more: “Where Rosen appears to have gone wrong is in directing her comments toward Mrs. Romney rather than at her husband, the Candidate. I say that because I strongly suspect that Ann Romney ‘gets it’. I strongly suspect that Mrs. Romney does understand the difficulties faced by many women who want to commit themselves to raising their kids but need to earn a living to put a roof over the kids’ heads.
It’s Ann Romney’s husband who appears to not have a solid grip on what he believes in this regard, or is—yet again—simply changing his pitch to fit what he believes to be the winning narrative of the day.”
Clearly this man is nothing more than a flip flopping fool and we all know how conservatives feel about flip floppers don’t we. Case closed I’m sure.
Not surprisingly, no liberals responded to my question at #11.
I think I know their answere. For them the most important aspect of a federal tax is “fairness” and not revenue. Class envy does not work in America.
Inspite of the fact that Romney had a grueling primary campaign where he was beat up badly, polls show him edging slowly ahead of Obama. Obama should be well ahead at this point.
At some point the voters will have to decide do they want 4 more years of Obama’s failed policies or not. Then they will look at their dispoable incomes and see that it has acutually gone down since Obama was elected.
The voters will then look around for an alternative. Is Romney a reasonable alternatve or not? They will not be looking for a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln, just a reasonable alternative to Obama and his failed policies.
P.S. The Buffett tax” failed in the Senate tonight as Obama planned. He just wanted to use its failure to campaign against the GOP. Obama is no leader. He only wants to keep his behind on Air Force One. The voters sense this, they are not as “ignorant” as the RTEB would like to believe. That is why Obama’s poll numbers are falling.
Obama is one and done!
11. John R – is a fair and equitable tax system justified? Is this a trick question? If a tax system is not fair and equitable then who in their right mind will voluntarily conform to it. That is the essence of our American system, do you not remember the Boston Tea Party? When a tax system is inherently unfair, then then the citizens believe they have been cheated by the offending group and seek vengeance. They begin to cheat on their taxes, they begin to ignore the rules, they may even revolt and well they should. Any government that agrees to punish one group in favor of another deserves to be overthrown, wait, someone else said that much better, “When in the course of human events…”
17. John R – they will not be looking for a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln? What is this an apology for Romney being second rate? Since when is the USA supposed to settle for a second rate candidate? Are you telling me that’s the best the GOP has? My God, what has the republican Party come to? Obama is most definitely first rate, strong, decisive, concerned about the US citizen, and ethical. Most definitely Obama is a first rate President. And you making excuses for the GOP Nominee? Already? For real? If Romney is that second rate, then you, well never mind. You have my sympathy.
The Buffet Rule was an easy fix to the inherent unfairness of the current Tax Code. The GOP stopping debate is a miscarriage of justice in this Country. The middle class is tired of paying more than their fair share of taxes and expect the wealthy to stand up and accept their responsibility to pay their fair share of all taxes. We have heard all the BS and all the blather, but the truth is, the wealthy simply do not contribute an equitable share of the taxes needed to run our Nation.
4. BUD, waht the heck is conservatism. The GOP is nominating an ultra wealthy Wall Streetor who is being paid to represent them. He has adjusted his positions (to put it lightly) on every social issue to try and appease the social right wing in order to obtain the party nomination. He is obviously amoral in relation to the conservative social issues at best, is only concerned with protecting the investment bankers and hedge funds tax benefits and shows absolutely no concern for the middle class or the poor. His answer to every question is cut taxes for the wealthy and we will help out. Even Rick Santorem had some social conservative consistency; Romney does not fit the bill of a social conservative at any level. He is merely a candidate bought by th eultra wealthy to inflict more pain on the middle class.
@17 John R., I’m out of state this week so am just now seeing your question about #11. You complain about no one answering your question but for me, I didn’t understand it.
Do you have a specific example in mind?
But to answer your question in #17, no – Romney is NOT a reasonable alternative to Obama but unfortunately Obama is not a liberal either.
John R., I followed your links to the WS journal online. Sorry I didn’t take the time to read them.
I thought it interesting they weren’t attributed to any author and were in the opinion section.
What I mean is, they were clearly an opinion, but it doesn’t say who’s opinion it was. Was it the editor’s? Was it an intern’s? Was it Rupert Murdoch’s?
I’m sorry but it’s hard to believe anything printed in the WS Journal is anything but an intentional smear against Obama instead of unbiased reporting.
Yes Sandi, sorry I forgot to footnote my post. Didn’t we were being graded. Maybe you’d like to address why liberals didn’t find Kerry to rich to run instead of avoiding the issues you don’t have a ready made talking point for?
#15 – Unlike welfare mothers, Ann Romney isn’t leaching off of society.
Can you honestly not see the difference?
It is not about Willard being “too rich to run”. It is about a nation that was just literally screwed over by Wall Street, voting for a Wall Street Corporate Raider (who happens to have been made very very rich by his efforts there) who believes you can (never even mind if your should) baptize dead people. Americans who can vote for him simply hate Obama more than they love America IMO.
Voting for Romney is like being on a fox hunt and coming back to the lodge to play with your pet fox. It is hypocritical, it is downright weird to support a Wall Street Fat Cat after what we just suffered at their hands.
No worries Chuck, I am used to unsourced accusations here.
No Michael, I cannot see the difference. Either, you hold “stay at home” moms in some esteem or you don’t. To insist she was a role model when Ann Romney could afford to do it, and a poor mom is a leech without dignity if she does it is just sick and sad IMO. Yet another province only for the wealthy. GREAT!
John R, I ignored your #11 as I thought it was a stupid question.
The purpose of a federal tax is to fund the federal government. It was not some poor working schlub like me who decided it could be used to reward and protect the powerful and wealthy. Who would ever condone punishing hard work and labor and rewarding gambling except the gamblers who could afford to buy the pols who write the tax code?
There is no federal tax that does not generate any revenue. Fairness in all things is the mark of Greatness. Study history much. The number one thing people love and admire, follow and devote themselves to is fairness, equal treatment and a level playing field. Jesus, Ghandi, MLK, TuTu, Superman, The Lone Ranger, our heroes all have that in them.
25. Her husband is a leveraged buyout raider. About as low of a bottom feeder as you can go.
@ #25 how unfortunate that you choose to see people in need of public assistance as “leaching off society.” We are all Americans, and should be ready, willing and able to help each other in time of need. That’s what used to make this country great, our collective spirit and willingness to help each other. Now, it seems to be “me, me, me; mine, mine, mine; to hell with the less fortunate.” Don’t buy the Old Lie, my friend. Sometimes we all need somebody to lean on. Peace.
Let’s hear from a man who paid 1% income taxes on his income:
“In 2009, the median U.S. family had an income of just under $50,000, on which they would have paid roughly $2,761 (or about 5.5%) in federal income tax. I, by contrast, enjoyed an income of $207,415 in 2009, but paid only $2,173 (or 1.0%) in income tax.”
How ANYONE can defend our tax structure and the wealth protecting, labor punishing policies in it is just beyond my ken. This is positively feudal.
I am convinced that in the past elections, the poor and middle class that vote republican do so out of a cowboy complex. They grew up playing cowboys and Indians and watching Sky King, Roy Rodgers, Gene Autry, and the Lone Ranger on TV and never recovered to reality. They loved Ron Reagan and GW Bush for their cowboy swagger.
This time around, the poor and middle class are being asked to vote for a nerdy NE Wall Street owned businessman who does not support any of their social issues. Can the money of Wall Street convince these GOP supporters that Mitt is a cowboy at heart. I bet not.
19 – Obama “first rate”? “Ethical”? Thanks for the laugh!
As for being “concerned for the US citizen”, as long as they agree with his political agenda, perhaps. If not, then we’re “the enemy” (his words). And he once urged his supporters to “get in our faces”.
If Obama is the best the Dems have to offer, then the Dem party is in far worse shape than the GOP. The man is an empty suit and is in way over his head.
30 – I agree. We need to radically simplify the tax code and eliminate the loopholes.
Yet another reason to vote for President Obama: “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,” Works for me! Either would be a fitting end. Bye Ted!
Funny how we remain diametrically opposed The Other Rick. If Romney is the best the TP/GOP has to offer, then they are in far worse shape than the Dems, on several levels.
26 – “Baptizing dead people”…getting as much mileage out of that talking point as possible, are we? I’ve seen you use that one 2 or 3 times in as many days. What lefty blog or source did that one come from?
I’m sure you hold Harry Reid in equal disdain over this aspect of his religion? Oh wait…he’s a liberal Dem and you agree with his agenda. What was I thinking? I’m sure he gets a pass.
Funny how you liberals love to preach religious tolerance when dealing with Islam. Anyone who dares to denigrate or ridicule Muslims or their beliefs, is a “bigot” in your eyes. Yet it’s OK for you and your ilk to bash Mormons, Catholics, and Christians who you don’t agree with based on their religious beliefs.
Sandi, taxcode is a joke..a complex/complicated one.
But the example you site..this guy who had income over $200k ended up having taxable income of around $37,000 after exemptions and $150K plus of schedule A (itemized)deductions.
Oh yeah, it is a favorite as it helps frame the POV that the TP/GOP has lost their mind.
Win or lose, Romney has ZERO chance to fix what ails this nation. Romney has ZERO chance to even begin to know how to lead. Romney has ZERO chance of getting the money out of politics (mainly because he sees no need to do so). Romney has ZERO chance of being a good President. Whatever negative you give to Obama, multiply that by 100 and you have Romney. Yes, you will waste your vote on a candidate with no chance. No chance at all.
I am, quite literally disgusted that the people who have B&M’d about Obama since November 2008 have so dishonored this nation with putting up a Wall Street Corporate Raider that I can barely contain myself. This is an ultimate insult, the ultimate disrespect for what struggling families are going through, what so many have lost. It is just so unconscionable that Willard Romney is the nominee that I am now fearful ODS has made them unstable. My God, how good you? He is, and will be until defeated, salt in the wound.
Get used to it.
“What lefty blog or source did that one come from?”
This one: http://www.drudge.com/news/153167/romney-baptized-atheist-dad-law
Thanks for asking The Other Rick!
I stated a FACT, The Other Rick. That you consider it bashing or religious intolerance is on you. How many times have I indeed had to see the “FACTS” from Islam that you all throw up here? I think turn about is still considered fair play, obviously you do not. How odd.
I’m not exactly thrilled with Romney as our nominee. He is a flip-flopper and a RINO. I would have preferred a more conservative choice.
But it is what it is. Looks like Romney it will be. And I’ll take his business and leadership experience over the current WH occupant any day of the week. While he may not be much of an improvement over BHO, he certainly won’t be any worse IMO.
Are you better off now than you were in 2008? Didn’t think so…
One and DONE. ABO 2012!
39 – You’re welcome…however, the context of the Drudge posting was a retort to disgusting liberal “comedian” Bill Maher and his joke about the incident.
Yet another liberal attack on someone’s religious beliefs. I’d like to see him crack similar jokes about Islam. He’s too big a chicken to do that, though.
I especially like and agree with this comment posted there:
“I’ll really start worrying about the Mormons when they start “suicide” bombings, beheadings, stonings and “honor killings.” If Romney starts talking about any jihads, I definitely won’t vote for him.”
BTW – real classy post at #34…just because you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs you wish them dead or in jail. Got it.
Yes, his “business and leadership experience” as a Wall Street corporate raider will serve him in good stead with the Americans Wall Street crushed and the Americans who still live in fear of them.
Yes, I am better off now than in 2008. Beyond doubt. So are all of us not killed in the Wall Street Massacre.
Obama 2012 is a done deal. Mark my words. I am not anonymous and America is not crazy.
If you wanted him gone, your side should have picked better.
I know The Other Rick, it is “real classy” of me to attack that paragon of decorum that is Ted Nugent. Especially after his kind words about Obama and Hillary.
Okay, so if you do not like the Drudge info, try this one. It remains, a fact, I did not make it up, I did not distort it.
Even though I dont agree with half of what Dan Casey writes, still
congrats on a national award.
So this is about the Mormon’s trying to save someone’s soul at all costs and even after a “physical” death?
This is news?
That type of stuff has been going on long before I was non-aborted on this planet.
I find it humorous that when anyone questions Obama’s religion, the Left blows it off as not being important, yet they attack Romney for his.
And if they feel so strongly about Romney being a Mormon, why are they so quiet when it pertains to Harry Reid?
I am not really caring if Romney is a Mormon anymore, and if Reid has baptized any dead people, bring it. I will condemn that as odd too. I am not questioning Willard’s religion. I believe he is a devout Mormon. I do not dispute or malign that as his legitimate position.
48. Michael – are you saying all liberals like Harry Reid? Maybe you are right, maybe it is his Mormonism that makes him a little strange too. Yet Harry has only a limited power as a Senator, even as Majority Leader.
Will a dedicated Mormon faith affect a Romney Presidency any more than a dedicated Christian faith affect Obama’s Presidency? What do you think?
Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Have you ever studied the faith, attended a temple, considered their allegiance to the Utah Temple vs. say a Catholic’s allegiance to the Pope? Is it the same? Does it include more than just your religious belief’s or does it incorporate all your decision making? How does that compare to being Protestant? Is being Christian (and who determines what faith is Christian since the Catholics and Protestants say Mormon is not a Christian faith) important for a President?
If any of this make a difference to you, then perhaps you should be considering it before you vote. If it does not? However, I’ll bet if Mitt was an atheist or Muslim, it would make a difference. I obviously will not be voting for Mitt no matter his religious belief and therefore it only affects me if he wins and which will have been out of my control anyway.
44 – No worse than the vile and disgusting insults hurled at Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, et. al. by Bill Maher and other heroes of the left.
While I don’t wish any of them dead, or incarcerated…I must admit, the thought of Bill Maher having to face Todd Palin alone in a locked room for just a few minutes is rather appealing. After publicly using the words he used in reference to Todd’s wife…the look of sheer terror on his face would be priceless!
#48 the erroneous labeling of Obama’s faith is the issue. Somehow the neocons seem to think that labeling him a Muslim will hurt his image; that somehow being a Muslim is a bad thing. I, as part of The Left, don’t really care what religion a candidate follows, or if they follow one at all. And, quite frankly, most of the Liberals I know don’t care either.
Actually The Other Rick, Nugent’s remarks and his shooting at effigies is MUCH WORSE than Bill Maher’s insulting epithet (did you object when it was used against Hillary?) Your concern for only one side of the insults issue is looking more hypocritical by the second.
I did not “wish any of them dead, or incarcerated” either, I suppose I should not have said that his own prediction, “Works for me!” or that “Either would be a fitting end”, but darned if I can bring myself to retract the truth.
The Other Rick…
Where was your pathetic outrage when people on the right were (and continue) to hurl insults and diatribe to Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Geraldine Ferraro, and a host of other female members of the Democratic Party?
I find your feighned disgust to be disingenuous at the very least and without merit from the very onset.
As for the tax code…cry me a river people. Try being a single person in this warped tax code environment. I get screwed seven ways from Sunday be the tax code that favors breeders over a single person.
The tax code should never be written to promote a lifestyle or any other social endeavor but ours certainly is.
#54…i was reading with enjoyment until your mini-diatribe against “breeders.” How utterly crude and ignorant. I’m sorry you feel that way; but choosing to have children doesn’t somehow lessen me. Sorry the tax code doesn’t treat you fairly, but that doesn’t give you licence to insult those who chose to endeavor in the beautiful labor of raising children.
@55 Mr. William, it’s not my place to speak for Will so I won’t. Nor will I claim to know exactly what he meant. But I hope you will agree with me there are some people who take the breeding thing too far.
Rick Santorum has 8 children (1 deceased).
Mitt Romney has 5 children.
Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have something like 19 children.
And then there is the whole Quiverfull Movement.
I myself have two children but think there may be legitimate reasons for Will’s complaints although he may not have spelled out his reasons.
Too many of the “loving child bearing” population have said much more hateful and unkind things to gay people over the years. Breeders merely describes in a very primitive yet accurate manner those who benefit from a very lopsided and unfair tax code.
If in your job of procreation, you’re not breeding, then exactly how are you producing your offspring? I grew up on a farm and the term “breeder” wasn’t considered derogatory.
Sorry your skin is so thin…take a walk in my shoes for the past 56 years and maybe you’ll toughen up a bit.
#57 My skin isn’t thin at all, and I don’t need to talk a walk in your shoes; I believe your choice of the term “breeders” was specifically designed to be insulting and derogatory; otherwise, why would you have chosen such a term? When applied to the rest of the animal world, it may be wholly applicable, but when applied to the decision two human beings make to bring children into the world, its just ugly and you know it.
Sorry the tax code hits you hard. Fight to change it, but don’t take out your anger and frustration on those of us fortunate enough to have children.
Name is required
A valid email is required (email@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:03:10 +0000