1 in 4 women have abortions? Wow.

[DriveInDriveOut]

Wrong I did not use it as a reason to support abortion .

Yes you did.

I simply pointed out a matter you pro lifers appear to have never thought of.....That being the responsibilities you will be assuming if the abortion ban you seek comes home to your state.

The suggestion that we don't know babies cost money is very stupid.

You need to come up with a better argument to support your pro baby death position.

Try harder

 

[vantexan]

Pro lifers care until the baby is born and then don’t care any more.

No, we just think that having a baby shouldn't automatically give you a slew of public services instead of taking care of your own child. Typical abortionists. Kill the baby rather than face responsibility but if you have the baby the government is supposed to provide everything for you.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Pro lifers care until the baby is born and then don’t care any more.

Christians adopt twice as many children as non Christians. Your streak of being wrong about everything continues. Carry on.

 

[Integrity]

Since you jumped in I'm going to present the same question to you. A number of state constitutions require a balanced budget. Now in light of the fact that an outright abortion ban would be almost certain to result in an increased demand for state constitution mandated and funded child welfare services then in order to produce a balanced budget and provide those mandated child welfare services would you support a tax increase in order to do both?

An outright ban on abortion will not come free. Either you step up and pay your share of the increased costs or you keep quiet and let the woman decide on her own.

Just saying:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues, such as abortion, for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progress income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Maybe this will help pay for the help that IMO women often need in dealing with making better decisions when dealing with the uncertainty and all else that goes an unplanned pregnancy. May God, as they understand God, be with these women in their time of need.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Pro lifers care until the baby is born and then don’t care any more.

And that’s a lie and you know it, but you continue to use another talking point

 

[Thebrownblob]

Just saying:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues, such as abortion, for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progress income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Maybe this will help pay for the help that IMO women often need in dealing with making better decisions when dealing with the uncertainty and all else that goes an unplanned pregnancy. May God, as they understand God, be with these women in their time of need.

That’s a great theory the problem is with the government. They will tax the rich and waste the money. Also, when your desire is to punish someone with a punitive tax, so that you get the reward, you generally have the wrong intentions. That’s when you create a welfare state full of people who are helpless eventually, and cannot do anything for their selves without a hand out. Jealousy, greed and envy become a spiritual problem. Despair sets in. I’m perfectly fine with a hand up, not a hand out. It eventually ruins people IMO.

 

[qdg2]

Just saying:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues, such as abortion, for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progress income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Maybe this will help pay for the help that IMO women often need in dealing with making better decisions when dealing with the uncertainty and all else that goes an unplanned pregnancy. May God, as they understand God, be with these women in their time of need.

Covet and envy.

Sins. Yes?

 

[Integrity]

That’s a great theory the problem is with the government. They will tax the rich and waste the money. Also, when your desire is to punish someone with a punitive tax, so that you get the reward, you generally have the wrong intentions. That’s when you create a welfare state full of people who are helpless eventually, and cannot do anything for their selves without a hand out. Jealousy, greed and envy become a spiritual problem. Despair sets in. I’m perfectly fine with a hand up, not a hand out. It eventually ruins people IMO.

Punitive tax who said anything about a punitive tax?

I am going to start a thread about this , I think this may be distraction to this topic.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Punitive tax who said anything about a punitive tax.

When you take 91% of some peoples and 0% of others.

 

[Integrity]

Covet and envy.

Sins. Yes?

Please explain.

 

[Integrity]

When you take 91% of some peoples and 0% of others.

I believe that is called a progressive tax system and I believe the American Society already lives under that system.

I am only in favor and suggesting changing the percentages for what I believe would be for the overall good and not harm of American Society.

I think it is important to remember that the US Government has degraded to the point where it is IMO a government by the rich and their corporations for the rich and their corporations and far from a government for the people and by the people.

So as to not disrupt the topic thread further I will wait to comment anymore on a future discussion thread.

 

[Thebrownblob]

I believe that is called a progressive tax system and I believe the American Society already lives under that system.

I am only in favor and suggesting changing the percentages for what I believe would be for the overall good and not harm of American Society.

I think it is important to remember that the US Government has degraded to the point where it is IMO a government by the rich and their corporations for the rich and their corporations and far from a government for the people and by the people.

So as to not disrupt the topic thread further I will wait to comment anymore on a future discussion thread.

As with most things now, people who say progressive, actually are regressive. And your solution is to give this rich government more of your money to miss handle. Sorry, I just don’t think that works and I think the evidence is all around you.

If you want to help people have a debt Jubilee. Or at least a cap on ridiculous interest-rates. Even the mafia didn’t charge 30%, And get rid of tax loopholes for rich people.

 

[Integrity]

As with most things now, people who say progressive, actually are regressive. And your solution is to give this rich government more of your money to miss handle. Sorry, I just don’t think that works and I think the evidence is all around you.

If you want to help people have a debt Jubilee. Or at least a cap on ridiculous interest-rates. Even the mafia didn’t charge 30%, And get rid of tax loopholes for rich people.

Under my system I would probably be in the 0% tax bracket. Just saying. More on this later.

 

[Thebrownblob]

Under my system I would probably be in the 0% tax bracket. Just saying. More on this later.

Yes, but your problem is you trust the government. It’s silly notion, because eventually you will be called “rich” and taxed at 91%… hoisted by your own petard

 

[sailfish]

Imagine being so much of a Progressive clown that this looks like a backward dystopia that oPpReSsEs aNd CoNtRoLs WoMen.

 

[sailfish]

Imagine being so much of a Progressive clown that you think men can become women, women can become men (not that you can even define what either is), women can cut their breasts off, abort their pregnancies, compete with men, everyone can surgically remove their genitalia and hormonally castrate themselves, and believe that that society is sustainable.

 

[sailfish]

 

[oldngray]

Imagine being so much of a Progressive clown that you think men can become women, women can become men (not that you can even define what either is), women can cut their breasts off, abort their pregnancies, compete with men, everyone can surgically remove their genitalia and hormonally castrate themselves, and believe that that society is sustainable.

 

[bacha29]

Just saying:

I have the suspicion that as long as the rich politicians and rich corporations that own them can keep the non-rich fighting the moral high ground issues, such as abortion, for their political gain and that IMO they mostly regard from a political perspective their purposes will be furthered because the non-rich will not seek to address the real scourge of American society; the absurd accumulation of power through the absurd accumulation of wealth.

I am all for a new progress income tax rate system that unashamedly taxes the richest of the rich up to 91% and the poorest of the poor 0%.

Maybe this will help pay for the help that IMO women often need in dealing with making better decisions when dealing with the uncertainty and all else that goes an unplanned pregnancy. May God, as they understand God, be with these women in their time of need.

In keeping with that thought the IRS has simply asked for a larger budget to pay for 9000 new IRS agents whose purpose would be to enforce and collect the estimated 500 billion dollars in federal income tax that is owed to the IRS that is simply based on
CURRENT US tax law.

It would give them the money, manpower and paid manhours needed to audit complex returns that cannot be done with a simple correspondence audit.

 

[bacha29]

Yes, but your problem is you trust the government. It’s silly notion, because eventually you will be called “rich” and taxed at 91%… hoisted by your own petard

I once met an ageing gentleman who was within a few years of retirement and it was clearly getting hard for him to get around.
He said to me quote...." I love my country but I don't try my government" My response...."Well at least there's one person here who won't be signing up for Social Security and Medicare and a good chance Medicaid" He just stood there with that Buggs Bunny look on his face. I said to him...'Why would you trust something so critically important as your future retirement income and healthcare needs to someone you have plainly stated you don't trust"?

Realizing the clear stupidity of what he had just said he turned around and walked away in silence.