Why should I have to pay for your children?

That's life! Like it or not. I agree however. Some people should never have the privilege.

Ok, so ethically I have problems answering this. I do agree that somehow we need welfare reform. I think some aid is good, but aid should not be made to the point where people can live off it and not have to work or contribute.

Sterilization is coming awfully close to eugenics. It's a slippery slope. The US has also tried forced sterilzation, in fact Hitler got many of his ideas from the documents of Central State Hospital outside of Williamsburg, VA.

Perhaps something more like either Japan or China where the government limits the amount of children you can have may work. Or just stating you get aid for your first two children only. If you want more that's ok, but there are no more benefits.

Federal orphanges? Well...you know a history lesson may be in order here. Search the history of Willowbrook Institution. Apparently we have tried such a thing and it didn't work out too good for the children.

On a micro level I agree with you. People that don't have children shouldn't have to pay taxes to serve children. If it takes a village to raise a child then the village should be consulted prior to conception. People that have children should perhaps loose their tax deduction as a married couple to create the funding needed for schools, etc.

Or make gay marriage legal, then tax all weddings or something.

You'll probably mark this as "thumbs down", but in my opinion, it's the governments responsibility to care for its less fortunate; witness Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Mandatory birth control is a fascist idea; it encourages others to determine if a pregnancy is "allowable", thereby allowing abortions-- aren't you people against killing babies?

People get sick. It's a fact of life. Heaven forbid you should ever have to spend a penny on anyone's illnesses other than your own.

The welfare system might be abused, so why not just close it up? Throw the baby out with the bathwater. People depend on welfare to eat and pay their bills, like rent and the phone, garbage and utilities. Why not just put all those people on the street along with the mentally ill Reagan kicked out to sleep under the bridges?

Anyway, I hope you never need Medicare, or Social Security, or the Ranger system, or the military. But you (and I) paid for all those things, just in case.

Just as you, I have no children, but support the Government's effort to take care of them. If the parents are unable for what ever reason, then the Government needs to step in, so I can't say I disagree. The problem I have however, is having children one at a time, when you are not prepared to take care of them, and then expecting someone else to do the job. I decided early on, not to be a parent, and it had nothing to do with my sexuality, but the inability or so I thought, to properly care for them. It is a decision I must say, that I do not regret. I didn't have an easy life, and have struggled, quite a bit, so I made a choice early on, to leave it to people better prepared. If you are going to have kids, fine, but know that it takes more than love to put them on the right track, and don't expect someone else to do more for them than you are willing to do. Nevertheless, in the event that the parents can't or won't, the Government has to step in. But I get what you are saying.

Yes, it is fair. Many men who remarry, and have kids with their new wives, will ALSO get that same credit that you are complaining about, which lowers their monthly obligation to Baby Mama #1. It is a CREDIT on her end, and you are not paying for this child. It works BOTH ways.

I think people with children should pay more for taxes than non breeders ... your the reason we need more tax money you should pay it

Isn't it amazing how many people think I am cruel when I don't want to subsidize THEIR poor decisions?

For the record, ANY payment to ANYONE except a government employee that is funded made by the Federal government is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Relax. If they didn't use cigarette taxes on a good federal program that works, they would use it on a crappy program that doesn't. It could be worse.

Plus, using cigarette taxes for something like this is nowhere even close to being similar to welfare fraud, or even people not being able to afford the kids that they have. How many people can really afford health care nowadays? Have you been to a hospital lately? Good for you if you can pay every bill you get from a hospital without having to choose between well-child exams and food on the table, but lots of people can't, and it's not because they're irresponsible parents. The way the health care system keeps going, pretty soon no one will be able to afford basic health care.

(And FYI, I don't even have kids, but it takes a village, you know?)

You should stop smoking as a protest. It'll help your health and the health of everyone around you, plus you won't be effectively paying for someone else's health care.

~ Well, then, did you read what you posted? It's a cigarette tax! You're the fool, then, not me.

Great idea. I like the mandatory birth control. Not every woman can be a proper mother. Proven time and time again.

I bet your also asking why you have to pay for the interstate highway in a state you will never visit too? how about the Public funding of the privately owned sports stadiums in cities? that's a great use for money! Or, public funding for Bush to have parties in the White House for the hell of it. Lemmie tell you I love that the federal taxes I pay go to Alaska for some pork barrel bullshit, but yeah, this is a terrible way to spend money.

Lest we forget the BILLIONS a week going to 'rebuild' Iraq. Have you ever questioned the biggest embassy in the world we are building there?

YEAH GOD-FOR-*******- BID THEY TAKE A DOLLAR OUT OF YOUR PAY SO A CHILD CAN HAVE THE MOST BASIC OF HEALTHCARE.

What I think is even more deplorable is they count anyone under the age of 26 as a child. So a family of 4 making over 83,000 a year can qualify for this program. This is ludicrous.