davis_square | Single issue voter

Single issue voter

Hello,

Can someone tell me who caters least to families, children, and "no turn between 7-9 a.m." signs in the upcoming election?

Thanks!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Eh, I could do better.

Then do.

And until you're done re-forming society in your own image, realize that everything around you was built by people who received the benefits of child-related tax breaks when they were children.

Or you could go off and live in the woods!

This outlandish and entirely unsubstantiated comment has really opened my eyes.

Forgive me, the painkillers I'm currently on have reduced my language skillz.

I'm reading further through the comments, and it seems you have understandable gripes that I still mostly don't agree with. The most important thing I'm taking away from what you're writing is that you don't like the way we spend money on children, while having no problem with doing it if the money is spent the way you like.

If that's true, then you're making a very different argument from other people whom I've seen/heard use the word "breeders."

What argument have they made?

That, being child-free, they should not have to financially contribute to anything having to do with children. Which, given that we as a species and society are looking to propagate and thrive, strikes me as ludicrous. I'm ok with my money going to children-related services, and to addict-related services, and elderly, and poor, and alla that. How that money is currently allocated raises my hackles sometimes, but reducing the amount of money available for such broad categories isn't going to do anyone any good.

No thanks, I think I'd like you to stay away from any of the children I know.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Single issue voter

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)

Re: ;-)