Single issue voter

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

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!

Comments

Re: ;-)

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

No, just fewer breaks for breeders.

Re: ;-)

[jodi.livejournal.com]

not all people who care for children and look out for their welfare are breeders. some look out for the lives of other people's children and some have children that they did not "breed" themselves. please use language that is designed for conversation if that is what you desire here. if you really do just want to bitch about stuff, by all means go on using inflammatory and biased language.

Re: ;-)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

I had never heard to people referred to as breeders before. You are right. It is inflamatory, and inappropriate for this discussion.

Re: ;-)

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

From the Urban Dictionary: Breeders (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%20BREEDERS)

I first learned it over 10 years ago in San Francisco, but I am using definition #4. I thought it was a fairly common and widely used term.

I am tired of having to deal with legislation favouring parents/children while those of us who choose not to reproduce end up being taxed for it.

When you assume...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

Urban Dictionary defines your definition as derogatory, and thus inflamatory in this context. The term assumes motives and misperceives shortcomings behind those who have children.

It would be akin to me calling a woman without children "barren", or assuming that she is childless purely because no man would want her to bear his children. Neither necessarily may be the case, both are inflamatory, both make unwarranted assumptions, and both insult.

Not having children was your choice. The rest of us need not be punished for it. An educated society benefits all.

In short, this is a diverse group of people, so, respectfully, please choose your words more carefully in the future.

Wait, what?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/]

What kind of breaks?

And what do you mean by "breeders"?

Re: ;-)

[ron_newman]

What is a "break for breeder" ? I don't understand what you are referring to.

Re: ;-)

[talonvaki.livejournal.com]

From the Urban Dictionary: Breeders (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%20BREEDERS)

I first learned it over 10 years ago in San Francisco, but I am using definition #4. I thought it was a fairly common and widely used term.

By breaks I basically mean taxes; not just the tax cuts you get if you have children but also the fact that if legislation passes to fund something like an elementary school, people without children will have to pay as much of their taxes to fund it as people who have children...and you know, that just doesn't seem fair to me. People who drive pay for maintaining the roads (tolls, license fees, gas taxes), people who smoke or drink pay taxes on that; you don't see non-smokers or not-drinkers helping to pay the liquor and tobacco taxes, and yet, I have to vote for something that supports something I choose not to do.

*shrug* sorry. I'm just seeing the point of the OP and expanding upon it.

Re: ;-)

[nungnung.livejournal.com]

Yes, but if we all contribute to funding schools, we all benefit from having an educated society.

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

You're making the extremely optimistic assumption that public schools do much in the way of educating.

Re: ;-)

[nungnung.livejournal.com]

Better than no school, if only because it keeps most of the kids corralled for several hours a day.

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Great, let's all pay for lukewarm education and a holding pen.

Re: ;-)

[nungnung.livejournal.com]

Lukewarm or not, it's still better than no school at all.

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Eh, I could do better.

Re: ;-)

[veek.livejournal.com]

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!

Re: ;-)

[pekmez.livejournal.com]

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

Re: ;-)

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

Public schools CAN be good. Mine was. They do need public support and community engagement to be good, though. And money. Those things are harder to find in cities than in suburbs, yeah, but I don't think giving up altogether on the idea of public education is a good one. I think it's possible to improve the bad ones.

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

lol. Yeah, let's burn more money at the altar of public school instead of privatizing and doing it smart.

Re: ;-)

[m00n.livejournal.com]

Would this be like, err....School vouchers?

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Federal mandate requiring schooling (promoting general welfare). Federal mandate outlining basic curriculum, so we don't wind up with "the earth is 6,000 years old" high school graduates. Extremely affordable loans, custom tailored to every parent who has a child to send to school. Not a penny due until said child turns 18 or 22. No one, no matter how poor, would be denied an education loan. The best part is, parents don't get to be lazy and just throw their kids in public school like crackers in soup. They'd have to direct their attention, be good parents and choose the school they like best based on teaching method and a whole host of other variables.

That way, people who choose to have kids can pay for their own kids, and not ask me to do it!

Re: ;-)

[m00n.livejournal.com]

So what happens to the kids if the parents are lazy?

Re: ;-)

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

Or they might just end up picking the cheapest school and dumping their kids in it, or dumping them in any school and then defaulting on the loans.

Re: ;-)

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

because privatizing the regulation of an industry worked wonders for mortgages and banking.

Re: ;-)

[m00n.livejournal.com]

And energy.

Re: ;-)

[two-stabs.livejournal.com]

Because the federal reserve didn't cause the great depression...