Let's Have The Childfree Pay for the War! Yeah!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/02/democrats.war.tax/index.html

The measure -- sponsored by Obey, Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, and Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts -- would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill, while higher-income taxpayers would add 12 to 15 percent, Obey said.
--

Don't be fooled by this "low and middle income" only pay 2% shit while the "rich" pay the big 12 to 15 percent. Like anything else these criminals in washington do, this will be just like those damn child tax credits. The breeders won't pay SHIT for their "war tax" while we'll be getting the shaft as usual.

"low and middle income" is the operant word for "breeders" regardless of income status (unless they are multi millionaires or something).

If they manage to push this through, mark my words, there will be exemptions out the ass for famblies and chyldrun. No fambly with brats is going to have to pay a fucking thing, or if they do, it will be something so small they won't even really notice it, which means they won't complain about it.

Meantime the minority people (the childfree) will get fucked in the ass HARD for this.

more proof of how much the democrats hate the childfree, that's all this is.

What the hell ever happened to the uber liberal feminist democrats of the 60s and 70s? You know, back when feminism was about strong career women who didn't want babies? And liberal stuff like free love and smoking weed?
How in the fuck did we end up with democrats of today, a bunch of jackboots who basically want to tax the childfree and the liberated out of existence?

feminism, was firstly for equality, men and women treated equally. and once they had that pretty much sorted, they faced a choice of disbanding or changing their aim.

and because that original group of feminists gained a lot of power and influence and money, they decided to change, to women are better than men, and so they became more pro woman, and anti male. now this new group, stated that women are better than men, because they are women and what they can do. its a small step from saying i am better because i am a woman to hving a child is what i can do therefore i am better than a man because of it.

the new feminist groups, are more anti male, in essence turning men into wage slaves, what better way of becoming top bitch (you heard of top dog), than by making all men subservient to women, breeders especially. because that gives them POWER, power over poor men and childfree.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Nowhiggers, Merc said it well. Radical feminism is really gone. Third wave feminism is about entitlement. Women want it all and want to see men fucked for the "crime" of being male. Feminists today want to be able to fool around on their husbands but the guys better not look at another woman. These feminists also file for divorce because they are "bored" and the man is no longer "fun"...but DEMAND and usually get alimony even if there are no children in the marriage. I really am glad I was not born male in today's climate. If I was a male with a career and assets, I sure as hell would not marry! Why sign my life away???

that being said, there are some good people, who i term equalist, rather than the negative connotations thats involved with the term feminist.

Oh yes, let the Childfree pay for everything! After all, we are selfish, self-centered, child-hating bastards with TONS of expendable income. I guess making smart decisions in our lives are to blame for those awful qualities.

It's MY opinion that the breeders should pay more in taxes. They're the ones having the kids, using up all the resources, using the schools, using roads more often, needing medical care more often, needing all sorts of other shit on all levels. Just look at all the corporations/manufacturing facilities that exist specifically for kid stuff and kindercrap? Mattel for instance!

The cost of a breeding famblee as opposed to a non-breeding couple is exponentially more expensive and needier in every category.

I was looking at some old magazines and books from the 60s and 70s, I have got to scan this stuff and put it up somewhere on the internets.

Basically, these were old "feminist" books and magazine type articles and advertisements. And you would be shocked if you saw how insulting to breeders this stuff was, MAINSTREAM feminism of the 60s and 70s was so very pro-childfree, golly gosh I was floored looking through this old stuff.

Essentially, the childfree movement of today is really nothing but a rehash of all those great ideas and concepts 60s and 70s feminism was all about!!!!

It's amazing to see how feminism has changed from liberating women FROM babies and even marriage, to this whole breedercentric "you aren't a real woman until you've had a chyyyuld" crap of today's feminism.

Blame it on the religious right. The feminism of the 60s and 70s didn't think it could compete with the "family friendliness" of the religious right movement when it became very big and popular in the 80s. That's when the democrats turned into spineless useless mealy mouthed liberal wimps. And strong women who didn't want the burden of children became pariahs in the liberal democrat circles.

KidFreeLuvnLife said, "Oh yes, let the Childfree pay for everything! After all, we are selfish, self-centered, child-hating bastards with TONS of expendable income."

LOL. As a single, childfree male who began working in the 1980s, I saw this attitude from several people close to me, not least my own asshole father. "You don't have any bills. You ought to have lots of money in the bank." The reality is that those times were when people who did not have a university degree began struggling, and my starting pay in 1983 was just over $5 an hour. (I had one year of engineering school and dropped out due to financial reasons, and asshole dad didn't want to help even as he criticized my decision to leave university.) Minimum wage then was $3.35 an hour, so we're not talking about a lot of difference.

That was also when housing prices and rents in my area began to get stupid, and I knew several people renting apartments who had to have one or more roommates just to pay the bills. Dad couldn't (or actually chose not to) understand and thought I should be able to save a 20% down payment and simply buy a $150,000+ house on $5 an hour. He had money saved, but he did this by shortchanging his family, not taking care of necessary repairs, and shoving off bills on mom when she began working in the mid-1970s. He also had plenty of money to spend on himself while his family did without, as he managed to amass a large collection of expensive guns.

The last time I saw this attitude was when I bought a new car in 1988, the lowest-priced car Ford sold then, nothing extravagant. When I sought financing, a jerk at one local bank sent a haughty letter saying (paraphrased), "I'm going to turn down this loan request because he [me] should be able to pay cash for the car." I easily got financing elsewhere, but the attitude pissed me off. That particular bank merged and disappeared later.

When I left a state government job last year to care for family members full-time, my ending pay was roughly $31,000 a year. By standards of 20 years ago, that sounds like a lot, but today it isn't enough to enable me to qualify to rent an apartment in the nearest large city. But that doesn't matter: to some people I still should have "plenty of money".

There are parallels with the treatment of the childfree in the workplace. They have time to stay at work while breeders leave early to attend to their sprogs. In other words—you guessed it—the childfree have "plenty of time". I've seen that attitude too!

K-man, I have had similar experiences. Moos with that part-time job/SAHMoos married to a good earner would tell me how I was "foolish" to rent but should save my money for that down payment on a house. That was in the mid-90's.

These women acted like I had no bills because I escaped motherhood. I was getting by on $7.50 an hour. I still had other expenses to pay besides rent such as food, utilities, phone, gas, auto insurance, etc. I did not get into car payments until the end of '95 when an old clunker finally had it!

I used to be friend with an older woman, who was divorced 15 years ago. Notice I said the words "used to be friends". The woman moaned and whined how she gave up her entire life and bankrupted herself to send her two kids to boarding school...and how she NEVER got a COLA (cost of living adjustment) in her child support in all of that time before the children became adults. Send me the violins!

Well, she had the nerve to make a snide comment of, "Who do you think YOU are...," about my living in a decent neighbourhood. I made it very clear that this is NOT my house but my mate's and how *I* certainly could not afford this area on my own. I am certain she had jealousy issues because she also went on how I looked "too different". I guess SHE believes she should have this man and live here because she looks classier than me in her designer clothes.