Posted on 02/22/2008 10:43:29 AM PST by Sopater
For the second time in two years, an Argentine teenager has given birth to female triplets, BBC News reports.
The 16-year-old, who goes only by the name of Pamela, first gave birth to triplets at the age of 15.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I guess I’m making the distinction between not sending as much money to the government as compared to single wage earners - as opposed to the government cutting checks back to a family that has not earned the money to begin with.
Yes..single wage earners will be sending more of their dollars off to the government.
Of course, wealthy taxpayers send off a higher percentage of their money than lower income workers (single or not) - so, using your reasoning, you could also argue that the wealthy are subsidizing the non-wealthy - even if the non-wealthy are not collecting welfare.
No, If each makes the same, which pays a higher %? (kids or no kids)
I think all American citizens should stop working and stop having kids. Then everyone can live on Fairy Dust from Obama Osama’s magic wand.
There are MANY men in this country — ages 18 to 24 — serving serious time in prison for having a girlfriend age 16 or 17 — and her parents caught them together, and notified the authorities, instead of dealing with their rebellious, promiscuious teenager. The guys are doing hard time next to serial rapists and murderers, and their entire lives are ruined because once they get out, their picture is on Megans list forever.
Laws need serious reform. And this little girl in another country is pumping out babies by somebody who is keeping a low profile for SOME reason, obviously. Sad...
the ones without kids pay a higher percentage.
Likewise - if a single wage earner sends off 15% in one tax bracket, and a wealthier single wage earner sens off 30%, the wealthier taxpayer is going to say he is subsidizing the other guy.
However, no one in these examples is getting a government check sent back to them for money they didn’t earn.
Agreed, however I was talking about kids/no kids. And yes, someone paying 30% is subsidizing the cost of government to someone paying 15%. We agree.
“There are MANY men in this country — ages 18 to 24 — serving serious time in prison for having a girlfriend age 16 or 17 “
Many states don’t consider it rape if the age difference is 2 yrs. or less, so I don’t know how accurate it is when you claim many 18 yr. olds are getting sent off.
I have 4 sons and I will make sure they understand the legal consequences of this type of thing, regardless as to whether a girl is “promiscuous” or not.
Yes..this girl has been “pumping” out babies, but clearly, somebody else was doing some pumping when she was at the ripe age of 13 - and no one did a durn thing about it.
so really the point is about a progressive tax system.
But also - the government has decided taxpayers with children should keep more of their money than taxpayers with no children.
Would make a good topic for another thread.
“Then everyone can live on Fairy Dust from Obama Osama’s magic wand.”
I’m torn.
Hillary said she can put food on our tables, oil in our furnace, and pay our bills.
But Obama is going to heal our souls.
Should we go for the cash? or for salvation?
Yep, but the "Government" letting you keep more of the money you earn is like a check from the government, is it not?
very depressing train of thought. Going to bed, regards.
no..I don’t agree with that statement.
One could argue as to the fairness of taking a higher percentage of one person’s income over another...but in both cases the wage earners have earned that money themselves.
Now compare those people with folks who don’t work, don’t earn money, and they get a government check in the mail for food/housing/and bills.
Or - people who make very little money - and get back more from the gov. as opposed to what they earn.
For ex. when a person who was completely dependent on welfare finds a job, manages to support themselves and weans themselves off the government dole -that is seen as a step in the right direction.
So I’m making a distinction between a welfare mom, who gets a “raise” from the government each time she has another baby, even though she doesn’t work - as opposed to the Duggars who earn quite a bit of money, pay their own bills, pay taxes (but at a lower percentage), pay employees, and don’t receive government checks.
Yes, there are some success stories, but many that aren’t. In my own family, of my 8 cousins between 44 to 26 years of age, only 2 of them have gotten married (however, none of them are “shacked up”). The oldest one got married in her early 20s, had 2 children, and has had a fairly model marriage now for better than 20 years. My younger cousin (32) was only the 2nd to get married, and he did so around 5 or 6 years ago. His wife, unfortunately, could not have children, so just recently they adopted 3 children whom were siblings that had lost their parents. My aunt and uncle (whom were worried would never be grandparents) were thrilled to pieces to have an “instant” set of grandkids that they could promptly spoil.
My own father got married at 21, became a parent at 22, but was separated at 27 and divorced by 30 (that was the ‘60s when that culture changed, so this isn’t a recent phenomenon). I was engaged at 26, but “lost” my fiancee at 29. You might’ve considered us “shacked up”, but with a very sad and difficult circumstances that I had to rescue her when she was 18 from an abusive household (young, indifferent mother and predatory father who had sexually abused her — the entire family was rife with appalling abuse ranging from rape, both heterosexual and homosexual, psychological, molestation, et al). We had at least had the sense to know not to have children until we were financially independent and emotionally prepared instead of just acting stupid. More to this, of course, but I’m not going to go into any more details publicly.
I’m teachiing my sons the harsh realities of being sexually promiscuious, and yes, there ARE 18 and 19 year old boys serving hard time with 5 year sentences in every state, for this exact scenario, because of the “nonconsensual” laws which don’t hold very mature 16 & 17 year old girls responsible for their own behavior, and only punish the boys.
I’m going to scare my boys good, in addition to teaching them biblical values. We parents need to know the crazy laws for sex offenses, and protect our boys AND girls, so they don’t don’t tragically end up with ruined lives because of normal immaturity and adolescent behavior. This happens more frequently than you know. I’m learning a lot...
by “lost” do you mean she died? Or did you break up?
regardless...I’m sorry to learn of your troubles.
I was lucky to grow up with parents who had a stable marriage.
My hubby’s family was stable for awhile, but ended in divorce, so his experience was mixed.
out of hubby’s family w/ 4 siblings, there are 2 stable marriages, and one struggling marriage.
My 2 sisters and I have had good marriages.
so..I’m sure alot of it is what did the children see while growing up, and that goes a long way in how they model their own behavior.
There are alot of hurt people out of there who are very afraid, and it’s sad because the fear gets passed on to the kids.
not sure how to fix it though.
In every state? really?
I thought they had to be 2 yrs. older than the girls.
What’s funny, is with all this concern about sex-ed in the schools - I don’t think they go over these laws with the kids in those classes.
They shouldn’t just go over that - but the facts of paternity testing and child support laws as well.
The days of “that isn’t my baby” are long gone.
Don’t know what the Argentinian laws are, but if she were in the US, she’d still have to wait 5 years to have a tubal ligation.
Whatever it looked like, it didn’t seem to bother her husband one bit.
Is she safe now?
“There is a special place in hell for all the adults who hurt her, right down to the johns who used her.”
Yes there is! But in the meantime...Did they put any of them especially the mom in jail?
67 of them survived infancy. That is the best answer I can find on it. 67 just surviving infancy in that day and age is a monumental number.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.