Now
Overcast
63°
High
69°
Low
49°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 8/7: Press senators to help kids

Comments 49 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Aug 07, 2008 - 12:15:40 am CDT

Congress left some unfinished jobs on the table last week before it left for recess. A comprehensive tax extender bill failed 51-43 to get the required votes to move forward on July 30. Sen. Ben Nelson voted for and Sen. Chuck Hagel voted against the motion to cease debate and consider the bill.

This bill included a much-needed improvement to the Child Tax Credit (CTC). This important anti-poverty tax provision is designed to lessen the impact of income taxes for families with children by offering a tax credit for middle- and low-income families.

People with at least one qualifying child who file federal tax returns can get a CTC of as much as  $1,000 for each child.

The problem is that in order to qualify for the CTC, a family must have a minimum income of $12,050, leaving out some of our neediest families.

As a first step in making the CTC fairer and simpler, Congress should lower the minimum income threshold to $8,500 and then freeze it (“de-index” it to inflation). This would benefit almost 66,000 kids in Nebraska.

The full House already passed a tax extender bill on May 21 (263-160) that also would lower the CTC earned income threshold to $8,500 for 2008. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry voted against it. Congress will try again to pass a tax extender bill in September.

Calls to Hagel and Nelson urging them to pass a responsible tax bill that includes an $8,500 minimum income threshold for the Child Tax Credit would be most helpful, because the ball is in the Senate’s court. Of course asking Fortenberry to vote for working families at the next opportunity also would be helpful.

Carita Baker, Lincoln

Eliminate tax on clothing

We were glad to see the Nebraska Retail Federation make some noise last week about Nebraska’s need to institute a countermeasure to Iowa’s sales tax holiday in order to prevent Nebraska dollars from bleeding out of the state.

While there have been marginal legislative attempts lately to accomplish such desires, we would like to see discussions built more around the premise of a permanent elimination of sales tax on clothing as opposed to some of the temporary and complicated solutions brought forward in the past. As a state, we need to move beyond trying to simply match what our neighbors are doing and become aggressive in lowering our overall tax burden and increasing our competitiveness in drawing money into our borders.

Permanently exempting clothing purchases from sales tax, like Minnesota and four other states, could spark sustained economic growth here in Nebraska by giving us a competitive advantage over states with which we share a border.

Berk Brown, editor, Platte Institute for Economic Research

Put ’em to work

Kudos to the alternative sentence program. Sometimes those incarcerated learn more skills in jail from more hardened criminals, and those skills are not in the positive. Some of the more minor offenders could be mowing parks, picking up trash in parks, cleaning up storm debris, thus offsetting costs to the city, county and state.

Further, during the Depression, people had to work to achieve certain benefits, such as housing and utility assistance. Some swept streets, built bridges, etc. This kept people busy, resulted in less crime and established a sense of self-worth.

Joyce Perry, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
for heavens sake wrote on August 7, 2008 6:08 am:
" If your family income is less than $12,050, perhaps you should not be having children. What we need is a federal program that encourages people to get their act together, hold jobs and practice some self control, not one that throws money at poor people to make them marginally less poor. "

 Huh wrote on August 7, 2008 6:25 am:
" I'm sorry Ms. Baker, but a couple who make $12,500 a year or less have no business having children they cannot afford to raise. Quite frankly, there is nothing fair about the child tax credit when it comes to couples who do not have children. My wife and I already support the schools and the couples who do have children through their ability to apply for tax credit. It seem to me that people should plan for their children, i.e., make sure they have the means to support a child, then have the children. The idea of having the children and then holding them up and crying, "save my child from poverty" is repugnant to me. It is blackmail with the child as a pawn. Doesn't sound much like parenting to me. I will not support your cause because I believe it is wrong on many levels. "

 C wrote on August 7, 2008 7:25 am:
" Man it is nice to know some people feel the same way as me, I always thought I was a bad guy for thinking this way. Having a child is a choice and I don't think you should get help through tax credits or medicare to help have and raise the child. Those of us who wait until we can afford kids are having to pay for people who want kids even when they can't afford them. How about increasing the Dependent Child Care deduction for child care from 5,000 a year to help two parents who are both working to afford and raise their kids with out help. It has been that amount for a long time even as child care costs have increased dratically. "

 what a joke wrote on August 7, 2008 8:08 am:
" if a person makes less than 12k/yr and has a kid probably doesn't pay taxes at all anyway. 12k-8750(standard deduct)= 3250(taxable income) or $328 in taxes if you file not including exemptions... "

 Hurah wrote on August 7, 2008 8:24 am:
" You are not alone in your thoughts on children. (We should form a support group). Children are a choice, not a right. If you cant afford to have, raise, educate, feed, clothe, and support a child DONT HAVE ONE!

I made the choice many years ago (at the age of 25) that I did not plan to ever have kids. And, I did something about it. I got a vasectomy. Best decision I ever made. I dont want the financial and emotional burden of a child. Fatherhood does not fit with my plan for life.

No one has the right to own a house, or a car, or a boat, or a dog, or an island in the south pacific. You have to work hard, plan, and budget to get these things. Why cant people understand that a child is even more expensive, and even more of an obligation. We have enough people, we are not in danger of dying out (except from disasters brought on by overpopulation). I think we can taper off on the population explosion. Seven Billion is plenty.

My taxes should not be used to feed, clothe, or educate someone else's kid! Stop throwing money at people who make poor choices in life. It only encourages them! Would you give money to a drug addict and expect him to sober up? No. "

 as wrote on August 7, 2008 8:34 am:
" Miss Baker is incorrect in her logic for lowering the income for the CTC. A person with an income as low as it is now would not pay ANY federal or state income tax & would in fact get a credit per child as it is. The CTC minimum income should, in fact, be raised to equal a minimum wage job at 40 hrs a week for 52 weeks year.
What should be looked at & raised is the tax credit for child care, which would benefit far more people/parents than the CTC. The CTC is just another way of keeping the low income worker tied to gov't's purse strings. "

 jmk wrote on August 7, 2008 9:11 am:
" Maybe you should have waited to have kids until you could afford them. You're complaining about not getting a big enough daycare credit. Well maybe you should have waited until one of you made more money or cut down on your expenses so you don't both have to work and then one of you could stay home.How about you working 2 or 3 jobs. Then you wouldn't have to worry about the daycare tax credit. In my book you're sounding a little hypocritical.

As far as paying for things and other peoples behavior... I'm sick of paying for high medical costs because others choose unhealthy behaviors like drinking, smoking and poor eating habits which creates all kinds of diseases that run up our health care costs. I'm sick of having to pay taxes to support fire and resuce to go to fires and crashes because of the careless behaviors of others that cause them. We all live in this world together... Deal with it... "

 Ron wrote on August 7, 2008 9:16 am:
" With the economy the way it is, job losses everywhere, including Nebraska for those living in a vacumn,what makes you assume that these people were poor when they had the children? If you thin jobs are that easy to find in Lincoln, then you have never been jobless here,lucky you, Over the last 20 yrs I have worked fa a company that shut down after a salem, and one that shipped my job overseas, don't think it can't happen to you. "

 Sue F. wrote on August 7, 2008 9:17 am:
" It is my opinion that no one should be rewarded or penalized by the tax code for getting married, not getting married, having kids, or not having kids. I have to admit that it frustrates me that my husband and I, who made the choice not have children, pay so much more in taxes so that others, who made the choice to have children, can get extra money. I have no problem supporting schools and other community programs that help children, but there should be a deduction for each person in the household and no more. "

 Bob wrote on August 7, 2008 9:33 am:
" If people had no choice but to work to feed their kids, maybe getting pregnent wouldn't be so popular... "

 I agree wrote on August 7, 2008 9:43 am:
" If you want children to stop being raised in poverty, give the tax breaks to the people who don't have children. It appears money is their only interest, not their children, so if more tax breaks were given to childless people, I guarantee we would not have so many children in the "system". "

 Nina wrote on August 7, 2008 10:03 am:
" Joyce is correct. While the depression of the '30's wasn't exactly 'the good old days,' its assistance programs served to build a strong workforce, with the work ethic and responsibility to build a stronger America. Times are better now, but we've too often strayed from the important life lessons those programs taught, to our society's detriment. "

 taxpayer wrote on August 7, 2008 10:26 am:
" If some one is at that economic threshold I'm already paying for their kids. Why should I have to pay again. I'm paying for ADC, WIC and Medicaid for their kids, while I'm trying to pay for groceries (ADC and WIC) and medical insurance (Medicaid) for my own family. Sounds like the old double dip to me. "

 Ben wrote on August 7, 2008 10:39 am:
" Just what we need, more government programs... "

 Greg wrote on August 7, 2008 10:54 am:
" Perhaps those who favor curtailing the number of children in poor families would prefer the Chinese system of limiting each family (rich or poor)to one child. If a second pregnancy occurs, the mother is required to get an abortion. If she refuses, the state imposes an abortion by force. Some of the commenters seem to believe that income level should be the primary factor in determining the number of children in a family. Apparently they would prefer a variation on the Chinese system wherein the very wealthy could have as many children as they pleased and the very poor none at all. Every one else would be allotted a family size according to their income, the higher the income , the more children allowed. Of course in any family where a pregnancy threatened to produce a child in excess of the statutory limit for that income level, the government would impose the Chinese solution. This solution would be much more compatible with our capitalist system and would eliminate the creeping socialism inherent in our present approach. "

 wow wrote on August 7, 2008 11:37 am:
" I see the mean people are out in force today. "

 put them to work wrote on August 7, 2008 11:52 am:
" I also think that if you are on welfare you should be drug tested. I get drug tested to keep my job, so why dont those who use up my tax dollars get tested. Yes i think criminals should be allowed outside the fence to clean up trash. NOT "

 PJ wrote on August 7, 2008 12:16 pm:
" Nebraska just does NOT get it when it comes to taxation. How can surrounding states have lower property, sales, income, etc., taxes while Nebraska keeps their rates high? I purchase as much as I can from lower- or no-tax suppliers, including internet sales, to avoid paying Nebraska sales tax. And no, I don't feel at all guilty about it. "

 GMP wrote on August 7, 2008 12:33 pm:
" I think we should go back to what was done during the depression. Unless you are totally disabled, you should do some sort of work for the city/county to get housing, food stamps, etc. There isn't money in the budget for mowing, snow removal on sidewalks, etc. Let someone mow the city parks, clear weeds from the waterways (like the one on 48th & Normal), shovel sidewalks for elderly or disabled, answer phones for nonprofit agencies, walk the dogs at the Humane Society, something to earn benefits. "

 Alan wrote on August 7, 2008 12:38 pm:
" Everyone should have the number of children they want, are able to care for and can afford. No one is entitled to a government handout for any reason. Government can give no benefit without first taking it from someone else. Like many other posters my wife and I chose not to have children, yet we pay a couple thousand dollars a year for the schools to educate other children. That’s fine someone paid those taxes when I was a child. However the EITC and CTC are welfare programs that have no place in the tax code. If congress thinks increased welfare is a good idea, fine, let them debate it and respond to the wishes of the voters. However hiding a re-distribution scheme in the tax code is not only bad policy it’s downright dishonest. "

 Greg is missing the point wrote on August 7, 2008 1:00 pm:
" No one is talking about retro-active abortion. I think most of the comments I've seen has pretty much said, "If you can't afford to bring a child into this world, then don't bring a child into the world until you've made the necessary preparations". I'm tired of paying for other people's mistakes as well; I really don't think a tax credit will solve poverty no more than giving someone a free happy meal coupon combats hunger. "

 Rob wrote on August 7, 2008 1:11 pm:
" When are people going to start taking responsibility. If they have the kids, then realize it is up to you to cloth, feed, take care of them, not
for everyone else. Guess I'm tired of hearing "Think of the Children."
We had two sons, I can remember wondering where I was going to get the money to pay for their school cloths, the good lord was watching over us,
but then we always found a way & paid CASH. We didn't live in a mansion,
still don't, but the state sees to it that we pay through the nose when
it comes to property taxes, even now that we are retired. We got $600 dollars credit for each our children. So get off my case about "THINK
OF THE CHILDREN." Go to work, stop thinking the Taxpayers owe you. You could do a lot for yourselves, instead of riding off the back of us that worked for a living & what we have today. "

 Tired Taxpayer wrote on August 7, 2008 1:14 pm:
" Yet another sales tax gimmick is favored by Berk Brown to reduce the price of his Armani or Gucci suits. Nebraska tax policy is riddle with special tax considerations for special groups and that translates to higher taxes for the other people. Mr. Brown’s organization is tax exempt and therefore doesn't pay taxes and donations to his organization are tax exempt, individuals can deduct donations off their taxes, the other people make up the difference. Nebraska tax policy needs an overhaul and that mean every body pays sales taxes on everything regardless of who or what you are. All property taxes and fees eliminated no exceptions. The sales and income tax would be cap at 3% and therefore government would be limit to that total revenue and give them state and local an incentive to grow this state. "

 Fred wrote on August 7, 2008 1:30 pm:
" The catch with using inmates to pick up trash, mowing parks, clean up storm debris is that while their labor may be cheap, you must also have guards on them so they don't leave. In the jail, one guard can, due to things like walls, monitor many prisoners. Out in the open, one guard can monitor only a few. It's just not cost effective enough. "

 The mirrior wrote on August 7, 2008 1:31 pm:
" I hope the heartless people aren't having kids ether I hate to see their kids when they are grown. I do well and raise my kids with out tax breaks. But I would never raise them to think everyone can work their way out of every problem. Everyone need help at different times. It must be tough to be so perfect as some of these comments imply you should be ashamed of yourselves your heartless. "

 Jen wrote on August 7, 2008 1:34 pm:
" You people are so selfish and blind to the world. Who in the hell do you people think you are, telling others to not have children unless they can "afford" it? There are people who fall below the poverty line, and don't use birth control due to religious beliefs. There are also widowed parents who may have chosen to stay home to raise their children, and now are faced with getting into a work force with no skills, so they have to accept a minimum-wage job. But from your comments, I'm assuming that you think you have to be well-off in order to love and care for a child, right? Poor people must not love their kids, because they had a child that they couldn't afford. Yes, Nebraska certainly is "THE GOOD LIFE"...... "

 Bob wrote on August 7, 2008 1:37 pm:
" PJ, you must not realize that you are required to figure the sales tax that should be paid on internet purchases and pay it each year. Talk to your accountant if you don't believe me.

Some of you have lost the point of CTC's, WIC, etc. They are for the children not their parents. No child deserves to live in abject poverty. If we let kids live in such deprevation without any chance of a better circumstance those who survive will continue the cycle which creates an even larger drain on society. Do we really want to create a society like we see in many third-world countries? I didn't think so.

I hope none of you every find yourselves in such circumstances, but if you do, I'll bet you'll be first in line for those assistance programs that you treat with such disdain today. "

 to PJ wrote on August 7, 2008 1:41 pm:
" I don't think most people feel guilty when they break the LAW (not paying taxes) that's why they do it.

Grow up and Man up to pay your fair share. "

 C wrote on August 7, 2008 1:46 pm:
" If people are allowed to have as many kids as they want, why stop there. Give them as much food as they want, whatever car they want, whatever house they want. Want! Want! Want! Just because you want something dosn't meen you should get it. Whatever happened to taking responsibilty for your actions. Instead of a handout, how about low interest loans with a long term payment schedule. I know many will not be repaid but it makes people at least have to understand they are resonsable. "

 Boonie wrote on August 7, 2008 1:49 pm:
" Whew, it’s getting nasty around here. Do any of you mean-spirited folks ever think of the kids themselves, you know, the little human beings who had no part in the decision to be born, nothing to do with the miserable circumstances they find themselves in, and quite probably doomed to a life substandard health, education, role models, and opportunity in this, the richest country in the world? Probably not…. it’s those welfare-grubbing parents that are the problem, the ones that have kids just so they can collect more welfare checks. Right. "

 Hurah wrote on August 7, 2008 1:58 pm:
" Yep Greg, that is exactly what we are talking about. But, we dont need the government to step in, we need them to STEP OUT. Stop giving money to people who make bad choices. They will stop having kids they cant afford on their own.

This society is getting sicker all the time. We give money to people who have kids they know they cant support. We give money to people who abuse drugs. We give money to people who kill and rape and destroy. We give money to people who eat themselves to death, or smoke themselves to death, or drive themselves to death.

It is simple people. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Dont rely on the masses to bail you out when you do something dumb.

Police should help victims, not criminals. Firemen should be reimbursed for their time and expenses if the homeowner caused the fire. If you eat donuts every meal your whole life, you dont get insurance to cover your messed up body when it fails. If you smoke, you dont get insurance to pay to have your lungs removed. If you are responsible, you have only yourself to blame. Step up and be a man (or woman).

Help those who need it, not those who brought it on themselves. Help a family who lost their job, and is trying to get back on their feet, not the one that abuses the system to get free money and not work. There is a huge difference between a HAND UP and a HAND OUT.

Even the religious people say god helps those who help themselves....
Should I get free money because I want a third car, even though I cant afford it? There is this little island in the south pacific I had my eye on, maybe the government should give me money for that too. Kids are no different. Childbirth is a choice, not a right! "

 Bryan wrote on August 7, 2008 2:03 pm:
" One of the factors that differentiate so-called developed countries from those labeled "third world" is the distribution of wealth. The more even the distribution, the higher the standard of living and the lower the poverty rate. Comments by some think the third world model would be ideal. That said, I do not think handouts are the answer. I empathize with those who feel that they have to pay for other's bad decisions (having welfare children, elective obesity, careless driving, etc). We should carefully evaluate all welfare laws and work to remove incentives for welfare persistence. We should also restructure systems that include societal shared costs so that those that make bad decisions pay more. I think the "work for welfare" concept is brilliant (shoveling snow, picking up litter, filling potholes, etc.) "

 Mean Person wrote on August 7, 2008 2:24 pm:
" Yes, I'm mean. I'm mean because I think parents should have some self respect and take some responsibility for their own families. A full time MINIMUM wage job by ONE parent qualifies them for the tax credit that already exists. If one can't meet that criterion, then yes, they made a really bad decision to have children and they shouldn't expect congratulations for it. There's nothing "fair" about lowering the income requirement. People shouldn't expect to get "taxes back" when they didn't even pay any. If you want Congress to increase WELFARE payments, then say so. Don't couch it in some pretense of "getting a credit". "

 Nina wrote on August 7, 2008 2:54 pm:
" Mean Person, your logic is perfect. That's what parents SHOULD do. However, many of them DON'T. And it's the innocent kids who suffer. So only one's priorities in considering the welfare of the 'least' (the children) and the welfare of one's money, and ability to feel 'greater than' these children or to decide we are not our brother's keeper after all, will govern one's decision on this matter. "

 Bill wrote on August 7, 2008 3:11 pm:
" Nina, I can't say I agree with you. Trying to solve the problem by using the same bad solution perpetuates the problem. By giving in to the problem of "suffering children" you take the burden off of those truely responsible and create a situation where more "suffering children" will be created. "

 I love people who... wrote on August 7, 2008 3:22 pm:
" complain and do nothing to fix their sitution but cry. if you don't like the taxation then why do you live here? Seriously answer me that. Why do people have kids if they are making nothing for a living? They are the ones not thinking about the kids. You know if you can or can't support a child. Don't bring someone down with you if you can't afford it. Or better yet get a dog. "

 Unbelievable ... wrote on August 7, 2008 3:46 pm:
" I'm absolutely appalled at most of you ... and pretty sick to be living in a community that places no value on human dignity. We're talking about children. They didn't ask to be born into poverty, they were just cast into that lot in life. Of course families deserve tax credits to aid them in the care and education of their children. Remember, these children are going to be brought up in YOUR community ... unless you want to see them uneducated and homeless because you turned your backs on them, we have a responsibility to help those less fortunate. "

 Sue F. wrote on August 7, 2008 4:24 pm:
" The children are not going to starve or be homeless just because the parents don't get an extra tax credit. If they are that close to the edge, they have bigger problems. There needs to be a balance. I have worked most of my adult life helping children and I agree we must, as a society, do the best for all our children. At the same time people need to consider much more carefully before they bring a child into the world. Having more and more children when you cannot afford a child or children you already have is irresponsible and selfish. "

 Nina wrote on August 7, 2008 5:24 pm:
" Bill, there is often a different outlook from the one responsible than that of the one suffering. Those who should be responsible can choose, but those children who suffer cannot. So I'm willing to help as I reasonably can, even though as the Bible tells us, we'll always have the poor among us. I try to take to heart, "if you do this for the least of these, you do it for Me." I suppose it makes a difference that I was once a poor child in some ways, but rich in faith and my expectations for its bringing me joy now or later. "

 Zoomie wrote on August 7, 2008 5:50 pm:
" Ahh, just love that "modern conservatism!"
When that child is a few cells in the fetus, they're all for protecting it, barring women from aborting it. Heck, HHC right now is debating a new rule to mandate private employers who want gov't funding for health care money of any sort would be required to allow employees to refuse to serve patients if they believe the care involves an "abortificient", meaning morning after pills, birth control, etc. Everything to protect that fetus!
But the day its born and becomes a living, breathing, crying, eating child? Well, just read the comments here. Don't have'em, I won't pay for them, let them starve, live in poverty, etc. Such "compassionate conservatism"!!! ROFL! "

 Josh wrote on August 7, 2008 6:47 pm:
" One could argue that if so many churches would stop preaching against birth control, there might be less kids... "

 Scott wrote on August 8, 2008 8:08 am:
" I for one am completely disgusted by the amount of people posting here who think it's perfectly acceptable to make me pay for their kids. Hey, I bought a dog this year, when I lose my job due to the nasty economy, are you gonna help me pay for him? I doubt it. Children are a choice. You can choose to have them when you're ready. Has no one heard of "family planning"? I can't stand how people in this state are so completely spoiled. Sometimes you don't get to have everything you want. Man, am I glad my dad taught me that...while HE was paying to raise me. "

 Finally wrote on August 8, 2008 9:20 am:
" Now, when are us responsible adults without kids going to start seeing some tax breaks? I know my husband and I are sick of paying a huge chunk of income in taxes only to hear that our friends/neighbors/coworkers who are barely paying anything in taxes get big refunds because they have kids. "

 I Can Be a Heartless Jerk Too wrote on August 8, 2008 11:27 am:
" Of course there should never be any tax breaks for any entity at all. No breaks for businesses -- big deal if they employ people and add to the economy. If you can't afford to pay taxes on your earnings, you shouldn't be in business. It's no different than figuring in for the cost of materials. If you can't run your business without staff and afford to pay them, you should stop doing it. The heck with TIF financing. I'm sick of paying extra taxes so that you can build a new headquarters. No tax breaks for the wealthy. I'm sick of the wealthy getting their interests protected overseas by MY military. No breaks for religious entities. If that's not a choice, I don't know what is. No breaks for anyone. Not for seniors. Growing old is obviously a choice. Just pass away already. I'm sick of everyone using MY air. In fact, if you all would just kindly go ahead and leave my state, country and planet, I'll stop having to listen to your incessant complaints. "

 as wrote on August 8, 2008 12:06 pm:
" Oh whine....'it's for the children', 'Children didn't ask to be born in that situation' Well no, obviously they didn't. But if you've ever BEEN in that situation then you know perfectly well that most of the people who get those breaks & extra aid also don't use the extra $ for their children or to better their lives enough to get out of the situation. They see the extra tax credits as $ for the fancy stuff they need in their lives as payment for the way they live. If we give it to them FOR THE CHILDREN, then we should make sure it's really used FOR THE CHILDREN. (we know that the children really need those fancy electronics & top of the line wireless products & video game systems no matter what their age) "

 Bill wrote on August 8, 2008 12:47 pm:
" Oh Nina, those tax credits don't go to the kids. They go to the parents who are already suspect of poor life management. Again, the old problematic solution does not fix or even really help the problem. You are to be commended if you help the kids. But if you think that help is going to trickle down from the parents, I can't support your line of thinking. "

 heartless but thoughtful wrote on August 8, 2008 12:53 pm:
" Exactly…why tax breaks? Why give tax breaks to ‘American’ corporations that do all their manufacturing outside the US or doesn’t provide their employees with benefits? Your taxes don’t pay TIFinancing; the OWNERS taxes are redistributed back to the development. Why make religions foundations tax exempt; that whole ‘seperation of church and state’ thing? Why should the young pay for the elderly tax breaks and Medicare; there won’t be any money when they’re the elderly? "

 Amber wrote on August 8, 2008 1:25 pm:
" Wow. I am completely amazed by the number of comments on this board that are so horribly negative.

I tend to wonder if any of you have actually worked in a job where you deal with the low-income children of Lincoln? For those of you who never have- maybe you should volunteer your time and begin to spend some time in their shoes. Maybe this would allow you to begin to empathize with how these humans (as I feel some of you don't think they are actually humans) live their lives day-to-day...these precious children don't know where their next meal will come from, where they are going to get clean clothes...heck, some of the kids I work with don't even have shoes! I had one child whose flip flop broke on Tuesday and he finally got a "used" pair of shoes on Friday from a woman who I work with.

This isn't a matter of choice as so many of you have pointed out- if that were the case- then I would assume that the majority of the posters here are all pro-choice, which I highly doubt.

The kids living in poverty today are the same children who will grow up to live in poverty tomorrow. There are multiple resources that we can draw from to counter this problem. Number one- sex education. If you don't want these people to continue having children because it is their personal responsibility- then how about we teach them how to 1. Respect their bodies and 2. Protect themselves if they do choose to engage in sexual behavior. I'm assuming that the majority of you would disagree with sex education because that is the parent's responsibility- but, again, if that were the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Number 2 and the most important point- How about we focus on the education system? Did you know that the more education you have, the better the choices you will make, the more money you will invest, and the more productive you will be? Maybe we should put more pressure on LPS or the Nebraska Department of Education. If we don't want children to fall through the gaps, then we need to focus on teaching them to read and encouraging them to attend college. My job doesn't require me to educate youth on college, but I feel it necessary to let young adolescents know that college is an option. How about all you smart people out there serve your community by educating the thousands of children who live in poverty about what they can do to keep themselves from falling into their parents/guardians footsteps? Maybe then we will begin to see a difference in the mentality of Lincolnites. "

 travis brady wrote on August 8, 2008 5:16 pm:
" i don't understand people's mentality at all. nebraskans claim to be christians (or at least statistics would state), yet we get posts like these today. how can one claim to be a christian, then turn their back on the needy of society? if jesus had this stance christianity would not be popular today - as it was a religion of the poor urban masses. jesus did not turn his back on the down-trodden, why would any of you? people are assuming those making less than 12k per year aren't working... further, their saying they shouldn't be having a kid... how elitist and mean. you people (oops, i mean you "responsible" christians) are just sad.

jesus himself believed and lived a truly communal way of life; all equal, all shared, all contributed... and ALL were provided for... hmm, a truly communal living... dare i say it in this "red" state... it sounds very marxist communist (mind you, not socialist - learn the difference before you reply). this kind of hypocrisy only serves to make me glad in my choice to leave "the flock" for a better, more compassionate way, buddhism. "

Ads by Yahoo!