green

A good idea.... Kill off the babies of the poor. That way taxes can be lowered!

Good advice, Tap. I inherited a whack of cash which allowed me to retire early but I have not once phoned my money handlers in order to find out what the current bad news is. I can't change what is happening and that is why I am avoiding knowing more about my personal situation. It is a good thing, I guess, that my mate is 9 years younger than me; there is quite a few years of working life left in the kid! And that is my new retirement plan. lol

These folks who are so concerned about the rights of foetuses and yet resent paying taxes that will support and improve the school and other social systems which protect and assist children to flourish make me giggle.

Congratulations to you Froggi. I know that you have been waiting for this moment. And congratulations to SnT as well.

If money were no object my mate and I would continue to live in the heart of downtown Toronto. We both really like urban life. We would buy a larger house, though. We both like to shop and this one is getting kind of crammed. We both love travel and we have long wished to see Greenland, and the Canadian Arctic, including Baffin Island, but such cruises are much more expensive than those going to the more usual destinations. If we had more bucks we would definitely visit Greenland, the Canadian Arctic, the Norwegian Fjords, and we would travel across Russia and Mongolia. We would also travel extensively throughout South America, including Patagonia. Ahhh, that sure would be wonderful..... And we would donate more money to help animals, etc.

I gather Obama wants to raise taxes by a measely 3% for those who make over a quarter of a million per annum. This is hardly giving A students F grades.

So, 50% of your population is on some form of welfare? Wow!

This is not an accurate representation of what Obama wishes to do. He does not wish to reduce the after tax income of the wealthy to that of the lower middle class. He does, however, recognize that a family who is pulling down a quarter of a million per annum is considerably more able to participate in the tax burden than a family who is pulling down $40- or 50,000 per annum. Up here in socialized Canuckistan we are considerably more heavily taxed and yet we still do have wealthy folk and a thriving middle class. In fact, the statistics for 2005 indicated that Canadians are wealthier than Americans. The net worth of the median Canadian family is 30% richer than the median American family. (A complete breakdown of facts and figures, including those to do with our universal health system, can be found in Maclean's magazine, July 7 '08.)

It strikes me that every country needs the income which comes from taxes in order that the country might function in an orderly fashion. Basic infrastructure (such as roads) need to be maintained; children need to be educated; society needs law and order and the personnel in place to enforce this protection in order that the weaker or the law-abiding or the individual investor, take your pick, might continue to survive. All of this requires money and this traditionally comes in the form of taxes. And then, of course, there is this war in Iraq to pay for; I am under the impression that it has cost the United States more than a trillion dollars so far. Indeed, America has a huge foreign debt and its biggest lender is China. And this was the situation before the debacle on Wall Street. Taxes are a necessary evil. Why not place a greater burden on those who can most afford to pay, those families who are the nation's highest earners?

I agree with Mac. By reading the links we can judge whether the post has credibility or not.

I am sorry to hear that you have been going through bad times. High school has been a hellish experience for many of us. It seems that if you are the least bit different from the herd you will be tormented by bullies. My own high school days were lousy but I sure do enjoy my life as an adult! I trust that you will be getting the help you need and that you will soon be feeling better.

Every child should be a wanted child. It is much less likely to be an abused child if it is wanted.

It is pretty much impossible even now to find a doctor who will tie a woman's tubes unless she is older and/or has already had children. Women who do want a sex life and who don't want children must practice responsible birth control and yet can only hope that this does not fail them. In cases when this does fail it is good to know that these women have the option of terminating their pregnancies should they so wish. I am now 59 and have never regretted terminating my pregnancy when I was 31.

I had an abortion and I don't regret it. I had one because I have never ever wanted to have children and my birth control method failed. I was 31 years old at the time. I was relieved that I was able to have a timely and legal abortion. Had this not been an option, I would have had to go the illegal route. Not all sexually active women want children, you know, yet that doesn't make us any less desireous of our sexual rights than those folks who do.

I like your fantasies, Tapshoes.

Yah, I prefer cats. They are the lazy individual's pets. Little or no training required. You don't have to wash them. You don't have to pick up their poop when it is - ugh! - hot and fresh. They are quiet most of the time. And their fur is very soft. I have one sitting on my lap right now.

I agree, too.

They both looked like idiots to me. Obama's health is better, though.

Jack, you have made some excellent points. Thanks. Of your American politicians, I have no idea who would make a great president. I don't know them anywhere near well enough. Of the two teams who are running for the top positions, I do prefer Obama and Biden. This would admittedly be because Obama's politics are more readily understandable by my foreign way of thinking. His values seem, well, more Canadian and thus I am much more comfortable with him. And thus you have my bias. Of course I believe that life up here runs pretty smoothly for the most part. And, yes, JFK was cool.

It would be more logical to pay for birth control meds than for abortions.

Well, Warren Buffet has made for himself and those lucky or wise enough to invest in his financial vehicles gadzillions of bucks. Other than that, he has no street cred. He is another private individual, just like you and me. As for Palin, well, of course I am no fan. I find her, though impressively energetic, still very ordinary and I think that there should be extraordinary individuals who who are in charge of your very large, complex and globally important country. In this belief, yes, I am an elitist. I also don't agree with some of her core beliefs. I mistrust her religiosity. I believe that these people often mistake their own wishes for their God's desires and will act erroneously as Bush has done with his jihad in Iraq even though the international community did not sanction this and your congress was advised by the head (a Dane, Dr. Hans Blix) of an international team which had been in Iraq and monitoring it ever since the end of the first Gulf War that there were no WMD. I strongly believe that religious passion must be separate from all affairs of the state and that there only cool-headed reason and knowledge of worldly affairs must rule. This might come under that business of rendering unto Caesar what is his.... Palin, like George Bush, is altogether too passionate, I believe. And, on a personal note, I am one of them pro-choicers. I believe that a woman must have the right to decide whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not. I was pregnant once due to a failure of birth control. I was mature, in my early 30s, and knew that I never ever wanted motherhood. I had an early abortion and have never regretted this. As we know, Palin's beliefs on this run counter to mine. I would have been trapped in an unwanted pregnancy for 9 months and my body would have never returned to its childless state. As a post-menopausal woman I would be suffering some fall-out with respect to my physical health. And finally, Couric was not harsh on Palin in her interview. Palin simply came apart like wet paper tissue. As for nasty interviewers, there is nobody nastier than Limbaugh and O'Reilly are on Democrats and other liberals.

Hey! I don't think that it is a question of Maggie's age. She is simply quite conventional in her comfort level and thus doesn't get it. Maybe she is religious. Remember that I am older than she is and that I have done a 3-some and a 4-some. I have done a lot of other interesting stuff, too. I was always quite a curious grrl. Some folks are more curious than others is all.

I saw Katie Couric interview Sarah Palin and thought that Palin messed up badly even though Couric had a soft manner with her. Let us face it: Couric is no Limbaugh or O'Reilly; she doesn't not shriek and badger. Palin was at times inarticulate and incoherent. And yes, Joe Biden blew his facts on the stock market crash of 1929 badly. That was a real shocker! I always thought that that info came under the category of general knowledge that everybody knew.

Thanks for your concern about my health, NukeChick. It is slowly getting better.

Yep, my sibs and I were raised to be fairly conservative in our spending habits. We were taught to pay cash for everything except property and that every grrl should own herself some property. We were also taught to have savings for that rainy day. I love shopping and I have some nice stuff (thanks to bargain hunting) but I paid off the property first and I have a nice bunch of savings. At the moment though I don't want to enquire about the health of my savings/investments. Although I live in Canada I know they have been negatively impacted by the mess south of the border. I guess I am in denial; I don't want to know the gruesome details of the shrinkage!