From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:19:23 GMT

Hear, hear.  Complete text follows for reference (no further comments from me).

In article <1992Sep23.180701.29977@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>, 
kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.233011.20578@u.washington.edu>, 
hamton@byron.u.washington.edu (MrEuStress) writes:
>> I (RE-)wrote :
>>    "**No one is forcing the American taxpayers.**
>>    The taxpayers -- as a largest and most powerful group,
>>    -- make there own decisions."
>> 
>> Jeff Holloway replies (Sue B. agrees):
>>    "The American taxpayers **are** being forced . . .
>>    **either** that or let the children starve."
>> 
>> The word "either" suggests that the taxpayers
>> in fact do (more than I) have alternatives.
>> 
>> The person or persons who MOST wish to support
>> the kids must be the ones that support them.
>> NOT BY SLAVE LABOR -- NOT by labeling the
>> biological father as "The Father" (remote wallet).
>
>Why?  You mean if I don't want to support my child, I shouldn't have to?
>There must be an ever shrinking group of people in this country that think
>if you start something, you should finish it.  If you make a need,
>meet it.  I don't always *feel* like being a parent.  No one does, all of
>the time, but we keep doing it, because it's our responsibility.
>
>People like you probably let your dogs poop all over
>the park and other people's yards and think that since
>it doesn't bother you, you shouldn't have to clean it
>up.
>
>People do have choices.  If I choose to give a starving
>child a meal, because the people who created her/him just
>aren't adult enough to satisfy their responsibilities,
>and the people who created this person could care less if
>s/he starved, that doesn't make it right.  I can give a
>starving kid something to eat so s/he doesn't physically die,
>but I can't make up for the fact that his/her parents
>put other things ahead of whether s/he lived or died.
>
>If we as a group of taxpayers decided that it was better for
>us to pay the bills of kids so they didn't starve, it's because
>we understand that there are consequences to society of having kids
>grow up hungry and desperate, with no one to watch out for them.
>
>You make me think that all the folks preaching about the need
>for better family values in this country are right, that we
>as a country just don't care about families enough.  It's too
>bad that the County Humane Society screens people more thoroughly
>when they want to own pets than people can be screened when
>they bear children.
>
>I've known men who hated their x-wives (and their x-wives deserved it)
>and paid child support while they (the men) actually had physical custody
>and paid the bills that go with physical custody.  They continued this
>way, even though they were being nailed financially, because it was in
>the best interests of their kids, and today their
>kids are decent human beings because their fathers cared about them
>and didn't abandon them.  The taxpayers can't make up for the fact that your
>parent abandoned you.
>
>Grow up.  If you made a bad choice, fix it or live with it.  Don't
>run away from it and expect someone else to clean up after you.
>
>K.A. Perkins