I'm all for it. Pets are a very important part of life for many of us and for some of us, they are more important than family members.

Pets are like children except they never grow up and never stop loving you.

People have children and recieve benefits because of it. Having children is a personal choice, but we are all paying for it.

Pets are like having children that never grow up and always love you. They make us more peaceful and happy and that helps us tolerate the social misgivings of others. This, in effect, creates a happier and more tolerant society.

In addition to that, they protect their owners and their homes, which reduces crime.

The give a great deal to society and should be rewarded for it.

I get it, you don't see the point, but that's okay.

While not part of the constitution, the preamble mentions, "prompting the general welfare". If pets help in that regard, then they are a service to our nation.

On the other hand, I feel that since children are a personal choice, the burden to society they create should be paid by their parents and not the rest of society. It's just another way of seeing it. There is nothing in the constitution that mandates that the entire nation help pay for child rearing, but we do it anyway.

I assume that you're not a pet lover, but if you were, I think you would understand.

Just know that for many, their pets are their family and they have the same love for their pet as many people have for their children. In many cases, they have a greater love for their pets. The difference is that a pets love is unconditional and unflinching, where as this is not always so with children.

I know you can't understand this, but this is the attitude of someone who does understand.

Your questions are valid...

I'm not sure what the fundamental principles of America are. It can change from one moment to the next. The America that I live in now is not the one I grew up in as a child. In some ways it's better as in more equality for other races and women. On the other hand, I have grown to fear the government as much as I fear street criminals. But that's another story.

The idea that children are a "burden" to society is not so ridiculous as you suggested. Perhaps when they are grown and become productive to society then that changes, but in the mean time, they only take and give nothing in return. That's not their fault, it's just the way it is. A great deal of crime is committed by these children while they are maturing. Most of it is not that serious, but still it has an emotional and economic impact on society as a whole. They are children and many children do stupid things while they are learning the realities of life and its consequences.

The "general welfare" clause is open to interpetation. It can be whatever we want it to be and means totaly different things to most people.

You said, "At least with children, one can argue a legitimate state interest in promoting their creation."

I understand what you mean, but on the other hand, the state should stay out of our personal business. The capitalist system requires population growth to provide economic growth which translates into more money. Without this population growth the capitalistic system starts to fail. That is where state interest lies.

While we're off subject, All types of present day governments will fail someday. The capitalistic system will also fail at some point. They work for now and have benefits and down sides, but as the world changes so will how we maintain and control it.

Life is too short to worry about politics. I've watched our nation being degraded over the years and it will continue to do so until it destroys itself. As with all nations in the past, it is inevitable that this nation ends as we know it today.

As for your dog, I am sorry. I lost mine many years ago and I still find myself shedding tears when I think of him. I would have gladly given my life for him if it would have saved his.

I see our government wasting a great deal of money on things that shouldn't be. I think that helping people care for their animals is not such a big thing to ask for in light of that waste.

I don't think the term neurotic, you used, is applicable to this discussion. I think it would be more accurate to say that we have different value systems, where neither one is wrong or right, just different.

No I do not have children. However, I like intelligent children with a mind that craves knowledge and that will perhaps someday create or discover things that will benefit the future of human kind. These type of children are rare.

Another type of children I like are very opened minded with a kind and caring soul.

When I was younger, kids would talk about becoming a scientist, or a doctor, or an engineer, because it was something they found interesting. Now, all I hear children talk about making money and getting rich. I sure there are still children like the first type, but it seems they are in smaller numbers.

I've had children damage my home, my car, assault me when I was an adult, and steal from me. Most of them were teenagers, of course. I know all kids are not like that, but enough are to make it a problem.

On top of that, many people have children with no consideration toward their welfare and upbringing. In time, this world will reach a population that exceeds the planets ability to support them. I just read where over a billion people go hungry every day and frankly, it's only going to get worse.

Children are a responsibility that should be every parents highest priority, but for the most part, in today's world, that doesn't seem to be so. I realize it's difficult because of work and outside influences, such as other children's influence, television, the Internet, and other reasons, but as a whole, we need to become more involved in their development. That's easier said than done, but a greater effort needs to be taken.

I do not hate children. I just don't trust many of them and many times that's because of the way they were raised.

I wasn't willing to accept that responsibility and so that is why I chose not to have kids.

Off subject...

I realize that for the most part, we are just coming out of what I like to call the dark ages and the world is getting smaller everyday. Our knowledge of life and how it fits into the universe is increasing. We live in a very fragile environment and the entire human race could perish any day from biological infections, natural disasters, and political / religious unrest. It seems to me that mankind should be working together to create a better tomorrow instead of killing each other over money and power. We, as a people (all the people of the world) need to open their eyes and put all this hatred and greed behind us. It will only be then that the world will have peace.

I'll leave it at that. Nice talking with you.

Steve I completely agree, I do not have children but pay a hefty sum on my taxes to keep all those "public" schools" and other organizations going for the little ones. I'm not against children, but between the amounts we as taxpayers are burdened with for welfare, section 8 housing and then this time of the year all of the "fund raising" things we get hit up with, we should be allowed to get some credit for the things we take responsibility for.

And be honest, do you not think that many pet owners take more responsibility for their pets and their pets actions than most parents these days? I am really tired of hearing "oh they are just kids, come on people, kids do know right from wrong!"

Steve- I also agree, and I DO have children. My husband and I worked hard to provide for them and paid a lot of taxes and generously supported our local schools to help other people raise theirs. Looking around I see that many in that generation of children carrying on a cycle of government subsidy. Is that fair? I don't think so.

I have been taking in dogs that people who cannot or will not care for them for several years. I foot the bills for both vet and food for 14-20 dogs at any given time. I would love to be able to devote my time and heart to a given number of beloved pets, but feel that I must do something to help devoted and loving animals that are victims of our society. I would love to see a tax credit for animals. I believe many people would be better able to take care of their pets. Just a suggestion, but perhaps this would make sense: Tie the credit to a certification that the pet is neutered. (and by the way- that is not such a bad idea for people on government subsidy - at least for those who already have a child).

I agree with Steve, Wendy, and SCD. I do not have children, and have been footing the bill for them for years. Between taxes, fundraisers, et al, I am worn out, and don't even have kids! Yet I help pay for their well being.

I DO have two dogs, which I have chosen to have rather than children. I take very good care of my babies. My girl has had two surgeries this year, costing me well over $7000 so far in surgeries alone. These expenses should be deductible - if these were for a child, it would 1) be covered by insurance, and 2) be tax deductible. Since I don't get the benefit of insurance (even though my tax dollars help pay that for children, too), I should at least get a tax break. I just don't see the harm in encouraging people to be responsible, and whole heartedly support this bill. I can't beleve that anyone who is a pet owner would think that is is rediculous.

I agree with the thought of the HAPPY tax credit. I have been involved with saving many unwanted or abused animals over the years. My pets are all vacinated and licenced every year. It would be nice to have some financial help doing this. I have 8 dogs that need licences and shots every year and 13 cats that need shots and well-checks as well.
Without me, many of these animals would have lost their lives or gotten into serious trouble, not to mention overpopulating the neighborhoods they came from.

I completely disagree with this ridiculous legislation. Just another Re-pubic who has forgotten the priniciples of fiscal responsibility.

All I can say is, if Congress is going to keep spending us into oblivion, then you might as well step up and take what you can get because you are paying for it anyway. Pretty sh!tty way to have to live, but I am only going to take back what never should have been taken away from me in the first place.

I'm tired of these a-holes. They all need to thrown out and term limits set up.

PS...And to all the geniuses that like to cite the "general welfare clause" as a distorted reason to spend on whatever idea they have, the clause is not even in the body of the document. The preamble is like a thesis statement. The body of the work defines the thesis. Therefore, if there is nothing in the body of work that defines it as something general welfare covers, then it becomes a states right issue and not a federal govt issue. It's just another means to take advantage and continue stealing away of our individual rights.

Question... I have heard that there is a tax credit already given to the blind for the feeding and care of their seeing eye dog.

Again, this is a choice to have a pet which they could very easily replace with a stick.

Why does one group get a break and another not?

The same goes for welfare and so on. Blunt or not.

Rossputin - you are clearly a person that does not enjoy pets. Sad to hear your missing out a part of your life that is so rewarding.

Sorry that your such a negative person. There is enjoyment to life - guess you just haven't found it.