Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Should 98% of America lose tax cuts because the GOP/Top2%?

Obama To Boehner: Higher Taxes On The Wealthy Or The Bush Tax Cuts Expire

132192

President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have each made cursory appeals to cooperation in the wake of Tuesday’s election. But they’re still making incompatible demands about the tax code. And on Friday, President Obama made clear that if Republicans reject the policy goal he campaigned on, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire.

“If we’re serious about reducing the deficit we have to combine spending cuts with revenue, and that means asking the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes,” Obama said in public remarks at the White House. “Right now if Congress fails to come to an agreement on an overall deficit reduction package by the end of the year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up on January 1.”

In both 2008 and 2012, Obama campaigned on the goal of allowing the Bush tax cuts that exclusively benefit top earners to expire. That would increase the top marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next year. But Boehner and other Republicans want tax rates off the table and GOP aides suggest higher tax rates can’t pass the Republican House.

In his first post-election press conference, a couple of hours before the President’s statement, Boehner also indicated his willingness to compromise — though he reiterated Republican opposition to raising tax rates. “On Wednesday, I outlined a responsible path forward to avert the fiscal cliff without raising tax rates,” Boehner said.

“There is no mandate for raising tax rates on the American people,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said in a Wednesday statement. “There is a mandate for avoiding the fiscal cliff and finding real solutions so we can make life work for people again.”

Obama did leave modest room for negotiations. “I’m not going to ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes,” he said.

Boehner could meet Obama’s demand without raising tax rates by limiting tax expenditure benefits for high income people. But for now, Boehner has only suggested that revenues from this sort of base broadening should be used to lower tax rates. Obama, by contrast, is asking the House to pass a Senate bill that would isolate the Bush tax cuts for top earners and allow them to expire.

“The Senate has already passed a bill doing exactly this, so all we need is action from the House,” Obama said. “And I’ve got the pen, ready to sign the bill right away.”

In an official statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, echoed the President. “The Senate passed a bill to cut taxes for Americans making less than $250,000, and the House should pass it immediately.”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was even more blunt. “He will veto any bill extending Bush era tax cuts for the top two percent of wage earners in this country.”

That leaves the onus on Boehner to either pass that bill, or find an equivalent way to take the same amount of new revenue from high income earners. So far, he and other GOP leaders seem unwilling.

“”The increased tax rates that would be allowed under the Senate-passed bill are part of the fiscal cliff that economists are warning us to avoid,” Boehner said in response to the Presidents remarks. “Those increased tax rates will destroy jobs in America by hurting small businesses across the country.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was more strident. “[T]here is no consensus on raising tax rates, which would undermine the jobs and growth we all believe are important to our economy,” McConnell said. “While I appreciate and share the President’s desire to put the election behind us, the fact is we still have yet to hear an actual plan from the President for addressing the great economic challenges we face. What’s needed now is a realistic and specific proposal from the President that can actually pass the Congress.”

They’ve left themselves some wiggle room. But if they don’t squeeze themselves through it, Obama said, everyone’s taxes go up at the end of the year.


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Nov. 11, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Replies (131-140):
sneffy014
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM
2 moms liked this

Everyone should pay the same % of taxes just get rid of all the loopholes and extra deductions. It may be morally correct for people that have more to give more, but why should someone be forced to pay a higher % because they earn more? For example, 10% of $100.00 is $10.00, and 10% of $1000.00 is $100.00. They are still contributing more $. A flat tax rate across the board, that is my opinion.

sneffy014
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 8:58 AM


Quoting mehamil1:

Bizarre because we are not taught to question why people are allowed to become wealthy in this country at the detriment of others. We are taught to want to be like them and run on that hamster wheel all our lives, striving to get there even though the vast majority of us will not, no matter how hard we work/try. We are not taught that. 

I do not want to punish rich people. I just don't think they should be able to accumulate wealth and resources to the detriment of millions of other people. I don't think they should be able to create laws that favor them and allow them and their descendants to stay so rich at the detriment to the rest of us. 

I do not want anything from the rich. I just the whole of the world to stop allowing themselves to be screwed over by 1% of the population. 

Here is an example, Jamie Johnson. His great-great-grandfather created the Johnson & Johnson company. Through the tax code set up to favor the rich, Jamie Johnson and his family were born into wealth that you and I can only dream of. Jamie did not do a single day's work to earn the millions of dollars he's supposedly worth (along with his cousins, siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles). The rich do not "work" hard for that. They are born into it. Wrap your mind around that. I am not jealous of them. I have no desire to be rich myself. I am not greedy. I just don't think it's right for them to live freakish lives of insane luxury, hoarding resources like crazy people, while there are millions in this nation who can barely make it day to day despite working their asses off, day in and day out. It's not right. Not at all. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_(filmmaker)

Quoting happy2bmom25:

this is truly a bizarre statement to me. 

you sound like you want to punish rich people.

it sounds as if you want far more than more taxes from the rich.

Quoting mehamil1:

They control the vast majority of the country's wealth. About 80% of it. So no, that is not a fair share. So few people should not be in control of the vast majority of the wealth in a nation. 

Quoting happy2bmom25:

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

IN 2009 THE TOP 10% PAID MORE THAN 70% OF THE TAXES!!!!!

WHAT AMOUNT MORE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING?????

ISN'T THAT ALREADY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE?

 

I agree. The Tax Code is really the issue not the %. It allows loopholes and deductions for all however, the wealthy are in a position to utilize them therefore reducing the amount of % they pay. I know we can't turn back time, but I would like to see a flat tax % for all, period. I don't think someone should pay more because they are rich, but I don't think they should pay less either.

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM
1 mom liked this

I wouldn't be opposed for a Flat Tax Rate at people who could afford it. But I think there would have to be something in that system like our current system that makes it lower for the people who cannot afford it.

Because the people at the bottom wouldn't lose a company if their taxes were raised. They would be losing their homes, their ability to feed their family-Their livelihood.

Quoting sneffy014:

Everyone should pay the same % of taxes just get rid of all the loopholes and extra deductions. It may be morally correct for people that have more to give more, but why should someone be forced to pay a higher % because they earn more? For example, 10% of $100.00 is $10.00, and 10% of $1000.00 is $100.00. They are still contributing more $. A flat tax rate across the board, that is my opinion.


Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

nb34
by Silver Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

It just shows the extent of their greed.


Quoting stacymomof2:


The tax cuts are set to expire.  They were extended last time, now it is getting close to the end of the extension.  So Obama is saying pass a new extension that doesn't include the top 2% or he will veto the extension, thereby allowing the tax cuts to expire and revert back to Clinton era tax rates.  Obama's proposal continues the tax cuts to the lower income earners, and raises the tax rates on higher income earners by 3%.  Yep, 3%.  All this hysteria so people who make over a quarter of a million dollars a year do not have to pay 3% more of taxes on any income earned over $250 thousand dollars.  Sounds ridiculous when it's spelled out, doesn't it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/05/democrats-dont-want-to-go-back-to-clinton-era-rates/

Quoting turtle68:

 I asked the same question in the other post.  What I would like to understand is how either can go through congress?

If the 2% cant be taxed because the Republicans wont pass it....then how can the 98% be taxed?

Do they come to a stalemate and move on to other issues or do they keep negotiating until 4 more years have passed?



NWP
by guerrilla girl on Nov. 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM
1 mom liked this

what Mehamil is trying to explain is the reason the inheritance tax was created in the first place...it was placed only on the extremely wealthy and was designed to avoid inter-generational uberwealthy and to keep money in the economy instead of squirrelled away in aristocratic families..a lesson learned but forgotten.

the inheritance tax was nic-named the "death tax" under the Bush years and was misrepresented by the extreme right as being a hit on the middle class, which it wasn't...it only needed to be adjusted for modern incomes, not removed.

the flat tax, which would most likely not include capital gains, would not address this problem.

Quoting sneffy014:


Quoting mehamil1:

Bizarre because we are not taught to question why people are allowed to become wealthy in this country at the detriment of others. We are taught to want to be like them and run on that hamster wheel all our lives, striving to get there even though the vast majority of us will not, no matter how hard we work/try. We are not taught that. 

I do not want to punish rich people. I just don't think they should be able to accumulate wealth and resources to the detriment of millions of other people. I don't think they should be able to create laws that favor them and allow them and their descendants to stay so rich at the detriment to the rest of us. 

I do not want anything from the rich. I just the whole of the world to stop allowing themselves to be screwed over by 1% of the population. 

Here is an example, Jamie Johnson. His great-great-grandfather created the Johnson & Johnson company. Through the tax code set up to favor the rich, Jamie Johnson and his family were born into wealth that you and I can only dream of. Jamie did not do a single day's work to earn the millions of dollars he's supposedly worth (along with his cousins, siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles). The rich do not "work" hard for that. They are born into it. Wrap your mind around that. I am not jealous of them. I have no desire to be rich myself. I am not greedy. I just don't think it's right for them to live freakish lives of insane luxury, hoarding resources like crazy people, while there are millions in this nation who can barely make it day to day despite working their asses off, day in and day out. It's not right. Not at all. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_(filmmaker)

Quoting happy2bmom25:

this is truly a bizarre statement to me. 

you sound like you want to punish rich people.

it sounds as if you want far more than more taxes from the rich.

Quoting mehamil1:

They control the vast majority of the country's wealth. About 80% of it. So no, that is not a fair share. So few people should not be in control of the vast majority of the wealth in a nation. 

Quoting happy2bmom25:

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

IN 2009 THE TOP 10% PAID MORE THAN 70% OF THE TAXES!!!!!

WHAT AMOUNT MORE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING?????

ISN'T THAT ALREADY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE?


I agree. The Tax Code is really the issue not the %. It allows loopholes and deductions for all however, the wealthy are in a position to utilize them therefore reducing the amount of % they pay. I know we can't turn back time, but I would like to see a flat tax % for all, period. I don't think someone should pay more because they are rich, but I don't think they should pay less either.


New World Peace

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM
3 moms liked this

Prove it, Carpy.  Small business does not have the opportunity to influence legislation like the huge companies.  Huge companies are using the regulation excuse to act like their hands are tied...it sounds convincing but is it actually true?  Nope.  Do you know that small producers have HIGHER costs than big ones?  Because they don't have some sweetheart deal with their personal paid representative that was able to insert their little caveat that protects them from certain regulations.

I would think this is not a lib/con issue.  This is an issue that if you really support small business and job creation, you need to get a true idea of what actually is going on.  

Quoting Carpy:

They were lost to regulation costs.

Quoting stacymomof2:

I always want to scream this from the rooftops...IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHERE ARE THE JOBS THAT 10 YEARS OF TAX CUTS HAVE CREATED?!

Quoting stringtheory:

Well, the rich have had eight years of tax cuts to create jobs. Where is the evidence that we should keep those cuts in place?

Quoting kailu1835:

The economy in general has sucked since the bursting of the housing bubble (which started because the government decided minorities needed more loans, regardless of their ability to pay them back), and there haven't been a heck of a lot of jobs created since then.  However, historically and factually speaking, the poor are not job creators.  Never have, never will be.  That honor goes to the rich.

Quoting Aslen:

LMAO @ socialism class.

Thing is, the wealthy have had these tax cuts for many years. Jobs were NOT created, were they?











sneffy014
by Bronze Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM


Quoting NWP:

what Mehamil is trying to explain is the reason the inheritance tax was created in the first place...it was placed only on the extremely wealthy and was designed to avoid inter-generational uberwealthy and to keep money in the economy instead of squirrelled away in aristocratic families..a lesson learned but forgotten.

the inheritance tax was nic-named the "death tax" under the Bush years and was misrepresented by the extreme right as being a hit on the middle class, which it wasn't...it only needed to be adjusted for modern incomes, not removed.

the flat tax, which would most likely not include capital gains, would not address this problem.

Quoting sneffy014:

 

Quoting mehamil1:

Bizarre because we are not taught to question why people are allowed to become wealthy in this country at the detriment of others. We are taught to want to be like them and run on that hamster wheel all our lives, striving to get there even though the vast majority of us will not, no matter how hard we work/try. We are not taught that. 

I do not want to punish rich people. I just don't think they should be able to accumulate wealth and resources to the detriment of millions of other people. I don't think they should be able to create laws that favor them and allow them and their descendants to stay so rich at the detriment to the rest of us. 

I do not want anything from the rich. I just the whole of the world to stop allowing themselves to be screwed over by 1% of the population. 

Here is an example, Jamie Johnson. His great-great-grandfather created the Johnson & Johnson company. Through the tax code set up to favor the rich, Jamie Johnson and his family were born into wealth that you and I can only dream of. Jamie did not do a single day's work to earn the millions of dollars he's supposedly worth (along with his cousins, siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles). The rich do not "work" hard for that. They are born into it. Wrap your mind around that. I am not jealous of them. I have no desire to be rich myself. I am not greedy. I just don't think it's right for them to live freakish lives of insane luxury, hoarding resources like crazy people, while there are millions in this nation who can barely make it day to day despite working their asses off, day in and day out. It's not right. Not at all. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_(filmmaker)

Quoting happy2bmom25:

this is truly a bizarre statement to me. 

you sound like you want to punish rich people.

it sounds as if you want far more than more taxes from the rich.

Quoting mehamil1:

They control the vast majority of the country's wealth. About 80% of it. So no, that is not a fair share. So few people should not be in control of the vast majority of the wealth in a nation. 

Quoting happy2bmom25:

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

IN 2009 THE TOP 10% PAID MORE THAN 70% OF THE TAXES!!!!!

WHAT AMOUNT MORE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING?????

ISN'T THAT ALREADY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE?

 

I agree. The Tax Code is really the issue not the %. It allows loopholes and deductions for all however, the wealthy are in a position to utilize them therefore reducing the amount of % they pay. I know we can't turn back time, but I would like to see a flat tax % for all, period. I don't think someone should pay more because they are rich, but I don't think they should pay less either.


I understand exactly what she is saying. In my opinion we (a general "We) have made things out to be more complicated than they have to be. In any scenario, the wealthy will always pay more $$$ as long as the deductions and loopholes are the same for all people. Money either gifted or inherited should be taxed at the same flat rate as income because it would be "new" money to that individual. Given our current tax laws, I know I am dreaming about going back to a much less complicated method. Oh well.

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Nov. 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I would love a less complicated method too btw:) I think we all would.

Quoting sneffy014:


Quoting NWP:

what Mehamil is trying to explain is the reason the inheritance tax was created in the first place...it was placed only on the extremely wealthy and was designed to avoid inter-generational uberwealthy and to keep money in the economy instead of squirrelled away in aristocratic families..a lesson learned but forgotten.

the inheritance tax was nic-named the "death tax" under the Bush years and was misrepresented by the extreme right as being a hit on the middle class, which it wasn't...it only needed to be adjusted for modern incomes, not removed.

the flat tax, which would most likely not include capital gains, would not address this problem.

Quoting sneffy014:


Quoting mehamil1:

Bizarre because we are not taught to question why people are allowed to become wealthy in this country at the detriment of others. We are taught to want to be like them and run on that hamster wheel all our lives, striving to get there even though the vast majority of us will not, no matter how hard we work/try. We are not taught that. 

I do not want to punish rich people. I just don't think they should be able to accumulate wealth and resources to the detriment of millions of other people. I don't think they should be able to create laws that favor them and allow them and their descendants to stay so rich at the detriment to the rest of us. 

I do not want anything from the rich. I just the whole of the world to stop allowing themselves to be screwed over by 1% of the population. 

Here is an example, Jamie Johnson. His great-great-grandfather created the Johnson & Johnson company. Through the tax code set up to favor the rich, Jamie Johnson and his family were born into wealth that you and I can only dream of. Jamie did not do a single day's work to earn the millions of dollars he's supposedly worth (along with his cousins, siblings, parents, aunts, and uncles). The rich do not "work" hard for that. They are born into it. Wrap your mind around that. I am not jealous of them. I have no desire to be rich myself. I am not greedy. I just don't think it's right for them to live freakish lives of insane luxury, hoarding resources like crazy people, while there are millions in this nation who can barely make it day to day despite working their asses off, day in and day out. It's not right. Not at all. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Johnson_(filmmaker)

Quoting happy2bmom25:

this is truly a bizarre statement to me. 

you sound like you want to punish rich people.

it sounds as if you want far more than more taxes from the rich.

Quoting mehamil1:

They control the vast majority of the country's wealth. About 80% of it. So no, that is not a fair share. So few people should not be in control of the vast majority of the wealth in a nation. 

Quoting happy2bmom25:

PLEASE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

IN 2009 THE TOP 10% PAID MORE THAN 70% OF THE TAXES!!!!!

WHAT AMOUNT MORE DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE PAYING?????

ISN'T THAT ALREADY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE?


I agree. The Tax Code is really the issue not the %. It allows loopholes and deductions for all however, the wealthy are in a position to utilize them therefore reducing the amount of % they pay. I know we can't turn back time, but I would like to see a flat tax % for all, period. I don't think someone should pay more because they are rich, but I don't think they should pay less either.


I understand exactly what she is saying. In my opinion we (a general "We) have made things out to be more complicated than they have to be. In any scenario, the wealthy will always pay more $$$ as long as the deductions and loopholes are the same for all people. Money either gifted or inherited should be taxed at the same flat rate as income because it would be "new" money to that individual. Given our current tax laws, I know I am dreaming about going back to a much less complicated method. Oh well.


New World Peace

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Nov. 12, 2012 at 3:49 PM
1 mom liked this

Carpy cannot comment to this or many other general issues. Her opinions, like all of us, are formed by our experiences. Carpy owns a business that deals in controlled substances and she is regulated out the wazzoo for it.

Most small business do not have to face the amount of regulations she does because they do not deal in controlled substances..but she knows what she knows.

Quoting stacymomof2:

Prove it, Carpy.  Small business does not have the opportunity to influence legislation like the huge companies.  Huge companies are using the regulation excuse to act like their hands are tied...it sounds convincing but is it actually true?  Nope.  Do you know that small producers have HIGHER costs than big ones?  Because they don't have some sweetheart deal with their personal paid representative that was able to insert their little caveat that protects them from certain regulations.

I would think this is not a lib/con issue.  This is an issue that if you really support small business and job creation, you need to get a true idea of what actually is going on.  

Quoting Carpy:

They were lost to regulation costs.

Quoting stacymomof2:

I always want to scream this from the rooftops...IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHERE ARE THE JOBS THAT 10 YEARS OF TAX CUTS HAVE CREATED?!

Quoting stringtheory:

Well, the rich have had eight years of tax cuts to create jobs. Where is the evidence that we should keep those cuts in place?

Quoting kailu1835:

The economy in general has sucked since the bursting of the housing bubble (which started because the government decided minorities needed more loans, regardless of their ability to pay them back), and there haven't been a heck of a lot of jobs created since then.  However, historically and factually speaking, the poor are not job creators.  Never have, never will be.  That honor goes to the rich.

Quoting Aslen:

LMAO @ socialism class.

Thing is, the wealthy have had these tax cuts for many years. Jobs were NOT created, were they?












New World Peace

stacymomof2
by Ruby Member on Nov. 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM
1 mom liked this

The point is that if business is NOT regulated then who pays for the business' profits?  WE do.  We all pay in quality of life, water and environmental clean up, etc etc.

While Carpy may be a good steward of the environment with her controlled substances, what about Koch refinery south of where I live?  The regulations exist because the taxpayers should not have to support a business by cleaning up their messes.  Or, the people in the area should not have to give up their health or possibly their life because they live next to someone who is making money dumping shit into a river.

I mean talk about entitlement and expecting people to pay for your shit.  Why should I have to clean up whatever toxic crap Koch refinery dumps into the environment?  They'd better find a way to fold it into their business model, otherwise they aren't doing business, they are just sucking off the taxpayers.

I work at a nightclub, you would not believe the regulations we have to abide by.  When we can open, when we can close, 4 different types of insurance (liquor liability, general liability, property, workers comp) and what levels of insurance we have to carry. Licenses renewed yearly to the tune of 20grand, fire inspections, health inspections, liquor inspections, liquor audits, payroll audits, food audits.  And so what do you think we do?  We price our product and run our business to turn a profit.  We don't run to the city and expect to get a break on our liquor license fee.  It's not easy and that's why lots of places go out of business.  So why should small business like the one I work at subsidize huge businesses like Koch with our state taxes? If the guy I work for can do it, so can the big 3 million a year CEO of a big corp.   

What I am saying is that regulations need to be strengthened to increase the competitiveness of small business.  Why should a local pig farmer be required to process their pig shit and a big CFO pig farm just be able to spray it into the nearest field? (Actual facts, by the way.)  No wonder the meat is so much cheaper from a CFO...they don't have to follow the same regulations a small farmer does.


Quoting NWP:

Carpy cannot comment to this or many other general issues. Her opinions, like all of us, are formed by our experiences. Carpy owns a business that deals in controlled substances and she is regulated out the wazzoo for it.

Most small business do not have to face the amount of regulations she does because they do not deal in controlled substances..but she knows what she knows.

Quoting stacymomof2:

Prove it, Carpy.  Small business does not have the opportunity to influence legislation like the huge companies.  Huge companies are using the regulation excuse to act like their hands are tied...it sounds convincing but is it actually true?  Nope.  Do you know that small producers have HIGHER costs than big ones?  Because they don't have some sweetheart deal with their personal paid representative that was able to insert their little caveat that protects them from certain regulations.

I would think this is not a lib/con issue.  This is an issue that if you really support small business and job creation, you need to get a true idea of what actually is going on.  

Quoting Carpy:

They were lost to regulation costs.

Quoting stacymomof2:

I always want to scream this from the rooftops...IF TAX CUTS CREATED JOBS, WHERE ARE THE JOBS THAT 10 YEARS OF TAX CUTS HAVE CREATED?!

Quoting stringtheory:

Well, the rich have had eight years of tax cuts to create jobs. Where is the evidence that we should keep those cuts in place?

Quoting kailu1835:

The economy in general has sucked since the bursting of the housing bubble (which started because the government decided minorities needed more loans, regardless of their ability to pay them back), and there haven't been a heck of a lot of jobs created since then.  However, historically and factually speaking, the poor are not job creators.  Never have, never will be.  That honor goes to the rich.

Quoting Aslen:

LMAO @ socialism class.

Thing is, the wealthy have had these tax cuts for many years. Jobs were NOT created, were they?













Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)