ummmmmmmmmm - - - aren't these the same people who were screaming at the top of their lungs, 3 years ago, that Obamacare would insert the government between you and your doctor?
and now they're requiring doctors to do unnecessary medical procedures on women and to lie to them about their own health.
projection can be ugly.
Do you trust Republicans with women's health issues?
|
|
|||||
|
62 votes
|
|
61% | ||
|
40 votes
|
|
39% | ||
Top Opinion
-
twocrows 2012/04/08 19:44:03
![Bad Company ~ 10 From 6 [Full Album]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003704661/3338235591_0_large.jpeg "Bad Company ~ 10 From 6 [Full Album]")
Believe it or not, having some genuine understanding for realities and the ironies of life, it is actually the self-defeating Feminists whom I have grave doubts on entrusting the health of AnybodyLol ... particularly themselves!!ROFL!
You might call it, " an extreme case of self-mutilation"!!! ;)
"Yes, that is wrong. And I've never said it, not one time," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union."
Damn this makes you dems on here look stupid.
They want to do away with Social Security.
They want to do away with Medicare
They want to do away with Medicaid
They want to do away with Womens Rights
The list goes on and on and on.
They want to do away with Medicare
They want to do away with Medicaid
They want to do away with Women’s Rights"
Can you provide examples of GOP stating any of the above? Any statement that says "doing away" with a program? I've heard of and am in favor of REFORMING these "entitlements", but not doing away with them. I don't know of any GOP platform that says that.
Can you provide any citation for the claims by the GOP of "doing away" of these programs?
SJalan, would you object to phasing in the Chilean form of Social Security? Where individuals workers under 35 years old would own their own accounts, like the federal employee's TSP system? Where a Chilean couple can inherit their grandparent’s lifetime of social security savings and compounding? Would you object to such a phased in plan where all over 35 get everything that the current system promises and provides by taxing the crap out of future generations to pay for current beneficiaries? With a phased in plan, starting with young workers, 35y/o or younger, the older workers would continue doing what they are now doing and the current beneficiaries would continue getting what they are now getting. But as the oldsters die off, the liability on taxpayers would deminish. Wh...
They want to do away with Medicare
They want to do away with Medicaid
They want to do away with Women’s Rights"
Can you provide examples of GOP stating any of the above? Any statement that says "doing away" with a program? I've heard of and am in favor of REFORMING these "entitlements", but not doing away with them. I don't know of any GOP platform that says that.
Can you provide any citation for the claims by the GOP of "doing away" of these programs?
SJalan, would you object to phasing in the Chilean form of Social Security? Where individuals workers under 35 years old would own their own accounts, like the federal employee's TSP system? Where a Chilean couple can inherit their grandparent’s lifetime of social security savings and compounding? Would you object to such a phased in plan where all over 35 get everything that the current system promises and provides by taxing the crap out of future generations to pay for current beneficiaries? With a phased in plan, starting with young workers, 35y/o or younger, the older workers would continue doing what they are now doing and the current beneficiaries would continue getting what they are now getting. But as the oldsters die off, the liability on taxpayers would deminish. When those 35 today become 65, they would look to their own private account for their retirements, like citizens do in Chile, or county employees do in Galveston County Tx.
Can you imagine the macro-economic benefits of allowing folks to inherit their parents and grandparents SS accounts when they pass? Just think of that young 30ish couple that when a grandparent passes, suddenly has $80k - $120k fall into their lap. They could pay off/down a home mortgage, or fund their own child’s college, or buy that Subway franchise or open that business they were dreaming about. And when that same couple is in their 50s or 60s their own parents pass, leaving them $250k - $500k. Imagine the benefits that would bring to their family, their adult kids, their church or local charities, or simply buying a 2nd home or buying a boat or RV or investing it.
Why did no one notice that when Chile had an earthquake that was 80x more devastating than the one in Haiti, no one held fund drives to help them? No one saw commercials’ begging to rebuild their towns... why is that? Could it be that the Chilean people had the assets to solve their own problems? Imagine a country where people could self-fund their mortgages and college tuition. Where government doesn't need to underwrite home loans or college funding. Imagine how families would help each other because they have accrued the assets to do so. Think about how Chile went from over 40% in poverty in the 1960s to less than 5% poverty today.
That's the alternative reform that a Chilean SS paradigm could provide us. But then, we have a gov't that is in the business of handing out band-aids instead of curing the ailment. And if you are in the band-aid business, the LAST thing you want is for someone to cure the actual disease.
Please provide us with examples of claims by the GOP of wanting to "do away" with these programs versus wanting to "reform" them. Thanks SJalan ! AV
Your reference clearly states that with the Ryan Budget most agencies and budgets will see the GROWTH of spending reduced with only some actually reversed.
Given the massive increases over the past 3 years, how do YOU propose to have a sustainable budget, given the anticipated $1.4 Trillion deficits as far as the eye can see, John?
===
Care to comment on the Chilean SS alternative? or the FairTax as a reform of our class envy and crony motivated tax system that is more of a political tool that revenue system?
http://pol.moveon.org/waronwo...
http://pol.moveon.org/waronwo...
http://thehill.com/blogs/cong...
If you read the specific details of the bill, there are NO spending cuts. What is cut is the rate of increase in spending. The program would continue getting at least as much funding as it previously did. If these "devastated women, families and economy" somehow got along with the funding paid out last year, why would next year be devastating by receiving the SAME AMOUNT of funding?
Would it be asking too much for you to provide citation by an entity that does not have a specific bias or agenda which "Move On" clearly does?
It would be like me asking you to refer to a Rush Limbaugh commentary as support for something I said. We both would be skeptical of the other's claim, right?