Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you really just ask since when are women's health issues family issues?
You would rather a woman had pregnancy after pregnancy depleting her health and ability to care for the children she already has?
Who pays for the pre-natal care and delivery? Who takes care of the home, does laundry, food shopping?
What happens when the man gets laid off?
Who feeds all of those kids then?
Are we supposed to want to return to the days when women died at thirty due to too many pregnancies and poor care?
And yet the most important thing we are supposed to worry about is whether or not we can put a cross in our yard?
Women's health issues ARE family issues. A loving, caring husband who values his God-given wife knows this.
Obviously you missed the point here. I did not ask whether women's "health" issues are family issues. I specifically said abortion and birth control. Now, while birth control might be considered a health issue to you it is directly related to a "choice" that women make (to have unprotected sex). So, while it sounds great to have unprotected sex and get free birth control... it's not something that I should have to pay for. Thats like saying that we (the taxpayers) should pay for free cab rides so people can drink and not drive. In life, people must act responsibly for their actions. And, those actions have consequences. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the consequences of those choices.
Now, if health insurance companies "choose" to offer birth control that is great. It is a choice, it should not be mandatory!
And as for unwanted pregnancy: when is the last time that we heard the "pro choice" people promoting adoption? So, since they NEVER do... it is safe to say that "pro choice" is really "pro abortion". Pro choice indicates a choice.
I would like to see more people helping these unwanted babies go to good homes right here in the US.
And, for all this talk about helping the "middle class" Obama is about to let the adoption tax credit expire. So, he obviously isn't concerned about helping save lives or helping middle class americans adopt. Of course libs could care less, which is a point that goes unheard.
I cited the TPC. If he's citing the TPC, I don't see the problem or why he should be called a liar over it. You can read the paper from TPC here.
"Our paper examined the effects of simultaneously pursuing five goals that Governor Romney has proposed:
(1) cut current marginal income tax rates by 20 percent,
(2) preserve and enhance incentives for saving and investment2,
(3) eliminate the alternative minimum tax,
(4) eliminate the estate tax, and
(5) maintain revenue neutrality
We found that a tax reform plan that simultaneously met the first four goals would imply reduced tax burdens on families with income above $200,000. Meeting the fifth goal – revenue neutrality – would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence."
Further down Footnote 2- "Governor Romney has explicitly promised to retain current preferences for dividends and capital gains. The claim of preserving and enhancing incentives for savings and investment is a less explicit policy goal and is therefore open to interpretation. It could mean to preserve every incentive for savings and investment or it could mean on net to preserve broad incentives while leaving open the possibility of eliminating more targeted incentives. In our original paper, based on the Governor’s statements, we employed the first interpretation and did not close any tax subsidies affecting savings and investment. In this note, we examine the effects of eliminating the tax incentives for two explicit saving vehicles—municipal bonds and insurance policies."
The blog you note says the shortfall will be covered by economic growth. It's an assumption. I haven no idea how plausible it is, but I wouldn't call anyone a liar for not buying it. To add, and excuse me if I'm wrong on this since I'm no economist, but this is only covering the 20% income tax decrease, nothing else. Right?
Anyhow, that's really besides the point. It's still very much a gamble and that's the reason Romney et al have not given you specifics about loop holes. Do you follow what I'm saying?
No sweat, if you don't like the guy, don't vote for him.
You don't think that putting an increasingly high national debt burden on your children and grandchildren and probably your great grandchildren is taking a huge risk? The folks who elected Obama are gamblers too. Solyndra and the like were pretty fun gambles. All the Democrats ate up his promises. He hasn't delivered. Now they want to gamble on him again. I would say that knowing what you're getting if Obama is elected again doesn't sound appealing to me.
Obamacare itself is a tax. And the amount that America spends is not etched in stone either. Obama seems to think that money grows on trees and is throwing more of it down a hole every day. Well, for him it's just printed. It weakens your dollar, causing inflation.
I'm a happily married woman. I'm married to an intelligent man that is not so insecure and screwed up in the head that he needs to con himself with delusions of grandeur and absurd desires of fake leadership and subjugation. He's a leader at his job, academically, etc because he earned it. Really, you guys could learn a thing or two from the likes of my husband and men of his cloth who are equal partners in relationships rather an extra child in tow.
Sounds to me like you align yourself with the views and politics of your husband. Very traditional of you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
What's interesting is that you don't understand that if you go your way, the vast majority of voters would be women. Because it's women heading the households.
Very few married households would self-designate the wife as the "head", if that were an option, which it shouldn't be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Statistics show that it's women who primarily take care of the family, who put their families first, yet you lie to yourself and say it's the opposite. Statistics show that women primarily take care of the household, lead the family, yet you lie, you force yourself to remain willfully ignorant. It's always the same story.
Sigh. Are you that dense or just deliberately missing the point? I freely acknowledge that women still perform the bulk of caregiving and domestic work. That's one of the facts driving their seething anger and resentment against men. They have been granted their every feminist desire in business, in academia, in the workplace, in government - but at home, their men are still men (albeit neutered and probably underemployed), and they are still women (however reluctantly).
Do you play chess? The queen is the most versatile player. The king is relatively limited. A profound insight into human nature, that. In some ways, women are more versatile in their ability to "cross over" into masculine roles. Men are not so versatile, do not easily slide into feminine roles, and that absolutely infuriates modern women who otherwise have every opportunity they could possibly desire. The feminist experiment failed to take this into account.
Last edited by WesternPilgrim; 11-04-2012 at 12:59 PM..
How can Romney promise to close loopholes? His guru, Grover (doesn't Big Bird have a friend named Grover?) says closing loopholes is the equivalent of a tax increase.
And reducing tax rates at the same time. Neutral tax cuts.
Quote:
Romney's "solution" to education is no solution at all. All schools should improve. "Everyone" knows that the wealthy and well educated know how to game these lotto systems some school districts have to get into charter schools, magnet schools, etc.
Re: what does "everyone has a fair shot" mean, see above regarding schools.
How did you become so suspicious of everyone's motives? Romney wants to reform funding for special needs and low income students such that the funding follows the student and can be used for any school.
And reducing tax rates at the same time. Neutral tax cuts.
How did you become so suspicious of everyone's motives? Romney wants to reform funding for special needs and low income students such that the funding follows the student and can be used for any school.
It's a very evil plan.
If you're asking how do I know people game the system, it's because the children of the wealthy and well educated tend to get into these schools that hold admissions by lottery. Funding follows the student in Colorado, and yet that is often the case here.
ALL schools should provide a decent education!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
Obviously you missed the point here. I did not ask whether women's "health" issues are family issues. I specifically said abortion and birth control.
And you were specifically answered. Both abortion, BC, and all thing related to a woman's reproductive health are women's health issues. All women's health issues affect the family because women are the primary caretakers of the family. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about these simple truths.
Quote:
Now, while birth control might be considered a health issue to you it is directly related to a "choice" that women make (to have unprotected sex).
BC is used for a many things other than sex. I already spelled this out for you in a previous post. I'm not sure why you are ignoring it. Either way, even if it's only for protection from sex (forced or consent), how is that not a health issue? Why do you think you have any say whatsoever? I just don't get it.
Quote:
So, while it sounds great to have unprotected sex and get free birth control... it's not something that I should have to pay for. Thats like saying that we (the taxpayers) should pay for free cab rides so people can drink and not drive. In life, people must act responsibly for their actions. And, those actions have consequences. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the consequences of those choices.
It has nothing to do with free anything. It's about health insurance coverage. If you have sex and end up with some STD, if you end up with some kind of penial cancer, a testicular cancer, whatever, do you really think it should be up to me or anyone else if your insurance should cover your meds, your treatments?
For example..."Oral contraceptives cut women's risk of ovarian cancer for more than 30 years after they stop taking them -- giving the pill a net anticancer effect. Each five-year interval of oral contraceptive use cuts a woman's ovarian cancer risk by up to 29%. The longer a woman uses the pill, the lower her risk of ovarian cancer," Contraceptive Pill: Cancer Protection
Do you think it's your place to make these medical decisions for women? Get real.
Quote:
Now, if health insurance companies "choose" to offer birth control that is great. It is a choice, it should not be mandatory!
Do you really think that makes sense? A woman ends up working for a company and the health insurance company says sorry, no cervical cancer screenings, prevention, or treatment. No breast cancer screenings, prevention, or treatment. And you guys wonder why we're all well aware that men on the right do not put families first. They put themselves first.
And I'm pretty heartless, but you guys take it to a new level.
Quote:
And, for all this talk about helping the "middle class" Obama is about to let the adoption tax credit expire. So, he obviously isn't concerned about helping save lives or helping middle class americans adopt. Of course libs could care less, which is a point that goes unheard.
While I do agree that it would be horror to let the adoption tax credit expire, and Obama should be cursed for it if he's behind it, as if you care. Give me a break. LOL
Likely a combination of several factors. First off keep in mind when you get into subsets of polls, the MOE tends to be a bit higher due to the smaller sample size of each sub set. There is no question there is a large gender cap in VA, and larger than the nation as a whole, but the gap could be somewhat smaller.
Also, women's health issues are likely a factor, especially in VA after the transvaginal ultrasound stuff.
Economic issues also likely play a role in that women in VA tend to believe Obama will be better for the economy than Romney and men think the opposite. VA has a large amount of well educated professional women, especially in suburban DC, with a large amount in the Richmond metro as well, a demographic and areas that has shifted hard towards the Democrats, so that likely plays a role as well.
A lot of women in NOVA work either for the government or govt. contractors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by helenejen
Romney is just going to lead you and yours into economic salvation, is he? Simple as that.
Yes, this talk reminds me of the mocking youtube videos that RWs posted during the last campaign supposedly showing naive black (always black) women saying Obama would pay the mortgage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat
We're going to go into a double dip recession if Obama is re-elected.
Anyone can click on your link if they want to read the article. Wow, declined from 16.3% to 14.1%. Awesome.
That is a 13% drop!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians
Obviously you missed the point here. I did not ask whether women's "health" issues are family issues. I specifically said abortion and birth control. Now, while birth control might be considered a health issue to you it is directly related to a "choice" that women make (to have unprotected sex). So, while it sounds great to have unprotected sex and get free birth control... it's not something that I should have to pay for. Thats like saying that we (the taxpayers) should pay for free cab rides so people can drink and not drive. In life, people must act responsibly for their actions. And, those actions have consequences. Taxpayers should not have to pay for the consequences of those choices.
Now, if health insurance companies "choose" to offer birth control that is great. It is a choice, it should not be mandatory!
And as for unwanted pregnancy: when is the last time that we heard the "pro choice" people promoting adoption? So, since they NEVER do... it is safe to say that "pro choice" is really "pro abortion". Pro choice indicates a choice.
I would like to see more people helping these unwanted babies go to good homes right here in the US.
And, for all this talk about helping the "middle class" Obama is about to let the adoption tax credit expire. So, he obviously isn't concerned about helping save lives or helping middle class americans adopt. Of course libs could care less, which is a point that goes unheard.
Right. Men have nothing to do with it. Never want to have sex, even if there are no condoms around. ETC. ALWAYS BLAME THE WOMAN!
Sounds to me like you align yourself with the views and politics of your husband. Very traditional of you.
My husband is far more liberal than I am. He calls himself a socialist. I do not. Not by a long shot. He, unlike you, actually enjoys spending time with his wife. He looks forward to the birth of our daughter and is not repelled by women. I often share these posts with him and he thinks it's very strange for any man to prefer the company of other men over women. He doesn't think it's natural, although he's as straight as a man comes. And he's not a needy PIA. He doesn't have these inadequacy issues like we see surfacing in this thread (the heart of sexism). We're just not traditional people.
Quote:
Very few married households would self-designate the wife as the "head", if that were an option, which it shouldn't be.
Only in delusional, dishonest households. Women work, women take care of the kids (including their husband's in tow), they take care of the homes. They head the households. Obviously, the vast majority of single households are also headed by women. It is what it is and that reality puts you and your idea of the heads being the only one's to vote at a disadvantage.
Quote:
Sigh. Are you that dense or just deliberately missing the point?
I reject your assertion that an ability to say words like "I'm a leader. I'm a head of a house" makes it so. I reject that the presence of a penis lends to behavior or aptitude. That is your position, correct? Being a leader requires action and action is not laziness. Action is not sitting on your ass expecting to be mommied. The head plans, organizes, and implements. Energy is expended. The head knows exactly what is going on inside and out with all the players in his/her space. I want to see the output. What have you done/accomplished? What are you doing? What makes it so? Words, body parts, and bibles are meaningless in this space.
Quote:
I freely acknowledge that women still perform the bulk of caregiving and domestic work. That's one of the facts driving their seething anger and resentment against men. They have been granted their every feminist desire in business, in academia, in the workplace, in government - but at home, their men are still men (albeit neutered and probably underemployed), and they are still women (however reluctantly).
If you freely acknowledge that women actualize the behaviors of those heading the home, than have the maturity to state as much. Once more men can be honest with themselves perhaps the growing pains can ease off and you (general you) can take your place as responsible adults. A space where you won't be pointing fingers and blaming your substitute mommies for your shortcomings.
Beyond that, you're the one who doesn't care for women. I suspect the seething anger is your familiar. I don't know what to tell you on that.
Quote:
Do you play chess? The queen is the most versatile player. The king is relatively limited. A profound insight into human nature, that. In some ways, women are more versatile in their ability to "cross over" into masculine roles. Men are not so versatile, do not easily slide into feminine roles, and that absolutely infuriates modern women who otherwise have every opportunity they could possibly desire. The feminist experiment failed to take this into account.
Sure, I play chess quite well. Men are just as versatile and adaptive as women. We are also malleable and multifactorial. The assertion that men are some how less than, less than capable is no better than the old messages that women lacked a science, math/etc aptitude. It's a manipulation, one likely based in laziness and perhaps a personal inability to adapt (I can see that being the case for older people), but you cannot reasonably generalize that onto men at large. Not without some kind of reasonable argument/evidence.
A lot of women in NOVA work either for the government or govt. contractors.
Yes, this talk reminds me of the mocking youtube videos that RWs posted during the last campaign supposedly showing naive black (always black) women saying Obama would pay the mortgage.
That is a 13% drop!
Right. Men have nothing to do with it. Never want to have sex, even if there are no condoms around. ETC. ALWAYS BLAME THE WOMAN!
And you were specifically answered. Both abortion, BC, and all thing related to a woman's reproductive health are women's health issues. All women's health issues affect the family because women are the primary caretakers of the family. I'm not sure what you're not understanding about these simple truths.
BC is used for a many things other than sex. I already spelled this out for you in a previous post. I'm not sure why you are ignoring it. Either way, even if it's only for protection from sex (forced or consent), how is that not a health issue? Why do you think you have any say whatsoever? I just don't get it.
It has nothing to do with free anything. It's about health insurance coverage. If you have sex and end up with some STD, if you end up with some kind of penial cancer, a testicular cancer, whatever, do you really think it should be up to me or anyone else if your insurance should cover your meds, your treatments?
For example..."Oral contraceptives cut women's risk of ovarian cancer for more than 30 years after they stop taking them -- giving the pill a net anticancer effect. Each five-year interval of oral contraceptive use cuts a woman's ovarian cancer risk by up to 29%. The longer a woman uses the pill, the lower her risk of ovarian cancer," Contraceptive Pill: Cancer Protection
Do you think it's your place to make these medical decisions for women? Get real.
Do you really think that makes sense? A woman ends up working for a company and the health insurance company says sorry, no cervical cancer screenings, prevention, or treatment. No breast cancer screenings, prevention, or treatment. And you guys wonder why we're all well aware that men on the right do not put families first. They put themselves first.
And I'm pretty heartless, but you guys take it to a new level.
While I do agree that it would be horror to let the adoption tax credit expire, and Obama should be cursed for it if he's behind it, as if you care. Give me a break. LOL
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. Again, I am not opposed to health insurance companies offering birth control, but taxpayers should not have to pay for it. I don't see the problem?
I said nothing about ovarian cancer or anything else, but its nice that you assumed what my position was.
Again, I never said that men should make medical choices for women. thanks for adding that bs.
"men on the right do not put families first?" that is also a bunch of malarkey. Nice stereotyping. Prejudiced?
FYI: Me and my wife adopted a baby boy this year. Thanks for your support.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
