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.
I laughed out loud at the title. It's like one of those campaign commercials attacking the other candidate. "So and so is leaving poor Mildred to die in the streets so he can give money to his rich buddies."
This is called the Washington Monument Syndrome. Instead of cutting unnecessary spending, they threaten to cut or shut down something that creates outrage, and they blame budget cuts. Politics...
Yes, thank you! My own mother grew up in the depression era during the 30's. Her father was the head of the local high school and put in long hours for very little pay. A doctor might be called in if someone was actually dying, but maybe not even then. When my Mom was 8 she contracted an extremely virulent form of the measles and almost died. She survived but was left with a profound hearing loss that she struggled with for the rest of her life. And such an outcome never needed to happen except that her hard working family simply didn't have the money to call a doctor.
What would a doctor do for a case of measles back then? Even today all one can do is treat the symptoms (tylenol, bed rest, fluids) if one contracts the measles. This is why we have a measles vaccination that was introduced in the 60's - to avoid what happened to your family member.
Quote:
2)The CHIP program predates the ACA and if republicans were more interested in the good of the American people rather than party gamesmanship, the two programs would likely have been reconciled. Instead, what we are seeing is the ACA getting starved out of existence thanks to lack of funding. And - surprise! The exact same tactics are being used to destroy CHIP.
What about all of that pot revenue Colorado has been raking in?
Quote:
My taxes (and yours) have been going to support the CHIP program for years. The cost to taxpayers for CHIP is 14 billion dollars (FY 2016). Contrast this to the 700 billion dollars that went for defense in the same time period. CHIP is a mere 2% of the pie when compared to the money we spend on defense. Who loves you, baby? The Pentagon does. I'll tell you what - I'll gladly cover the cost of CHIP to the individual taxpayer for you and your 10 best friends forever. In return you can cover the individual taxpayer's cost of defense spending for just me, and you can even complain out loud about military boondoggles.
That's quite a false equivalence.
Quote:
I couldn't agree more. Please begin by getting off the highways that my taxes have payed for and forget turning to the military for defense the next time there's a terrorist attack or some other threat to national security. Your needs are not my problem either.
So "Christians" (and others who are anti-abortion) are required to financially support every child in order for their anti-abortion stance to have merit?
I see.
Obviously, you DON'T see.
You cannot have it both ways. Force a woman to bear a child because you believe a zygote which has been in existence for 10 seconds or so is exactly the same as a 5 year-old child with both having the same "right to life," then ethically, morally and spiritually you ("you" as in society) have the moral duty to ensure not only that child's welfare, but every child's welfare. Why should this be so?
Givens:
From the moment of conception even a fetus consisting of as little as 8 cells has a soul and has the exact same intrinsic worth and right to life that every other human has - be they an 8 to 32 celled blastula or an 80 year old adult.
Women and their doctors who receive and give abortions are guilty of murder.
It does not matter if the mother is only 13 years old and became pregnant because her father repeatedly raped her. Those 8 cells still have a soul and the right to life. No matter the cost to the mother emotionally, financially or both, society compels her to bear her child to term because anything else would be murder.
If the 32 cell human blastula is discovered to have a profound genetic defect - even one that will result in heartbreaking suffering of the child followed by an inevitable early death before the age of one year, those who believe in the "right to life" will insist that the mother not be allowed to "murder" her child.
From these givens, it follows that a 5 year-old child has the same right to life that a fetus consisting of 8 cells has. If the 5 year-old was born into poverty, it follows that society must feed her for the same reasons it refused to abort her in the first place. After all, she is a living human being with a soul which is precious to God. The same goes for giving her medical care, shelter, clothing, and an education.
It is a moral imperative that the same people who argue for the 8 celled organism's right to life should also be the ones who argue for the right to life of a three year-old or a six year-old. Society cannot favor the right to life without favoring the right to medical care, adequate food and so on. After all, without food or medical care, a child stands an excellent chance of dying. Wasn't the death of a child the very thing society was trying to prevent in the first place?
A Christian who believes in the right to life and then turns around and walks away from a sick or starving child is not a Christian. The highest status such a "Christian" can hope to obtain is that of hypocrite.
How dare you claim to be Christian while turning your back on the sufferings of a child you were so eager to protect when it was an 8 celled organism? Small wonder that in the US, the number of people who call themselves "Christians" diminishes with the passing of each year.
"Suffer the little children"? Not you people. Oh no. Not you people at all.
So "Christians" (and others who are anti-abortion) are required to financially support every child in order for their anti-abortion stance to have merit?
Yup. Colorado Rambler said it all. Put your money where your mouth is - that right to life is also entitled to all life-supporting elements of food, unrestricted medical care, shelter once born. Otherwise, you have zero credibility.
So let me get this straight. Liberals are against the 2nd amendment because some wackos out there have killed people. But they're ok with destroying hundreds of thousands of lives per year voluntarily? Yeah, that really makes a lot of sense
It ain't the same. Wackos kill people - children and adults - already born. The unborn do not have the same rights as those living.
Clearly you should spend more time parsing than typing.
I don't blame the folks getting the big breaks, hell i get 5 digits and that is before reorg to take advantage of the new rates.
this bill shifts the tax burden away from the wealthy and direct onto the shoulders of the middle class and poor.
But 47% pay no federal income tax at all, so tax burden is upon the upper middle class.
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.
