It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP House To Cut Aid For Pregnant Women, Children While Spending $17 Billion More On Defense

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Not surprised, if fact happily not surprised. Checks and balances people. the Right keeps us safe and the Left gives the country away, always has been that way, enablers helping the entitled to further their voter base sums up the lefts logic, so of course they'll dwell on this rather than whats important.


Typical republican B.S.

I remember just how safe the republican party kept us on 9-11, despite being warned of planned terrorist attacks in the presidential daily briefing and how they "weren't that concerned with Osama Bin Laden" a year later and instead chose to invade Iraq for oil. Yeah not only do they keep us safe but they make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside too, like heartburn.




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by the owlbear
 


Bandito didn't forget. It is called personal responsibility.I do not see much planning going on with planned parenthood? It all should be cut, military included.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Not a Republican, but a realist.
If it doesn't involve entitlements for a broader voter base, it's just plain bad to the Dems.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


Aid to pregnant women and children isn't a responsibility of the federal government... it should be handled at the state level. I live in Virginia, so why should my federal tax dollars go to aid a pregnant woman in New Jersey? Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.

This is nothing more than another fine example of liberal demagoguery.

edit 99% is not a real figure... it is an intentional exaggeration.
edit on 14-6-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.


Huh?

99% of the time? Really? That is a lot of serial abortionists. Given the actual nature of abortion vs. the religious zealot talking points, I have some doubt as to your stats. Is your stance based on these things you just made up? What does it say about how you feel to have to make up reasons to feel that way? Maybe I am just sick of people making crap up to justify how they feel about things they imagine to be true.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.


Huh?

99% of the time? Really? That is a lot of serial abortionists. Given the actual nature of abortion vs. the religious zealot talking points, I have some doubt as to your stats. Is your stance based on these things you just made up? What does it say about how you feel to have to make up reasons to feel that way? Maybe I am just sick of people making crap up to justify how they feel about things they imagine to be true.


OK, of course 99% isn't an actual number. I said it to drive home a point. Anyone that took that number serious is mentally retarded.

Here's a link to a story that I think is a great example of what you call "serial abortionists"

41% of all NYC pregnancies end in abortion

enjoy
edit on 14-6-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.


Huh?

99% of the time? Really? That is a lot of serial abortionists. Given the actual nature of abortion vs. the religious zealot talking points, I have some doubt as to your stats. Is your stance based on these things you just made up? What does it say about how you feel to have to make up reasons to feel that way? Maybe I am just sick of people making crap up to justify how they feel about things they imagine to be true.


With stats like that, I'll just bet that "It was not intended to be a factual statement." Ever heard that before? Apparently it's the new footnote designed to accompany republican remarks made before congress when those remarks contain statistics. This is because republicans seemed to have developed this nasty little habit of pulling their stats from a place where the sun don't shine.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 

Actually the defense budget that was passed was less than what Obama wanted. So yes typical liberal BS. at least check your facts before posting your slanted articles and biased BS.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.


Huh?

99% of the time? Really? That is a lot of serial abortionists. Given the actual nature of abortion vs. the religious zealot talking points, I have some doubt as to your stats. Is your stance based on these things you just made up? What does it say about how you feel to have to make up reasons to feel that way? Maybe I am just sick of people making crap up to justify how they feel about things they imagine to be true.


With stats like that, I'll just bet that "It was not intended to be a factual statement." Ever heard that before? Apparently it's the new footnote designed to accompany republican remarks made before congress when those remarks contain statistics. This is because republicans seemed to have developed this nasty little habit of pulling their stats from a place where the sun don't shine.


If only I were a Republican... then you would be correct. Another theory is that I drastically exaggerated the number on purpose as if to say "there sure are a lot of women that get abortions on the federal government's dime (aka the taxpayers dime)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Yeah, pretty funny that phrase came about after some senator or congressman had to backtrack from a lie he had told about ....planned parenthood. That is why it kills me. They need to attack PP so badly that they need to make up reasons to do it.
Makes sense.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
OK, of course 99% isn't an actual number.


Actually, it is an actual number. It just had nothing to do with reality at all.


I said it to drive home a point.


I know. You made up a stat to drive home a point about something else you made up. I was following that just fine.


Anyone that took that number serious is mentally retarded.


I thought the same thing about your post but I thought it would be rude to put it like that.


Here's a link to a story that I think is a great example of what you call "serial abortionists"

41% of all NYC pregnancies end in abortion

enjoy
edit on 14-6-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)


Wow. You got a story.
a story that does not even help make the point I questioned. Good job. Anything else you want to make up to try and make your point?
edit on 14-6-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
If only I were a Republican... then you would be correct. Another theory is that I drastically exaggerated the number on purpose as if to say "there sure are a lot of women that get abortions on the federal government's dime (aka the taxpayers dime)


Then why did you drastically inflate the numbers?


Ex

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


Aid to pregnant women and children isn't a responsibility of the federal government... it should be handled at the state level. I live in Virginia, so why should my federal tax dollars go to aid a pregnant woman in New Jersey? Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.

This is nothing more than another fine example of liberal demagoguery.

edit 99% is not a real figure... it is an intentional exaggeration.
edit on 14-6-2011 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)


Your worried about feeding poor children while this woman has made enough
to become a Senator on your tax dollars, right?

The Hipocracy Is getting higher than my #kickers can handle these days!

Michele Bachmann dominates Republican debate with stories of her 23 foster children

www.washingtonpost.com... tml

She gets.........., are you reading...........

For each child:
The amount of the credit is based on the year the adoption finalized:

2011 $13,360
2010 $13,170
2009 $12,150
2008 $11,650
2007 $11,390
2006 $10,960
2005 $10,630
2004 $10,390
2003 $10,160

The tax credit became refundable for 2010 and 2011.
A refundable tax credit is one you get back regardless of what you owe or paid in taxes for the year.
Families who adopted from 2005 to 2009 may be able to benefit from the refundable credit
because credits from those years can be carried forward until 2010.

That's $320,640 just for last year................

( bet they got Medicade as well )

and this Superwoman still has time to be a Senator and make a run for the presidency!
( and you thought Sarah had a brood onstage at times.wait for this circus!!! )

NO POLITICAN is telling the truth anymore.just slants that will get them elected,
and a catch phrase.

Heaven Help America



Do you realize that if we got out of Iraq and Afganistan and stopped the tax breaks for the wealthy
we would be in the BLACK for years to come.

( what are we fighting for over there anyway?..no really!!! )


The GOP should hang their heads in Shame for even contemplating these kinds of cuts!
edit on 6/14/2011 by Ex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Here we go again, cut the military down to save a few domestic programs, and help keep people in the system instead of having then be self reliant. So the op and media would have us believe. However there is one aspect that not many are wanting to either report or admit to. While the US military and its spending may seem like a lot, the question that you should ask yourself, is how much does a military base and the military industrial complex add to your state? Consider this that most states have some form of military instillation, reserve stations, and some manufacturing facility for producing goods for the military. Now if you consider that the average base has a large number of people who are in the military serving, to include the need to hire help, the economic applications can be staggering and representing millions in revenue to the surrounding community and the state. So you want to cut military spending, well here is a suggestion, write to your rep and senator and when the next round of base cuts comes up, demand that they remove such from your state. Or better yet, ask the local commanders to seal the base down and prohibit all military personnel and their families from leaving, while not allowing any civilians onto the base to work. See the effects on the local community, it can be devastating. I have personally witnessed and seen first hand that it can literally have the outside community begging for the military to come back. And if you want to talk about a nasty fight in congress, why is it when they even make suggestions on what bases to cut, all of the federal congressmen are up in arms when it is a base in their state or district? Military means money and a growth to a local and state economy. It means that people work, money flows and resources are kept moving through a community. Myself, I am all for living in a military community, having bases around, where I know that there will be jobs readily around for those who want to work.
And as one poster pointed out, the system is rampant with abuse and fraud by the very people it is there to help. It is a trap unto itself, and perhaps a cut back would stop the fraud and abuse on the system to where people are going to think, is a baby really worth it, if it means that there is going to be a little bit less to go around?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


IN CONCLUSION

USE TAX PAYER MONEY TO KILL CHILDREN, NOT TO GIVE THEM A BRIGHT FUTURE



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Besides, 99% of the time the pregnant woman probably uses the federal aid she gets to fund her abortion, so she can go out and do it all over again in a few months.


Huh?

99% of the time? Really? That is a lot of serial abortionists. Given the actual nature of abortion vs. the religious zealot talking points, I have some doubt as to your stats. Is your stance based on these things you just made up? What does it say about how you feel to have to make up reasons to feel that way? Maybe I am just sick of people making crap up to justify how they feel about things they imagine to be true.


I 'd imagine this to be true: They know what causes pregnancy.You don't need federal money to keep your pants on.(both parties) all this commonly accepted "baby-daddy" crap is a symptom of the moral decay and breakdown of personal responsibility in this society. Not the "G.O.P."'s doing.
edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I find this appalling.

WIC might be the only government assistance program I can support without hesitation. It provides FOOD. Just food. Specific amounts of specific foods for what would otherwise be malnourished children and pregnant women.

If they want to cut assistance, why not cut funds to some able-bodied person who's been living off the system for years doing nothing but smoking dope? I grew up in a whole TOWN full of people like that! I'm sure they could find plenty of money that way.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
men keep your pants zipped up
ladies keep your legs closed

and then you wont need government assistance from me to pay for your irresponsiblity.

pretty simple


it is not my responsibility to pay for your mistakes from cradle to grave

deal with it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
some of the people on here have really upset me...
you see im nine months pregnant. in fact im due any day now. and *GASP* i am on WIC. some of you think you are so intelligent and highly moral or you think you should not have to pay for anyone else's anything... you are jerks. thanks so much my fellow jerky american. no wonder my faith in the human race is so little.
ya know, first off i had a good job with a fortune 500 company which after almost 6 years of service outsourced my job to canada. my husband, not some guy i just screwed cause i cannot seem to "keep my legs closed", he has THREE jobs. so we PLANNED our child. we want this baby! we arent some abortion as birth control people. i was also confined to bed rest because of an unforseen complication so his income is all we have. how many more jobs should he get? should he just not sleep? should i risk the health of my unborn child and myself and go get whatever job i can? should i just eat whatever i can find/afford? i bet you have all the answers!:



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
and by the way WIC is NOT a cash aid program. you get vouchers with food items printed on them. you are only allowed those certain foods approved by the program. and for a pregnant woman it is under $100 a month!
so i am not out there buying crack or abortions... idiots.

myself nor my husband have never been on welfare before but these are sticky times we live in. i am attending school to get a better job once i have my baby.
so go ahead and tell me how worthless i am. how my baby is a mistake. how i should keep my legs closed. grrrrrrrr!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join