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.

 

Paul Ryan's blatant war on low income families and women.

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
So Paul Ryan's and Mitt Romney's love for the wealthy and disdain of the working poor is well documented. While most people are focusing on Ryan's dismantling of Medicare, he has also been waging a war on women for quite sometime.

Paul Ryan’s Extreme Abortion Views




Ryan believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization.



Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. According to another Journal Sentinel article, he “would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he has never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’”


Source

Is this guy for real? banning abortion all together even when a woman's life is in danger? Letting states prosecute women who have abortions?

To put into perspective Paul Ryan's radical views, the state of Mississippi REJECTED the Sanctity of Life Act.

Not only is Ryan waging war on Women's rights, but he's also making it difficult for low income persons to get tested for cancers and STD's.

Paul Ryan has voted 4 times to defund planned parenthood, a service that is vital for low income individuals that wish to get tested for STD's and Cancer.


Throughout his time in the House, Ryan has voted at least four times to defund Planned Parenthood, though that would take money away from screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. His stand dovetails with his running mate’s position. In March, Romney said he wants to “get rid” of federal funding for Planned Parenthood.


I guess passing more tax cuts for the wealthy is more important to them.




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   
How does Ryan's position on abortion have anything to do with the poor?



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Evidently only the poor people get abortions. That's what I'm assuming the OP meant. smh



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Did you read the last quote of my post? He has voted 4 times to defund planned parenthood an agency that is vital to many poor people for STD screenings and Cancer screening.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Do you really think that guy gives a hoot about abortion???

He makes a stump speech and then goes back stage and laughs his ass off.

Red meat for the masses.

You. Don't. Get. It. At. All.

These issues they could give a [snip about these issues. But the brain dead public who are friggen tranced out by the MSM, hate radio, the stupid websites that they get led to. The [snip] daily barage of right-wing hate mail.

Seriously....

Cracks me up. Reminds me of the first Batman movie when Jack Nickolsen as the Joker says, "This town needs an enema!" This whole country needs an enema!
edit on 14-8-2012 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)

edit on 14/8/12 by masqua because: Censor circumvention



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Did you read the last quote of my post? He has voted 4 times to defund planned parenthood an agency that is vital to many poor people for STD screenings and Cancer screening.


If it is vital to poor people that doesn't necessarily mean he's out to get just the poor people. Just sayin.

But I do feel honestly that he and Mitt are against poor people. They are both ultimate douches and It's been going on for decades, to cut out the middle class all together. They want rich and poor, no in-between IMHO



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I actually did not think the question was that difficult. The thread is titled "Paul Ryan's blatant war on low income familes and women"

What do your comments have anything to do with the poor?

The only thing "blatant" about this thread is the idiocy of your incoherent rant



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
[snip]


Agreed, the irony in all this is that he's against entitlement programs and abortion but what's he going to do if he outlaws abortions and you have a bunch of poor single mom's with not enough income to support anything. If you don't want abortion be prepared to take for your government to take on all the blow back that is going to come along with it.
edit on 14/8/12 by masqua because: removed ill-mannered quote



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by GrantedBail
 


I actually did not think the question was that difficult. The thread is titled "Paul Ryan's blatant war on low income familes and women"

What do your comments have anything to do with the poor?

The only thing "blatant" about this thread is the idiocy of your incoherent rant


I'm going to feed the troll. From Planed Parenthood.

"The Title X (ten) Family Planning Program is at the heart of our nation’s efforts to provide health care to low-income women and reduce unintended pregnancies. Title X serves more than five million low-income individuals at more than 4,500 health centers every year.

In every state, women and men rely on Title X for basic preventive health care, including contraception, Pap tests, and STD treatment. In fact, 6 in 10 women who access care from a family planning health center consider it to be their primary source of health care."

Just because you don't like the subject of the thread doesn't mean you have to attack the author, smh



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by dolphinfan
 
Did you read the last quote of my post? He has voted 4 times to defund planned parenthood an agency that is vital to many poor people for STD screenings and Cancer screening.
So what are you suggesting? Keep funding the agency and continue to promote the STD's and Cancer supposedly plagued in the many poor community? Its like continued supply of drugs to a junkie..instead of helping, its aiding to their demise.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Is there anything at all that limits government that you don't believe is an assault on the poor? How about NASA, or the National Weather Service? Oh, thats right, the poor might be unable to plan for evenings of star gazing absent good forecasts.

Planned Parenthood is a corrupt organization, as evidenced by them coaching underage kids to get abortions (who by definition are victims of sexual assault - or coach young girls in how to become a successful prostitute), their absolutely corrupt accounting practices, where cash for abortion, which is supposed to be kept separate from the funds for other services is co-mingled (a violation of federal law, by the way). If you're so concerned about defunding Planned Parenthood, cut them a check and start up a fund raising program.

The assault in this country is not against the poor, the elderly, the minorities, the handicapped or the sick. It's an assault against the productive in society who have been having their accomplishments castigated and demeaned by the administration and liberal media. There is no way that taking all of the money from the wealthy could fund the current size of government, let alone the long-term liabilities. It is basic logic - when the well runs dry, as it did in Greece, it will run dry. To increase the assault on productive citizens while simultaneously raising taxes at the local, state and federal levels, increased regulations eroding margins, the incentive to invest and grow a business is ruined. With the increase on capital gains (money that has already been taxed once), destroys the incentive to invest (news flash - corporations get capital to invest, hire, expand from funds generated by your hated capital markets, facilitated by evil investment bankers). No problem with that, as Obama said last week, the government is going to pull a GM move in all industries (that, by the way is not kind of Marxist - it is directly and absolutely Marxist).

That GM bailout coupled with the "green energy" push really worked out. The taxpayers are down $29BN on our investment in GM and as far as the cutting edge Volt goes:

"(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” - as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000 per Volt sold."

Read more: newsbusters.org...

As much as you hate Ayn Rand, the simplicity of the logic is beautiful - what would happen if the productive simply cashed out, sold all of their stock, real estate and other assets and thus took their brains and capital off the table? Every day the government grows, the more attractive that choice becomes. Now the government is advertising food stamps, initiating food stamps with the cooperation of the Mexican government to get them in the hands of illegals and seeking to drive up the number of folks in the country who are dependant on the government. They've done a fantastic job - now 30% of the citizens of the country are on the government dole in one form or another.

It would be interesting were the government to give every person or family who is below the poverty line $1M and then eliminate all entitlements. Might that solve the problem? No, because despite the fact that $1M is the equivalent of 43.4 years of income a (not including any investment income they might generate), 80% of the recipients of that largess would be broke in three years and need handouts. .

Poverty is in many cases cultural and based on choices, the consequences of which the government has been seeking to eliminate for decades. Does society need to assist them? Yes - but only when the poor take the initiative to seek help and take advantage of that help. The government has absolutely no right to take from the productive and distribute it to people who are taking no steps to get to a stage in their lives where they no longer need assistance. None, which is why Clinton's welfare reform was a success and why it is an outrage to reduce the work requirements which is what the government is doing at the moment.

One thing leftists don't every seem to recognize - if you can even imagine the brain power, creativity and power that welfare and our current suite of entitlements takes off the table by destroying the incentive to improve one's circumstances, it is mind numbing. It is also immoral.




top topics



 
7

log in

join