Quote:
Originally Posted by Warfish
.....be defined by the Left/Liberals/Democrats/Progressives/Socialists/Communists as a "War on Women" or a "War on Minorities" or that would not be deemed to "have a greater impact on women and minorities"?
The only one I can think of is "the Millitary". So other than that?
For example:
By the way, what happened to the (D) led request for civility and an end to "millitaristic" langauge in politics? Describing their opponenst as "Generals in a War"? Is that supposed to be less aggressive that designative a political opponent as "targeted for defeat"?
So really, what can we cut in Govt. that we could guarantee wouldn't be described as part of a War of Women and Minorities (and Kids)? What could we reduce the rate of increae from +7% to only +6.8% and not be described as hateful, racist, homophobic, sexists for?
And the reverse, at what point does adding new women and minorities to public aid programs become inappropriate and hence denail not a "war on Women and Minroities"? Is it 50% of them? 75%? 100%?
If so, it would be nice to have that honest conevrsatiom about it.
|
In a word...no. This war on women because people are opposed to paying for their birth control. Why not a war on men for not paying for condoms? One problem that noone seems to address is fraud in the aid agencies. Example, my wife busted a $50k/month food stamp fraud ring. That's $50k per MONTH in one small town, in one county, in one state. She got no pat on the back. There were no changes in policy. There were no increasing of the fraud dept, nothing. I worked for the State as well, and there are actually people who need some form of aid. However, for every one of them, there are ten that, abuse it, commit fraud, resell for added income, or are multi-generational dependents. I won't even get into how illegal aliens benefit from BEING illegal. And this is just one small part of one aid department, I can only imagine what the entire cost to the taxpayer is across the board.