No - not at all. It's just saying that's what women voters think of the two on womens' issues. Obviously, there are many other issues that people vote on, so just because you favor Obama on womens' issues doesn't mean you'd vote for him. Otherwise, this election would be a 45+ state blowout.
I may have gotten confused, but the GOP issues I've seen brought up, go beyond simple abortion, and into things like forced medical procedures that aren't abortions that were proposed by men, and forced upon women.
While some of you are pointing out that millions of women are Republicans, which is true, and are correct that they are not all "morons" for being Republican, there being a host of reasons that they might be members of that party, some being economic (they have large incomes/investments and enjoy the current extremely low tax rates, for example), some being social (they have strong feelings against abortion rights, as an example), some simply because they married a Republican man, and I know some of those women personally, the fact remains, in my opinion, that many of the women who call themselves Republican, and many more who consider themselve "independent" voters, voted for Barack Obama in the last election, and I believe that even more will vote for him this time around. Some of you fellow men (yeah, I'm a guy, as most of you know) tend to discount just what a powerful impact the extreme views towards women's rights of the minority of Republicans currently in control of that party have on those females. I know several Republican women who voted for Obama last time, and will vote for him this time simply because of those issues. Sure, some will be unhappy to do so, because they still consider themselves Republicans, but they also consider their party to have gone off the rails with regard to those issues, issues deeply important to them. Issues important enough for them to check the "D" at the ballot box in November.
My mother votes Democrat but tells my step-father she votes Republican. He is a crazy, 80-something year old coot birther/tea party/Obama as a monkey with a bone through his nose loving so-and-so. He also falls for all the most obvious email schemes, getting ripped off by Nigerian kings or whatever. He is the kind of sucker that thinks he's getting actual news when he watches Fox News. And he would not abide my mother voting with her brain.
From what I understand the CBO has scored the ACA as deficit neutral. Anyway here is another good article on the GOP and poverty. For GOP, Pitfalls In Ignoring Poor excerpt: In the modern-day Republican camp -- a tribe that would have cast out Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and even Reagan as namby-pamby liberals -- disdain for the poor is embraced as a virtue, a signifier that sentimentality will not get in the way of dismantling the social safety net. People who depend upon the aid of the government via food stamps, unemployment checks and mortgage relief are typically written off as parasites and losers. (Meanwhile, corporations that depend upon government largess for bailouts and subsidies are celebrated as paragons of free enterprise, but that's another matter.) Romney's lexicon has simply been excised of words like "generosity" when it comes to the poor, along with other problematic nouns such as "Massachusetts," "health care," "diplomacy," and "Cayman."
You mean by far the largest part of the puzzle? The part that is as large as the next 17 nations' worth of "defense" (sic) spending? Where do I sign?!
That represent .00125 of the total debt. so if we spend that much for the next 100 years that is still only .125 of the total debt. That bill isn't what is causing the debt. It is medicare, medicaid, SS, and defense. The rest of the cost are small compared to the main costs.
So you are saying, essentially, that we have one party at hates the poor and one that hates the rich. Who gets screwed in either instance...the rest of us. Sounds like we need a reasonable third party.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Ref no one has said anything about hating the rich. But we're really getting off topic. Again, if you have any links to the RNC championing women's issues, I'll read them.
A couple of Republican women feel the party has taken a stance that seems to cause problems with women. http://www.pressherald.com/news/Snowe-Romney-needs-to-break-with-GOP-on-abortion.html Olympia Snowe sad that the GOP will certainly lose in Nov. if they don't mend their ways with women. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/August/27/mon-opinions-akin-and-abortion.aspx
Refman, Democrats don't hate the rich. Hell, some are rich themselves. We simply want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, and they don't. It is absurd that Mitt Romney is paying 13% of his income in taxes, if he is, and I only mention him for obvious reasons. He is far from alone. "The last major overhaul of the tax code, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent. But that link was uncoupled by his successor, President George Bush, and the rates on capital gains were reduced by President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush then lowered the rates on capital gains and dividends to a high of 15 percent — less than half the 35 percent top rate on ordinary income." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/u...tax-cuts-since-1980s-have-been-gain-gain.html Refman, the rates on income taxes, capital gains, and investment income are ridiculously low, far lower than they were after the famous Reagan tax cuts. When the Republican Party leadership claims that taxes are too high, they are telling a lie. A lie, a web of lies, that those who back them want the American people to believe. Why? Because it benefits the wealthiest Americans, the main backers of the GOP, and they care more about their money than they care about the welfare of their own country. Believe that "they are all the same" if you wish, but you will be deluding yourself. They aren't, and a third party has less than a snowball's chance in Hell.
So long as we're talking Treasury bonds and US dollars, theoretically until the end of time (or until someone scraps the primary dealer system, dismantles China's devaluation scheme, and rewrites the risk free rate as not being represented by Treasuries.) Or you could just wait until debt deleveraging stops, then implement regulatory reforms so that the Wall Street blow-up that caused most of this debt never occurs again.
Private debt---household and consumer debt foremost. As a quick indicator, leverage ratios are at their lowest since the Great Depression on Wall Street---perhaps a good sign considering what happened, but also a sign of risk-aversion that has permeated all aspects of American investment. A great overview in--- http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mg..._deleveraging_the_global_credit_bubble_update What might the recovery look like? http://www.econmatters.com/2012/06/after-sovereign-debt-crisis-comes.html
