There, he said it! Republicans want less regulation except when it comes to women health decisions

I have been waiting for Obama to fight back, to put on those boxing gloves and hit back at all the crazy BS from the right. He never does or in such a subtle fashion that only intellectuals get it. And even today, he didn’t exactly speak to the crazies in the GOP. He should. He should equate GOP with the crazy rightwing Tea Party. Very few people like the Tea Party.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that about half of all people say that the more they hear about the Tea Party the less they like it. And apart from the Catholic Church with their sex offenders and ancient laws preventing women from becoming priests or using contraception, who else in the US is interested in governing women's bodies and their vaginas? Why the bible people of course, aka, the Tea Party.

Here is what Obama said today:

This contraception fight in particular was illuminating. It was like being in a time machine. Republicans in Congress were going so far as to say an employer should be able to have a say in the health care decisions of its female employees. And I'm always puzzled by this. This is a party that says it prides itself on being rabidly anti-regulation. These are folks who claim to believe in freedom from government interference and meddling. But it doesn't seem to bother them when it comes to women's health.

Well said, Mr. President! Now, that is well enough said that most of us will understand. But if I were him and were sending an indirect message to the Tea Party folks, I would put it in a language that they can understand, basically, elementary school level:

"The birth control debate reminded me of the middle ages: Republican men attempting to decide what is best for women. Are they nuts? Republicans say they don’t want more regulation by the government but they are eager to have government regulate a woman’s body. That is beyond batsh-t crazy."

Granted, I would not have him say that last sentence with the expletive but at least I did not use the V word either. I am guessing Obama would not hire me as his speech writer. But he is doing pretty well without me.

GD Star Rating
loading...
There, he said it! Republicans want less regulation except when it comes to women health decisions, 1.0 out of 1 based on 1 rating

5 comments to There, he said it! Republicans want less regulation except when it comes to women health decisions

  • BC

    Who are these so called "intellectuals" that you are referencing?  My observation is that intellectuals are usually pretty clueless about a great many things and therefore to call them intellectuals is a bit of a misnomer.
     
    On the issue of the Tea Party, initially it's core was about not bankrupting the country and fixing the economy until the lunatic wing of the Republican Party got a hold of it and warped it (Palin/Bachmann).  We also had to listen to Anderson Cooper and others make a bunch of vulgar bathroom jokes that one would only expect to hear from a bunch of middle school aged children ala "Tea Bagging."
     
    It's pretty clear neither party wants the most American of things – competition – in the form of a third party.
     
    As per the Catholic Church this falls under the 1st Amendment.
     
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
     
    Are you suggesting we get rid of this freedom?  In as much as the church has its freedoms so does anyone to not follow their edicts.   I find the whole going green movement to be just another fear based religion replete with commandments and sins and just like the church one can buy indulgences (carbon credits) to alleviate said sins.  Going green via the right technology maturity and investment is quite different than mandating it as a religion.  And the green movement has all the fervor and zealotry of a fear based religion where one starts with the answers and then works backwards from the answer to prove it.
     
    Science on the other hand is trying to make sense of data and then the answers result.
     
    On one hand he is criticizing the church for having draconian laws and on the other hand wants to force people to abide by another fear based religion, which is equally dacronian and controlling as the church – don't see much difference here.  This aside and outside of other faults the church does a tremendous amount of work helping poor people in the country.
     
    In this regard, I respect peoples' rights to practice a religion, but retain my right to not be forced into following a given religion especially one that has a grand inquistor like EPA/Goldman Sachs (cap/trade).
     
    As per the contraception fight – what fight are you talking about.  Obama is creating issues as he doesn't have a stellar story to tell on the economy.  Given that Medicaid and Planned Parenthood cover birth control  for those that have little or no bucks it seems to me that all others should pay for their own birth control.   When you're trying to give everyone health care you don't get there by mandating unnecessary coverage.
     
    Republicans were protecting 1st Amendment rights.  I think what you're saying is that the tax payer should foot the bill for birth control – buy it yourself.
     
    Let's talk about decreasing joblessness and stabilizing the economy.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • diversity_usa

      Just wanted to make this point: Tea Party = bible, guns and fear *, and also Tea Party – white old racist men.
      As for *fear: fear of taxation, fear of debt, fear of economic cataclysm, fear of other races, cultures and religions, fear for the sake of fear. 

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
  • BC

    Diversity – don't disagree that this is what the Tea Party has become although I hold that it did not start out this way.  As for fear, unfortunately this is how people are controlled and as a species we need to lessen and ultimately let go of fear.  All politicians and political parties sell on fear not just the Tea Party.
     
    As for fear of economic cataclysm – the situation is still fixable, but not easy.  Also don't think fear is overblown here.  $16 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.  If you look at Europe their sovereign debt problem I think it will result in the Euro unwinding or the south being kicked out.  Europe also faces the danger of cascading failure.
     
    Outside of politics if one just looks at the math – don't think it's fear mongering.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
    • diversity_usa

      On why cutting into the deficit now makes for bad economic policy
      "We're in a situation now where the interest rate is zero, which means any austerity policies — any cutbacks in spending — just lead to unemployment. They actually do very little to reduce the budget deficit. They probably make the long-run fiscal position worse. Once the economy is recovered enough, then you'll find me turn into a fiscal hawk, but not now."

      GD Star Rating
      loading...
      • BC

        Diversity:  Mixed emotions here.  Cutting spending will lead to job loss where the money is spent, but you also have to consider what cutting spending will do for the private sector.  The private sector employs the bulk of the population.  Spending needs to be cut gradually, but consistently and when done right I think the loss of jobs related to govt. spending will be outweighed by the improvement in business and consumer confidence hence more jobs.
         
        There's no easy solution unfortunately.  I'm not a fan of Krugman's economic thought.  Note in the NPR article he mentions teachers.  What about everyone in the private sector that has been taking in on the chin since 08?  He also says we should have spent more stimulus, but you have consider how the money is spent and not just the amount.  Krugman is right that we are in a depression and have been for several years, but it was WW2 that got us out of the Depression not the spending of the 30s.  As for recovery after the War the US had very little competition – not the case now.
         
        Every year we don't cut spending we're adding north of a trillion to the deficit.  Debt as a % of GDP was higher right after WW2 than it is now specifically 122%.  Rates are low, but artificially so.  The Fed bought 61% of the debt issued in 2011 ("printing").  This means without the Fed govt. bond auctions would fail as rates do not reflect the risk.  If spending were gotten under control it would also send a message to the bond market that we aren't going to default.
         
        I think the larger issue is Europe as if they come apart then the US, China and the global economy will get smacked.  Bottom line is the party is over and the longer the spending continues the worse the hangover will be.
         
        As for cutbacks in spending not reducing the deficit – it's spending that is causing the deficit.  How about cutting corporations a deal on repatriating cash with the caveat that they have to create more biz/invest in the US?  Say let them pay 20% on the money.  Might bring back over $1 trillion in cash.
         
        The idea that only the govt can fix the situation I think is quite wrong. 

        GD Star Rating
        loading...



Leave a Comment