Julian Castro: Women Can't Afford Tampons So They Can't Go To Work

[Bush92]

This is Peak 2019 Feminism....I hope. Used to be that we could have female biological processes and still work, see. Then we became snowflakes and women call off work for cramps and yadda yadda.

But now we can't budget for $5.00 of feminine products a month or whatever it might be generic. Heaven forfend that women figure this out, be accountable, etc.

That's too difficult. Better to whine and complain that you can't go to work or school.

If another World War comes, we're doomed. An army of snowflakes will get nothing done. Maybe this was the plan, I don't know.

Every day, people are forced to choose between going to school or work, or staying home because they can’t afford the menstrual products they need. Pads, tampons and cups should be available tax-free, across the nation. #NationalPeriodDay

Julián Castro on Twitter

How on earth did women survive on the frontier having babies in a log cabin? How on earth do they survive in Third World countries having babies behind bushes? Liberals are weak.

 

[Bush92]

This is Peak 2019 Feminism....I hope. Used to be that we could have female biological processes and still work, see. Then we became snowflakes and women call off work for cramps and yadda yadda.

But now we can't budget for $5.00 of feminine products a month or whatever it might be generic. Heaven forfend that women figure this out, be accountable, etc.

Sweet Sue has no idea what it's like to be really poor.

or held in cages at the border without 'supplies'. but hey - if it ain't her, then why should she care?

Should be caged at border if they are trying to come into this country illegally.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trumpanzees: The only thing more fun than making fun of minorities is making fun of poor women.

Need a fainting couch? That's all modern "feminists" are good for these days....fainting from all the self-induced outrage. Because yeah. If you have a job and yet cannot afford $5.00 for monthly feminine products, to the point you have to STAY HOME FROM WORK, you need to make some life changes.

Or wait you can do the Leftist Feminist thing. Stay home and whine about it.

What Castro said is a reflection of what the Democrat party believes, and that is depend on government for everything. If you look at their presidential platform every election, their main driver is creating ways to make us more dependent.

Most of the people on the left don't realize they are cradle to gravers.

 

[JoeB131]

So who do Gates and Buffet support? What about George Soros, Zuckerberg, the late Steve Jobs, Martha Stewart, Larry Page, Mike (soda size) Bloomberg?

You think Martha Stewart is ultra rich?

Wow.

Bloomberg is the one who is absolutely panicking that Liz Warren might be the nominee. That's how left he is.

 

[JoeB131]

What Castro said is a reflection of what the Democrat party believes, and that is depend on government for everything. If you look at their presidential platform every election, their main driver is creating ways to make us more dependent.

Most of the people on the left don't realize they are cradle to gravers.

Or we realize it's not a bad thing.

Just remember- White people get "entitlements", poor people of color get "Welfare". Keep telling yourself that.

 

[JoeB131]

Meanwhile, in the real world, outside of a LibTardia, kids are graduating daily with degrees and stepping right into $80-$100K jobs. While the lowlife pieces of shits in the ghettos and barrios refuse to make a good decision and refuse to become ambitious...but, but, but....”THE 1%’ers are holding them back.”....hahaha...funny ass shit.
Joe, you are all fucked up in the head bud.

Really? Hey, guy, I'm writing their resumes... they are not stepping into 80K jobs. They are, if they are lucky, getting 40K jobs which don't help much with tens of thousands in college loan debts.

We have a plethora of poor because you Loons have been importing and recruiting Mexico’s poor for decades, they are disgusting, human cockroaches whom are very comfortable being ‘USA Poor’ which is Mexico wealthy....1/3 of this nation is comprised of thirdworlders, here by way of criminality, with illegal roots and on stolen citizenships...What the fuck were you expecting? You can not turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse.

Okay, buddy, I'm sorry you failed so badly at being a white person that you are being beaten by people of color at the Game of America. Even with the game massively rigged in your failure, you STILL managed to lose to people with no money, no connections and a limited grasp of the English Language.

 

[JoeB131]

No, we don't. Unlike you, I've actually been to the "third world."

Ever been to the West side of Chicago? Appalachia? Some of the backwaters of the deep south?

Um. Yeah. We have patches in this country that have third world poverty.

Koch bros are libertarian. They support OPEN BORDERS

Um, yeah, and did you ever wonder why? No. No, probably not.

here's the best metaphor for you. The Koch brothers were Dr. Frankenstein. Trump is the Monster.

 

[JoeB131]

He "worked and paid taxes"

Isn't that a fascinating answer from a Leftist, and most instructive?

That I support the solution that ACTUALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM? Um. Yes. Yes, very instructive.

So what has provided the most poverty relief.

Some Racist Twat picking up a ladle once a year?

Or People working very hard supporting humane entitlements that keep people from starving.

This isn't complicated.

 

[JoeB131]

Absolutely. I live in a very diverse suburb. I listen to our police scanner all the time. Most of the calls our police get are from mothers who can't control their kids once they hit puberty. It got so bad that the city finally passed a law that you cannot call police more than three times a year for a problem that you are the cause of. Our police simply didn't have the time to be surrogate fathers for these single-parent homes. Once you hit that third call, and call police again, you get a charge from the police department that gets assessed to your property tax bill.

So, um, what if they rent? This sounds like a "make the bigots happy" law.

Prior to that, police would be at some residences nearly every week, and it just got to be too much of a problem. So now that they can't call the cops every time a kid gets out of hand, the child eventually learns he is in control. He does what he wants when he wants, and the mother can't do a damn thing to him. Then he takes that attitude to him in school, eventually gets kicked out, and then takes that attitude with him regarding police. Eventually he'll end up in prison or getting shot by a cop.

Yes, clearly Tamir Rice totally deserved to be shot by Officer Weepy for merely playing with a toy. It wasn't that your city hired a racist loser who got fired from being a "Squirrel Cop".

 

[JoeB131]

Well, aside from all the nonsense in that women's lib ideology on its face--I can tell you from what I know personally from teaching thousands of children over 25+ years, the children are not OK with not having dads. The feminists did not get to change God's plan nor basic human functioning.

Women still need men, as men need women, and the children of those unions ABSOLUTELY want to know, love and be loved by their biological parents. Preferably in a married, committed situation.

God's plan was to stone that bitch if she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night... I'm sure you pine for those days, too.

 

[JoeB131]

What are you talking about? People were falling behind economically and there was no indexing as they were moving into higher tax brackets due to raises that inflation gave them. Reagan gave the middle class a 23% tax reduction over three years and and it helped.

No, it really didn't. What happened was that Reagan cut taxes for the rich, and then shifted the burden to the working class, such as when his "Social Security Reform" raised the rate from 1% to 6% with employers matching 6%, or removing most of the middle class deductions that middle class folks enjoyed with his "Tax Reform" of 1986. Reagan was a disaster for the Middle Class, whether you belonged to a union or not.

 

[OldLady]

This is Peak 2019 Feminism....I hope. Used to be that we could have female biological processes and still work, see. Then we became snowflakes and women call off work for cramps and yadda yadda.

But now we can't budget for $5.00 of feminine products a month or whatever it might be generic. Heaven forfend that women figure this out, be accountable, etc.

That's too difficult. Better to whine and complain that you can't go to work or school.

If another World War comes, we're doomed. An army of snowflakes will get nothing done. Maybe this was the plan, I don't know.

Every day, people are forced to choose between going to school or work, or staying home because they can’t afford the menstrual products they need. Pads, tampons and cups should be available tax-free, across the nation. #NationalPeriodDay

Julián Castro on Twitter

I really like these replies to his retweet.
This is about the stupidest thing I ever saw. I remember a few times having to hunt around under the sofa cushions and on the floor of the car for spare change, rolling my pennies, in order to buy a little 12-pack of tampons to get me through until payday, but JEEZ. It's true that eliminating the tax isn't going to make a difference. Sanitary products are expensive, but they're on the list of "buy first" at the store; if you haven't got enough $ and have to remove something from the checkout, it ain't your tampons. Of course, these women who are crying could go back to the way my mom said it used to be--women wore thick pads of cotton that they washed out like diapers.
Kinda makes you want to go panhandle for that $5, doesn't it?

1. Tom‏ @BoreGuru Oct 19
   Replying to @JulianCastro
   No they're not. Nobody is staying home because of a 6-8% sales tax on period products. But if Massengill delivered Gift Packs, I'd send you one.
   
   
2. 
   While Supplies Last‏ @corrcomm Oct 19
   “I can’t afford fifty cents. I guess I’m forced to stay home from work for four or five days.” I’m sure this makes sense to someone.
   

 

[OldLady]

I used a tampon to stop a nose bleed , back in my ems days

~S~

I'm sure you're serious, but I'm laughing out loud at that image.

 

[sparky]

I used a tampon to stop a nose bleed , back in my ems days

~S~

I'm sure you're serious, but I'm laughing out loud at that image.

yeah, they busted up over it in the er too....

~S~

 

[flack]

Where was this fact proven?

Here's the thing. We had it right for a while.

After the New Deal, but before Reagan, we had it right. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, when they died, their heirs did not inherit all of their wealth, just some of it. 33% of workers belong to unions and fair wages were the norm. During this time, we built fantastic infrastructure projects, we had an economy that was the envy of the world, we had a real, honest to God functioning middle class.

And then the Republicans fucked it all up.

Damn Joe! I agree with much of that. I guess you learned a little from your third grade education.

However the Ds aren’t blameless, as you think. They had much to do with income inequality. Your two Messiahs, Ears and Clintons, were all about enriching the rich and themselves.

It odd but not surprising that those who extol the virtues of the "Union Age" (1945- 1970) invariably fail to note that the only industrial show in town was the US. The rest of the industrialized world lay in post WW2 rubble. Way to go, guys.

Like I said earlier. Those big union days were a bubble, and all bubbles burst. It couldn't' last forever, especially with foreign products entering the market, and a huge change in American consumer spending.

I can't tell you how many customers we lost years ago because companies either moved out of the state or out of the country primarily to get away from the unions. Unions were more than just protecting workers, they virtually took over entire businesses.

They told the company who they could hire and who they could fire. They told the company who they can promote and who they couldn't, even if the employee couldn't actually do the job. They told the company how much they have to pay the worker even if the worker wasn't worth half of his or her salary.

One of our last few union customers got rid of their union a little over a year ago. What pissed the workers off was a worthless employee getting a promotion to the highest paid job in the plant. He had the highest seniority and the union told the company he's the one that gets the job.

Well the owner of the company had to do the job instead, because the guy who got the promotion couldn't do the job. That's when the employees decided to take action.

They voted the union out, and the company decided who got that highest paying job based on ability to do it, and of course, years with the company. They fired about three people who were always worthless and never produced any real work, but they always had a job as long as they showed up and were breathing.

I love your useless stories. Always propping up conservative dogma even when the facts don’t support your tall tales.

Once the union movement was quashed, wages for working American stagnated. Companies promised wages would go up once the unions were gone. It never happened. Workers are still waiting for those raises.

So what companies made such a promise? I don't recall one.

What happened throughout the years was that when our workers made one dollar more an hour, overseas, they made three cents more an hour. When our wages raised another dollar, they raised their wages two cents an hour.

Eventually, unions priced us out of the world market.

With that competition and along with improving and greatly decreasing costs for automation, companies are looking for every way possible to cut costs to compete worldwide. That means less jobs for Americans.

We had to get rid of the unions. We had no choice, because American consumers refused to support those good jobs. That's why Walmart is number one, and Amazon is quickly taking the lead in selling consumer products.

Years ago, when you purchase gasoline, an attendant came out, filled your car, washed the windows, checked the oil and tire pressure, and you paid without getting out of your car. Then somebody had a thought: what if they allowed people to pump their own gasoline at a discounted rate??? It would keep the mechanics working on cars instead of losing money pumping gasoline.

It started out on one island. But because of demand, owners had to have two self-serve islands. Long story short, all gasoline stations in the US had to go to totally self-serve.

Did we put a lot of people out of work? Yes we did, but we saved money in the process.

Eventually, gas stations also got rid of the mechanics and service bays, and reconstructed their stations into convenience stores.

By law, in New Jersey, you can't pump your own gas. Union job.

 

[Unkotare]

He "worked and paid taxes"

Isn't that a fascinating answer from a Leftist, and most instructive?

That I support the solution that ACTUALLY SOLVES THE PROBLEM? Um. Yes. Yes, very instructive.

So what has provided the most poverty relief.

Some Racist Twat picking up a ladle once a year?

Or People working very hard supporting humane entitlements that keep people from starving.

This isn't complicated.

What a shameless fucking hypocrite.

‘Allowing’ the government to confiscate your income through taxes is an act of ‘charity’ and selfless humanism, but someone actually getting off their ass and helping real people in the real world with real sweat and effort doesn’t count? Even you don’t believe that bullshit

 

[playtime]

This is Peak 2019 Feminism....I hope. Used to be that we could have female biological processes and still work, see. Then we became snowflakes and women call off work for cramps and yadda yadda.

But now we can't budget for $5.00 of feminine products a month or whatever it might be generic. Heaven forfend that women figure this out, be accountable, etc.

Sweet Sue has no idea what it's like to be really poor.

or held in cages at the border without 'supplies'. but hey - if it ain't her, then why should she care?

You cared less when it happened under Obama. So cruise on hypocrite.

not true. howeverrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, you little poorly educated basket dweller, that only happened when an unaccompanied minor crossed the border.

NOT as a matter of policy, no matter the age, or that intact families that are being detained *now*

& that basic humane essentials like clean running water, or hygiene products, or clean diapers & clothing are being denied under TRUMP'S watch makes your silly point almost moot.

 

[playtime]

It's the fact, undisputed, that your redistribution system only creates wealth for the political leadership. Are you a political leader in the Socialist democrat movement?

Where was this fact proven?

Here's the thing. We had it right for a while.

After the New Deal, but before Reagan, we had it right. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, when they died, their heirs did not inherit all of their wealth, just some of it. 33% of workers belong to unions and fair wages were the norm. During this time, we built fantastic infrastructure projects, we had an economy that was the envy of the world, we had a real, honest to God functioning middle class.

And then the Republicans fucked it all up.

You have no idea WTF you're talking about. First off, the Republicans warned of the dangers unions were giving this country. Jobs have been moving out since the 70's, mostly because of taxation and unions. What Republicans wanted to do is see that stopped or slowed down. The Democrats wanted to put the movement on super charge.

The glory days which you describe was nothing but a bubble, no different than the housing or tech bubble. All bubbles burst. They don't last forever because it's impossible.

During the 80's and after the recession, people became more frugal in their purchases. We went from buying quality made American products to cheap foreign products. It had nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans, it had to do with the American consumer and still does today.

eisenhower was pro union AND the corporate tax rate was 90%... & it was one of the most prosperous times in america.

 

[playtime]

those poor women who qualify get phones courtesy of the gov'ment, because it's cheaper than landlines. & b4 you ignorantly start calling them obamaphones, like so many other dolts on this here forum - it was saint ronny who started that program.

REALLY? Reagan was giving out cell phones?

Did he travel to the future to get them?

Nah, you're just a fucking liar and too stupid to think through your lies before you tell them; typical Communist.

go back to school & take a reading comp class. back then it was LANDLINES.... now it's cell phones because they are cheaper.

Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers

Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund. The Lifeline program is available to eligible low-income consumers in every state, territory, commonwealth, and on Tribal lands.
[...]
On March 31, 2016, the Commission adopted a comprehensive reform and modernization of the Lifeline program. In the 2016 Lifeline Modernization Order, the Commission included broadband as a support service in the Lifeline program. The Commission also set out minimum service standards for Lifeline-supported services to ensure maximum value for the universal service dollar, and established a National Eligibility Verifier to make independent subscriber eligibility determinations.
[...]
Lifeline Program for Low-Income Consumers

AND

A short history of the ‘Obamaphone’
[...]
A little history. As far back as the 1930s, public policy established the need for universal phone service. During the Reagan administration, the FCC established the Universal Service Fund. A tax on everyone’s phone bill fed the fund, which enabled people to receive subsidies for basic telephone service. To qualify, a person or household must be receiving one or more of several federal assistance benefits. By the logic that established the term “Obamaphone,” you’d have to call a 1980s rotary phone installed via the Universal Service Fund a Reaganphone.

A short history of the ‘Obamaphone’ | Federal News Network

can you be a more poorly educated lazy deplorable? me thinx not.

 

[flack]

It's the fact, undisputed, that your redistribution system only creates wealth for the political leadership. Are you a political leader in the Socialist democrat movement?

Where was this fact proven?

Here's the thing. We had it right for a while.

After the New Deal, but before Reagan, we had it right. The rich paid confiscatory taxes, when they died, their heirs did not inherit all of their wealth, just some of it. 33% of workers belong to unions and fair wages were the norm. During this time, we built fantastic infrastructure projects, we had an economy that was the envy of the world, we had a real, honest to God functioning middle class.

And then the Republicans fucked it all up.

You have no idea WTF you're talking about. First off, the Republicans warned of the dangers unions were giving this country. Jobs have been moving out since the 70's, mostly because of taxation and unions. What Republicans wanted to do is see that stopped or slowed down. The Democrats wanted to put the movement on super charge.

The glory days which you describe was nothing but a bubble, no different than the housing or tech bubble. All bubbles burst. They don't last forever because it's impossible.

During the 80's and after the recession, people became more frugal in their purchases. We went from buying quality made American products to cheap foreign products. It had nothing to do with Reagan or the Republicans, it had to do with the American consumer and still does today.

eisenhower was pro union AND the corporate tax rate was 90%... & it was one of the most prosperous times in america.

Almost nobody paid the 90% rate. Another libtard lie.