Yeah, blame the Democrats because they don't cave in to the inane demands of Mitch McConnell, to kill Obamacare. Obamacare is the law, only the inane would insist that it be killed, considering how difficult it has been to get it passed - so, no, it appears Congress conservatives are only looking for excuses to get out of doing what the majority of the country wants done....that's why they're losing.
The implication is, ObamaCare is the law, and thus we can't change it.
Is that logic universally true? Because slavery was the law of the land long ago. Aren't you glad Conservative Republicans didn't listen to your logic back then?
Further, the majority never wanted, nor supported ObamaCare. Sorry.
Now that makes a lot of sense..."the women I named are women" - as if I had misunderstood them for "men"! And, I never said that Democrats have a monopoly on the female species, but more women are refuting the Republican party and its stance on women and the things that help women.....such as equal pay for equal work, insurance paid birth control same as insurance paid Viagra for men", etc.
Equal pay for equal work, will harm women. Women may not understand that, and may still be in favor of it, but it will without any doubt harm women.
Just like equal treatment laws in Europe have harmed women. Gender discrimination laws, passed by the European Union, instantly drove up the cost of auto insurance on women. Men have more accidents than women do, and thus typically women were charged a lower rate. The law made that illegal, thus companies were more than happy to charge both a higher rate.
Similarly, if you make it illegal to pay women a lower rate, you also inherently make them less appealing to hire as employees, and thus companies will be more than happy to not hire women.
Put another way.... if the government made a law that made it illegal hire a lawn mower for less money than another... would you hire someone to mow your lawn knowing you risked being sued? Most won't. Same thing will happen with women, if this law is passed.
Obama has "tried" to work with the other side plenty of times, that they have refused to work with him is no wonder that he has recently decided "to hell with 'em" (my words) - and many people are working, but they work for companies like Wal-Mart, which conservatives defend, when Wal-Mart doesn't pay them enough to feed their families they have to resort to Welfare. So, your party is in reality subsiding Wal-Mart. You are making up the difference, because you would rather Wal-Mart keep more of its money that you are willing to give of your money to subsidize their low paid employees. Your claim that everybody on Welfare doesn't work is just a myth that your party has perpetrated to try and get out of helping the poor, while all the time ready and willing to help the rich.
Walmart pays better rates than other comparable jobs. It's not Wal-Mart duty to pay you anything but what the job is worth. You can feed your family on very little. It's a choice, not a absolute sum of money. When I was in high school, a guy from Romania, was feeding his family of four, working at Wendy's where I worked. Are you seriously suggesting that an uneducated immigrant who barely speaks English, can do what a born educated American can not? No, that's just excuse making.
Yes, I would rather have Walmart keep more of it's money. Walmart has provided 2.2 million jobs, and billions of wealth for our country. If government steals it, they will not be as able to create more jobs, and more wealth, while government will blow the money on crap that does little to no good to anyone.