Hey... Mike Johnson didn't -actually- say that all women have a "duty" to birth at least one child...
He said there could have been more "able-bodied workers" in the economy to "cover the bases" of Social Security and Medicaid if they hadn't been aborted in his lifetime.
Oh my goodness, I knew he had a heart after all...
https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-house-speaker-mike-002400323.html
@dalfen This is that what nazis expect from women.
@bodomenke We're incubators meant to supply the economy with able-bodied workers.
They should at least pay for our healthcare.
@bodomenke Well, they should! 😂 🤷♀️
Pre-natal care, pregnancy care, post- pregnancy care a year after birth. Full nutritional benefits as well during that time. Food and healthcare for the kids too.
@dalfen From the POV of your administration, regardless if (moderate) dems or GOP, this is socialism. I am afraid, but I believe your hopes are invested in the „wrong“ country.
@bodomenke Yes. I know. Well, I believe that necessary, preventative, and maintenance healthcare shouldn't be for profit.
But in this case, this is simply a trade. They want us to be incubators, we want something in return.
@dalfen Understand, but if you move on the trade-path you have to be prepared that they start calculating the ROI on their invest in healthcare.
By that women would be fully absorbed as part of the economic models and the investment result (children) being benchmarked based on KPI.
At that time we would have entered total fascism.
@bodomenke
Oh absolutely, you are 110% correct. I guess I was joking a bit, but I really shouldn't.
Women should never been seen as crucial to some economic model. We should be able to control our bodies and that's it.
@dalfen True. And cynicism is last resort. 😉
@bodomenke
I'm full of cynicism 😬 😂
ugh... and sarcasm
I have my young daughter to think about here as well-- I would NEVER want her to be crucial to some economic model. It's disgusting.
And when I said that about healthcare, it was a bit of a flippant response thinking about how we fend for ourselves here, and not seriously considering the implications of making such a trade. I would never want it to be obligatory.
Well, I guess the problem is that the US has for so long built social safety nets based on those assumptions.
So either we keep going, or we tear them down, and lord knows no politician will be elected running on a platform of ending Social Security and such.
So..... we're stuck with it. Our kids are crucial to the economic models that we've adopted for many generations now.
@dalfen the Social Security board of trustees have been warning for decades now that the present course is unsustainable with more economic input, future generations of workers, so yep, it will absolutely be more of a problem in the future.
The near future.
But any politician of any party who dares bring this up gets pilloried.
The US as a country has wholeheartedly backed the system that relies on more kids to fund future promises.
I don't expect any changes, and solutions, until we fall off a cliff from a lack of younger labor to carry the day.
That's just the path we're already very committed to, legally and socially.
@volkris
Yes, I agree. It's a mess.
@volkris
That's a great point. It's a conundrum now and could be more of a problem in the future.
@bodomenke