House Republicans Pass $868 Mil in Cuts to WIC (women, infants, children)

[Harry Dresden]

Only if it's for feeding poor children. We've got tons of cash laying around to subsidize big agribusiness concerns and to build weapons systems to blow up threats that don't exist.

explain Brown then.....

Not really comparable. States don't have the ability to borrow in the same way the federal government does. Federal government also has a lot more flexibility about how to spend. A lot of California's spending in required by referendums.

the fact is Polk....so many times in these threads i read the Lefties here saying how heartless the Republicans are for cutting programs for the Handicapped and Elderly....and yet here Brown is doing the same thing......he could have said i dont want to touch these people....but he did not.....and now all i hear is people like you making excuses for him.......

 

[Care4all]

Earth to Moonbats: We've run out of Other People's Money.

Only if it's for feeding poor children. We've got tons of cash laying around to subsidize big agribusiness concerns and to build weapons systems to blow up threats that don't exist.

Yep

Wonder why Dems didn't take care of that when they had a SUPER MAJORITY 2008-2010?

Guess it was more important to expand Government with Obamacare.

ummmmm, Dems did not have a super majority from 2008 trhough 2010....i know that sounds good and all as a one liner, but it is simply not true...

 

[oldsalt]

I'd cut WIC altogether if it were up to me. if you're eligible for WIC you're eligible for food stamps to. Welfare is meant to HELP, not support. Not to mention WIC is a discriminatory government program and is unconstitutional as a result.

Bwahahahaha. You're a fucking idiot. Everything you dislike is unconstitutional, right? GMAFB.

 

[bluemoon22]

It's impossible to take any of our politicians seriously. They'll cut funding from infants and women but not the military. They'll tell stupid cuts like these are how they intend to balance the budget. Ridiculous. If we don't cut military spending, we'll never balance the budget. We are dumping 1 Trillion Dollars a year down the toilet in wars and military when we could use that money to balance the budget or for domestic needs.

 

[Seawytch]

House Republicans Pass $868 Mil in Cuts to WIC (women, infants, children)
But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

Those GnOpers kept Azalia funding though. We can all rest easy.


I guess we can finally put to rest the malarkey that we are a "Christian Nation"...

What-the-fuck-rock are you living under, you fucking partisan-parrot bomb-thrower?

Christian Church Membership in the United States: 1960-2002

It may be true that EVERY American is not christian, but certainly more are christian than any other religion.

Then why is abortion something the GnOP wants to legislate, but help for the needy isn't? Jesus didn't live in a Democracy. Wonder how he would feel if he did?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Too funny. Everyone is still arguing from a blind position. No one knows WHAT WAS CUT yet. How can you have an intelligent debate when you have no facts about the topic?

 

[Mustang]

Poor women infants and children make few campaign donations nor can they offer you a job after youi leave congress.

Infants and children don't vote, either. They can only cry when they're hungry. And it's unlikely that House Republicans will ever hear those cries, literally OR figuratively.

 

[Mustang]

You guys are a trip. You don't even know what parts of the program were cut.

Administrative
Redundant expenses
Fraud
Technical
One half of one percent to each region
Actual benefits

Get informed before bloviating like a left wing hack

Please answer a question for me. How does a cut of "one half of one percent to each region" add up to 13% total cuts for all regions combined? Keep in mind that you can't just add up one half of one percent 26 times to reach 13%.

 

[Polk]

So you want to keep borrowing & spending money we don't have? Wonderful idea.

Have you been watching what has been going on in Greece lately?

No one can borrow and spend their way to prosperity. If we keep this up--we will ALL be POOR and standing in soup lines.

We need to get our budget in order, but during the early stages of recovery from an economic downturn is not the right time to do it.

Really?

So why is it working so well in Britain?

Idiot.

Without even touching on the fact that it was more necessary in the British case than our own (since they were actually facing some pressure in the bond market, while we are not), it hasn't been working well in Britain. They've gone from a weak recovery back into recession.

 

[Polk]

explain Brown then.....

Not really comparable. States don't have the ability to borrow in the same way the federal government does. Federal government also has a lot more flexibility about how to spend. A lot of California's spending in required by referendums.

the fact is Polk....so many times in these threads i read the Lefties here saying how heartless the Republicans are for cutting programs for the Handicapped and Elderly....and yet here Brown is doing the same thing......he could have said i dont want to touch these people....but he did not.....and now all i hear is people like you making excuses for him.......

It's not an excuse. It's an explanation.

 

[Polk]

You guys are a trip. You don't even know what parts of the program were cut.

Administrative
Redundant expenses
Fraud
Technical
One half of one percent to each region
Actual benefits

Get informed before bloviating like a left wing hack

Please answer a question for me. How does a cut of "one half of one percent to each region" add up to 13% total cuts for all regions combined? Keep in mind that you can't just add up one half of one percent 26 times to reach 13%.

Good question, since last time I checked, a cut of one-half of one percent would be... 0.5%.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

When you tell me what exactly was cut then I will retract my prior ridiculous ideas. Until then please carry on with your ridiculous pretend debate. Cause without the facts that's all your doing.

 

[JimH52]

are you going to bitch when a Democrat does the same thing?......if so i want to see you bad mouthing Jerry Brown......

Disabled Fight Jerry Brown’s Budget | HHS Network CA

Gov. Jerry Brown's budget cuts devastate the disabled, poor, sick and elderly : Indybay

Jerry Brown Budget Cuts | California budget: Gov. Jerry Brown approves cuts to services for poor, sick and elderly - Los Angeles Times

So when did California give tax breaks to millionaires? I must have missed that...YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT AGAIN!

no your missing the point......he is cutting from those who cant fend for themselves......i thought a good caring Democrat is beyond such things....if Arnold was the guy doing this Jim you would be right here calling him a Heartless Bastard....

No, you are the one missing the point. I am sure there is a need to cut from programs that serve the poor and impovished. But to do that at the same time you are advocating a tax cut for the wealthy is unthinkable. It is the lowest of lows. That is exactly what Paul Ryan's plan does.

And don't argue the old lame republican response that. cutting taxes for the rich, increases jobs. How did that work out for W? Obama has created twice the number of jobs as W did, in 2 years, to W's 8.

Now do you understand?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Since NONE of you have the balls to admit when your wrong ill do it for you. Here is what the bill actually does:

Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) rejected those assertions and said the GOP bill cuts only from discretionary programs, not the mandatory food stamp and child nutrition programs.
“So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about this dreadful calamity associated with the cuts in this bill, the fact of the matter is, food programs get more money under this bill, and that’s because they are mandatory programs,” Lummis said. “The committee has no control over them. The only thing we have control over are the discretionary programs.”
The bill, H.R. 2112, would cut $2.7 million in discretionary spending from current levels, $5 billion lower than the Obama administration’s requests. But it still provides $117 billion in mandatory spending programs such as food stamps.

 

[Polk]

When you tell me what exactly was cut then I will retract my prior ridiculous ideas. Until then please carry on with your ridiculous pretend debate. Cause without the facts that's all your doing.

It cuts at least 200,000 children out of the program.

The House is scheduled to vote today on a measure to slash funding for the WIC nutrition program, which (as we have shown) would force the program to turn away at least 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and children next year. The Appropriations Committee approved this unprecedented cut last month, in part based on the claim that more than 40 percent of WIC costs go to program administration. But this claim is flatly false, as our new paper shows.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | Ill-Informed Claim Does Not Justify WIC Cuts

 

[Dot Com]

I don't like Ryan's right-wing, social engineering either.

 

[Polk]

Since NONE of you have the balls to admit when your wrong ill do it for you. Here is what the bill actually does:

Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) rejected those assertions and said the GOP bill cuts only from discretionary programs, not the mandatory food stamp and child nutrition programs.
“So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are talking about this dreadful calamity associated with the cuts in this bill, the fact of the matter is, food programs get more money under this bill, and that’s because they are mandatory programs,” Lummis said. “The committee has no control over them. The only thing we have control over are the discretionary programs.”
The bill, H.R. 2112, would cut $2.7 million in discretionary spending from current levels, $5 billion lower than the Obama administration’s requests. But it still provides $117 billion in mandatory spending programs such as food stamps.

I don't know who is dumber: that woman for making the claim that the cut is actually an increase, or you for believing her.

 

[Too Tall]

House Republicans Pass $868 Mil in Cuts to WIC (women, infants, children)
But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

Those GnOpers kept Azalia funding though. We can all rest easy.


I guess we can finally put to rest the malarkey that we are a "Christian Nation"...

I spent 3 hours Thursday helping fill bags with food for the needy at my Church. Then I spent two hours helping folks put these bags in their cars this morning. Several of the cars had a trunk full of food that they had got from other Church food banks.

Some say they are gaming the system, but I say if it feeds them and and their children, it is fine with me. Folks got to eat!

This happens all over this Christian nation in case you are interested.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

When you tell me what exactly was cut then I will retract my prior ridiculous ideas. Until then please carry on with your ridiculous pretend debate. Cause without the facts that's all your doing.

It cuts at least 200,000 children out of the program.

The House is scheduled to vote today on a measure to slash funding for the WIC nutrition program, which (as we have shown) would force the program to turn away at least 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and children next year. The Appropriations Committee approved this unprecedented cut last month, in part based on the claim that more than 40 percent of WIC costs go to program administration. But this claim is flatly false, as our new paper shows.

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Blog Archive | Ill-Informed Claim Does Not Justify WIC Cuts

Those are not facts they are the speculation of a blogger and news paper that does not have all the facts. Unless your telling me that they know better how a govt program is funded and how it functions than the lawmakers in charge of that program.

I gave you the facts straight from the horses mouth but you are certainly entitled to ignore them and continue your meaningless talking points while others actually do the work that needs to be done to save our nation from bankruptcy.

 

[Too Tall]

So when did California give tax breaks to millionaires? I must have missed that...YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT AGAIN!

no your missing the point......he is cutting from those who cant fend for themselves......i thought a good caring Democrat is beyond such things....if Arnold was the guy doing this Jim you would be right here calling him a Heartless Bastard....

No, you are the one missing the point. I am sure there is a need to cut from programs that serve the poor and impovished. But to do that at the same time you are advocating a tax cut for the wealthy is unthinkable. It is the lowest of lows. That is exactly what Paul Ryan's plan does.

And don't argue the old lame republican response that. cutting taxes for the rich, increases jobs. How did that work out for W? Obama has created twice the number of jobs as W did, in 2 years, to W's 8.

Now do you understand?

Unemployment averaged 5.2% for Bush's 8 years in office. It has averaged OVER 9% for Obama's 2 1/2 years in office. I would say it worked out pretty damned good for Bush.