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

[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.

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.

Another quote:

Several Democrats noted that the bill would cut the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) nutrition program, along with several others. But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.
“We will make sure no one falls through the cracks,” Kingston added. “There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens.
Kingston and others also noted that Democrats cut more than $500 million from WIC last year, and moved the money to an unrelated account. “Where was the screaming and hollering then?” he asked.

 

[Mustang]

But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

I gotta say that while cuts need to be made to the budget, when Republicans cut food assistance to women, infants, and children while insisting on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it only serves to reinforce the image of Republicans' as being cold and heartless.

Seems pretty foolish to me. It makes what they tried to do to Medicare look positively altruistic in comparison.

A spending bill to fund the nation's food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program's budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

Food Aid Cuts For Women, Children Passed By House Republicans

Well, we have to cut something to pay for the F35 Stealth Jet, all 2443 of them that is. To be honest, I'm not certain that I am against this, but the cost is staggering.

F-35 AF-1 and AF-2 Ferry Flight to Edwards AFB

A reasonable person would realize that to balance the budget, everything must be on the table. That would necessarily include tax increases of some kind, and cuts to defense spending. However, I've heard numerous republicans state openly that both defense spending cuts and tax increases of any kind are off the table.

Consequently, if those options are off the table, the cuts to the budget would have to be FAR more painful and draconian. And look where we are.

It's hard to imagine something more draconian (but I'm still withholding judgment on that issue) than cutting food assistance to low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five, especially when WIC is considered to be one of the most cost-effective government programs. A national study done by Mathematica in 1994 showed benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from $1.77 to $3.13 saved for each $1 spent on WIC.*

*Figures quoted from Wikipedia

 

[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

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.

You didn't give facts. You gave the party spin.

 

[WillowTree]

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

moonbats says you should print em some mo obama money!

 

[WillowTree]

But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

I gotta say that while cuts need to be made to the budget, when Republicans cut food assistance to women, infants, and children while insisting on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it only serves to reinforce the image of Republicans' as being cold and heartless.

Seems pretty foolish to me. It makes what they tried to do to Medicare look positively altruistic in comparison.

A spending bill to fund the nation's food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program's budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

Food Aid Cuts For Women, Children Passed By House Republicans

obie doodle already cut 960 billion dollars out of medicare and you want to whine now? why weren't you whining then you effen hypocrite.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Another quote:

Several Democrats noted that the bill would cut the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) nutrition program, along with several others. But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.
“We will make sure no one falls through the cracks,” Kingston added. “There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens.
Kingston and others also noted that Democrats cut more than $500 million from WIC last year, and moved the money to an unrelated account. “Where was the screaming and hollering then?” he asked.

I can't comment on the literal accuracy of a claim about a drop of 300,000 participants in the WIC program in the last year. However, I would ask if it was a voluntary drop or were people involutarily dropped from the program? I ask because it seems unlikely that it would be a voluntary decrease in particiaption in such tough economic times.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

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.

You didn't give facts. You gave the party spin.

Like I said ignore the facts. Prove my facts inaccurate

 

[The T]

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

moonbats says you should print em some mo obama money!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM]YouTube - ‪Free Obama Money‬‏[/ame]

Welfare class leeches...moochers...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Another quote:

Several Democrats noted that the bill would cut the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) nutrition program, along with several others. But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.
“We will make sure no one falls through the cracks,” Kingston added. “There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens.
Kingston and others also noted that Democrats cut more than $500 million from WIC last year, and moved the money to an unrelated account. “Where was the screaming and hollering then?” he asked.

Maybe it has something to do with the half billion the DEMOCRATS CUT LAST YEAR?

Just a thought.

I can't comment on the literal accuracy of a claim about a drop of 300,000 participants in the WIC program in the last year. However, I would ask if it was a voluntary drop or were people involutarily dropped from the program? I ask because it seems unlikely that it would be a voluntary decrease in particiaption in such tough economic times.

Maybe it has something to do with the half BILLION THE DEMS CUT LAST YEAR? From the very program they are now crying about cuts in.

 

[The T]

These mooches VOTE, and they voted themselves right into the US Treasury courtesy of the Statists.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Haven't you heard? If we raise taxes on 1% of the population we can continue to spend like drunken sailors.

 

[The T]

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

Haven't you heard? If we raise taxes on 1% of the population we can continue to spend like drunken sailors.

As they attempt to drive those 1%er's into the poorhouse.

And these are the same people that whine, moan, complain that the RICH aren't providing jobs...coming off their wallets so the moochers can steal more at the point of a gun...

 

[Greenbeard]

But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.

You're all over the map on those one. First you seem to buy that the cuts are somehow solely to administrative spending, then you pull out the strange claim that WIC isn't discretionary spending, then you reject the CBPP's assertion that the cuts reduce spending on women, infants, and children, now you accept that argument but justify it by claiming drops in enrollment--a ten percent funding cut justified by an alleged 3 percent enrollment decrease. That dog won't hunt, Monsignor.

 

[Mustang]

Another quote:

Several Democrats noted that the bill would cut the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) nutrition program, along with several others. But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.
“We will make sure no one falls through the cracks,” Kingston added. “There are three contingency funds which can be drawn on if that happens.
Kingston and others also noted that Democrats cut more than $500 million from WIC last year, and moved the money to an unrelated account. “Where was the screaming and hollering then?” he asked.

Maybe it has something to do with the half billion the DEMOCRATS CUT LAST YEAR?

Just a thought.

I can't comment on the literal accuracy of a claim about a drop of 300,000 participants in the WIC program in the last year. However, I would ask if it was a voluntary drop or were people involutarily dropped from the program? I ask because it seems unlikely that it would be a voluntary decrease in particiaption in such tough economic times.

Maybe it has something to do with the half BILLION THE DEMS CUT LAST YEAR? From the very program they are now crying about cuts in.

I hate when people force me to do research. Personally, I wasn't inclined to believe your statement since cutting WIC doesn't sound like something Democrats would do.

So, I went to the below site.

WIC Funding & Program Data

The total funding figure for 2009 is $6,966,046,080.

The total funding figure for 2010 is $7,045,426,014.

Now, admittedly there are no figures for 2011. However, it doesn't seem likely that Democrats would reverse long-standing support for one of the most cost-effective programs the gov't provides, especially since it provides nutrition for infants and small children.

If you can provide a link to support your contention, I think we would all like to see it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

I gotta say that while cuts need to be made to the budget, when Republicans cut food assistance to women, infants, and children while insisting on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it only serves to reinforce the image of Republicans' as being cold and heartless.

Seems pretty foolish to me. It makes what they tried to do to Medicare look positively altruistic in comparison.

A spending bill to fund the nation's food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program's budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

Food Aid Cuts For Women, Children Passed By House Republicans

Maybe we ought to first stop lying saying that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the wealthy. Maybe some of those women need to stop having babies just to get more money from the nanny state. Good for the republicans.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

But Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the $686 million cut is warranted given a 300,000 drop in the number of participants in that program over the last year.

You're all over the map on those one. First you seem to buy that the cuts are somehow solely to administrative spending, then you pull out the strange claim that WIC isn't discretionary spending, then you reject the CBPP's assertion that the cuts reduce spending on women, infants, and children, now you accept that argument but justify it by claiming drops in enrollment--a ten percent funding cut justified by an alleged 3 percent enrollment decrease. That dog won't hunt, Monsignor.

I never took a position on what the cuts were. Nice try

I merely tossed out the idea that the cuts may not be to the actual aid and gave some possibilities. Albeit some of them were as admittedly dumb as some of you arguing about what was cut without the facts.

Then I did a little hunting of my own and found out I was on to something with my original train of thought. Of course some of you are so partisan you ignore 2 facts. Benefits aren't being cut. And your own party cut far more from the same program last year.

Too funny...

 

[The T]

But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

I gotta say that while cuts need to be made to the budget, when Republicans cut food assistance to women, infants, and children while insisting on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it only serves to reinforce the image of Republicans' as being cold and heartless.

Seems pretty foolish to me. It makes what they tried to do to Medicare look positively altruistic in comparison.

A spending bill to fund the nation's food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program's budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

Food Aid Cuts For Women, Children Passed By House Republicans

Maybe we ought to first stop lying saying that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the wealthy. Maybe some of those women need to stop having babies just to get more money from the nanny state. Good for the republicans.

And DO what Florida has done and stipulate Drug testing and a few other things before the taxpayer comes off the wallet for the hand-up...and make it NOT a perpetual hand out.

Responsibility is the key here. Government is being irresponsible with money that doesn't belong to them in the first place.

 

[Mustang]

But they leave farm subsidies unchanged.

I gotta say that while cuts need to be made to the budget, when Republicans cut food assistance to women, infants, and children while insisting on maintaining the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, it only serves to reinforce the image of Republicans' as being cold and heartless.

Seems pretty foolish to me. It makes what they tried to do to Medicare look positively altruistic in comparison.

A spending bill to fund the nation's food and farm programs would cut the Women, Infants and Children program, which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children, by $868 million, or 13 percent. An international food assistance program that provides emergency aid and agricultural development would drop by more than $450 million, one-third of the program's budget. The legislation passed 217-203.

As they cut other programs, lawmakers rejected two proposals that would have saved money by lowering the maximum amount of money a farmer can receive in subsidies from the government. While fiscal conservatives and other critics of subsidies argued that they need to be cut as lawmakers look for ways to save, farm-state members said those cuts should be pushed back until Congress considers a new five-year farm bill next year.

Food Aid Cuts For Women, Children Passed By House Republicans

Maybe we ought to first stop lying saying that the Bush tax cuts benefited only the wealthy. Maybe some of those women need to stop having babies just to get more money from the nanny state. Good for the republicans.

Nobody gets rich on WIC. Regardless, once a child is born, what makes more sense to you?

1. Providing the child with enough quality nutrition to hopefully thrive later in life? (AKA penny wise)

2. Putting their development in jeopardy and possibly making them a burdon on society for much longer than the years between birth and starting school? (AKA pound foolish)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Maybe it has something to do with the half billion the DEMOCRATS CUT LAST YEAR?

Just a thought.

I can't comment on the literal accuracy of a claim about a drop of 300,000 participants in the WIC program in the last year. However, I would ask if it was a voluntary drop or were people involutarily dropped from the program? I ask because it seems unlikely that it would be a voluntary decrease in particiaption in such tough economic times.

Maybe it has something to do with the half BILLION THE DEMS CUT LAST YEAR? From the very program they are now crying about cuts in.

I hate when people force me to do research. Personally, I wasn't inclined to believe your statement since cutting WIC doesn't sound like something Democrats would do.

So, I went to the below site.

WIC Funding & Program Data

The total funding figure for 2009 is $6,966,046,080.

The total funding figure for 2010 is $7,045,426,014.

Now, admittedly there are no figures for 2011. However, it doesn't seem likely that Democrats would reverse long-standing support for one of the most cost-effective programs the gov't provides, especially since it provides nutrition for infants and small children.

If you can provide a link to support your contention, I think we would all like to see it.

It was funded for a total of 6.7 billion in 2011
And I'm not gonna do your research for you. Bottom line is yes, the dems also cut the bill. And why did you claim there is no info for 2011? I found it in 2 minutes.

 

[Mustang]

Maybe it has something to do with the half BILLION THE DEMS CUT LAST YEAR? From the very program they are now crying about cuts in.

I hate when people force me to do research. Personally, I wasn't inclined to believe your statement since cutting WIC doesn't sound like something Democrats would do.

So, I went to the below site.

WIC Funding & Program Data

The total funding figure for 2009 is $6,966,046,080.

The total funding figure for 2010 is $7,045,426,014.

Now, admittedly there are no figures for 2011. However, it doesn't seem likely that Democrats would reverse long-standing support for one of the most cost-effective programs the gov't provides, especially since it provides nutrition for infants and small children.

If you can provide a link to support your contention, I think we would all like to see it.

It was funded for a total of 6.7 billion in 2011
And I'm not gonna do your research for you. Bottom line is yes, the dems also cut the bill.

No link = epic failure