RE: Women and children first. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Hillwilliam -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 5:01:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I commend Popeye for having the guts to post here. He is possibly the only non-liberal leaning poster who has done so.

*raises hand*

The libs kicked me out a long time ago.

Sanity n trucker's opinion notwithstanding




Master504u -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 5:27:08 PM)

Interesting, nothing about cuts to obama's medical program for everyone being cut. What do we need block grants for if the federal fovernment is otherwise going to pay for their medical care anyway? I do not see a problem with the dollar amounts wanting to be cut just where the cuts will be made. Having worked for the government before, I know you can cut about 1/3 to 1/2 an agencies budget just by eliminating the top 10 to 15 percent of the highest paid employees. However these employees will fire 30 percent of the lower paid employees and eliminate half the money that actually goes to the people before taking a cut of their own. We do not need 5 to 10 differrent agencies to do the same thing. Combine agencies, keep the secretaries and those that actually see where to money needs to go and everyone would probably get more in the long run.




tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 3:27:04 AM)

quote:

Interesting, nothing about cuts to obama's medical program for everyone being cut. What do we need block grants for if the federal fovernment is otherwise going to pay for their medical care anyway?


Because part of the plan is to extend Medicaid to those who previously made too much.

Poison Control has nothing to do with the Health Care Law.

The Community Health Care Centers are to be cut too.

No one is saying they dont need to be looked at. But the first one's on the chopping block? Come on!




thishereboi -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 4:59:02 AM)

quote:

Didn't think it would go differently. We are quickly coming to a time in this country when one side is going to have to subdue the other.


So you are hoping for a civil war? Red against Blue? Do you understand that attitudes like yours are destroying our country? I guess you don't care about the children. Pity that.[8|]




DomYngBlk -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 5:46:02 AM)

Income inequality, haves taking from the have nots, lack of health care, lack of jobs, lack of job security, lack of development, lack of educational opportunity...are what is tearing at the fabric of this country. My attitude is just another tear in the ocean




Lucylastic -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 10:32:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Income inequality, haves taking from the have nots, lack of health care, lack of jobs, lack of job security, lack of development, lack of educational opportunity...are what is tearing at the fabric of this country. My attitude is just another tear in the ocean

Quoted for TRUTH




NorthernGent -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 10:36:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) last week released the House Republicans first round of proposed budget cuts, laying out about $32 billion in overall cuts, but without naming any specific program reductions. Ryan has been justifying his refusal to name a specific program that he’d cut from the budget by punting to the Appropriations Committee. “[Naming specifics] is what is gonna happen in the appropriations process down the road. So I can’t tell you the answer to that because, as a budget committee person, we simply lower the cap and then those things go down,” Ryan said.

Today, the Appropriations Committee — chaired by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) — released the specific cuts that House Republicans are proposing to get below Ryan’s cap. Of course, the cuts consist of reductions to common GOP bogeymen like the National Endowment for the Arts and Amtrak. But the House Republicans have a preoccupation with cutting programs that affect women and their babies. For instance, the GOP proposed:

– Cutting $758 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which amounts to about a 6 percent cut to a program providing food assistance to low-income women and their infants.

– Cutting $210 million from Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, which amounts to about a 33 percent cut in a program giving low-income pregnant women, mothers and their children access to health care.

– Cutting $27 million from the Poison Control Center, which would essentially eliminate a program supporting local poison control centers and funding a hotline directing residents to their local poison control office. Poisoning disproportionately affects children, with half the exposures at the National Poison Control Center last year occurring to children younger than six.

The House Republicans second-largest cut is to community health centers ($1.1 billion). In 2008, about one-third of community health center patients were children.

In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, these cuts will do absolutely nothing, but they will have extremely detrimental effects for those who depend upon the targeted programs. This shows the folly of the GOP’s approach to budgeting, which leaves huge parts of the federal budget immune to cuts (like the Pentagon), while taking an axe to non-defense discretionary spending. These cuts outlined above total about $1 billion, while simply retiring (and not replacing) one carrier battle group and its aircraft wing would save $1.5 billion.

“Make no mistake, these cuts are not low-hanging fruit,” Rogers said in the statement. “These cuts are real and will impact every District across the country — including my own.” While they may impact every district, they certainly don’t spread the pain equally


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/09/gop-women-children-cuts/

Comments? Concerns? Support?



Ahhh...I thought this was going to be an interesting debate about drowning a woman and child or saving them knowing you'd die. I was about to say: drown 'em.




luckydawg -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 10:51:30 AM)

This is a very tough issue and I certainly don't know exactly what I would cut. I would be leery of cutting WIC for example.

But if we have 32 billion in proposed cuts, and about 1 billion of that is cuts to the Women and Poor(cited in the article)....

1 in 32....

Hardly seems like a targeted attack.

And makes the premising of the topic seem rather tilted and spin based.

And if the needs of the poor women and kids are being used for political spin games, it indicates.....




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 10:53:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

And makes the premising of the topic seem rather tilted and spin based.



surprise surprise surprise




tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 11:21:01 AM)

quote:

Ryan and other Republican leaders, backing away from campaign promises of $100 billion in cuts, will instead seek to pare $43 billion from in non-security discretionary programs, compared to 2010 levels. The Defense Department would see an $8 billion, or 2 percent, increase under the plan.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-03/republicans-plan-35-billion-cut-from-2010-levels.html

Now, explain to me how the DoD needs 8 Billion while we are cutting 1 Billion from women and children?




eihwaz -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 7:25:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Now, explain to me how the DoD needs 8 Billion while we are cutting 1 Billion from women and children?

To better protect women and children? [:D]




tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 9:40:58 PM)

~blows Hill... a kiss

Sorry, I did miss your post. Im now correctly chastized and honor your presense.

(am I forgiven now?)




tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 9:41:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Now, explain to me how the DoD needs 8 Billion while we are cutting 1 Billion from women and children?

To better protect women and children? [:D]



Protection for a group of people that will starve to death, probably after being denied whatever medical care they need.

Hmmm... the possibilities.




StuntmanMike -> RE: Women and children first. (2/24/2011 9:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Protection for a group of people that will starve to death, probably after being denied whatever medical care they need.

Hmmm... the possibilities.


Perhaps starvation will teach them not to rely on others while continuing to squat out babies with reckless abandon.

We need licenses to drive, to hunt, even to fish. But any idiot who refuses to keep her legs closed can become a parent and expect free money solely for having a child.

And people wonder why our society is in decline.




luckydawg -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 2:38:10 AM)

Starve to death? Really lets leave the histronics aside and deal with things.

My 2 cents is that cutting WIC is crazy. Not because anyone is going to starve to death, but inadaquate nutrition in childhood has terrible reprecusions for the future citizen. On many levels.




tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 4:57:17 AM)

Yes, starve to death, among other complications.

Starvation isnt that impossible in an infant. Neither is water intoxication.

Ever seen the effects of watering down infant formula to make it stretch farther?

No offence, but, when you make statements like that, please know what you are talking about.







DomYngBlk -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 5:25:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

This is a very tough issue and I certainly don't know exactly what I would cut. I would be leery of cutting WIC for example.

But if we have 32 billion in proposed cuts, and about 1 billion of that is cuts to the Women and Poor(cited in the article)....

1 in 32....

Hardly seems like a targeted attack.

And makes the premising of the topic seem rather tilted and spin based.

And if the needs of the poor women and kids are being used for political spin games, it indicates.....


Uh, I don't know. Something near 80 billion a year to run the wars? Hey look 80 billion all we have to do is save our own countrymens lives and bring them home!.......

Outside of that. Cutting back on helping the poor will only make life in places like this worse: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/countryboys/readings/duncan.html





Hillwilliam -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 5:28:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

~blows Hill... a kiss

Sorry, I did miss your post. Im now correctly chastized and honor your presense.

(am I forgiven now?)

coitenly....ya dang librul.

[8D]




Moonhead -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 5:35:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
In other words, I didn't just fall off the banana boat.


I really hope that's just a thoughtless Palinism (using a term you don't understand every sense of) rather than immigrant bashing.

Day-o! Da-aa-aay-o!




thishereboi -> RE: Women and children first. (2/25/2011 7:01:27 AM)

quote:

Ever seen the effects of watering down infant formula to make it stretch farther?


Well they wouldn't get as much nutrition, but that would be the only problem.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875