Women and children first.

Women and children first. (Full Version)

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

Message

tazzygirl -> Women and children first. (2/22/2011 8:49:28 PM)
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?

DarkSteven -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 9:08:35 PM)
This is beyond ridiculous. The only sane way to do this would be to have bipartisan groups look at the agencies/programs and do the obvious things like see how many pennies in benefits are delivered per dollar of funding, how effective programs are when compared to private sector programs, etc. The sorts of things that any private sector company would do prior to cutting. Done the way described, what will happen is that each and every program will make damn sure that any cuts in its budgets will result in horrible nonperformance and flawed performance, thus justifying that their funding is needed. And then the pols that advocated cutting will look like the bad guys. I cannot believe the level of stupidity that is being shown.

Marini -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 9:10:31 PM)
Hiya tazzy, I have many comments and concerns. One reason I started that thread about "what happens if the governement closes a few days", is because what is on the table is so very important, the proposed budget cuts need to be examined and known publically for all that are interested. I don't want anything "passed" quickly and in the middle of the night, just to keep the damn government rolling. The stakes right now, are too damn high, and it seems to me that many are clueless on the far-reaching and long term impact on the American citizens. As I said, if some of these budget cuts are passed, I think they should immediately set up a large tent city for the disenfranchised to live in. Great post!

tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 9:16:18 PM)
Planned Parenthood is also under attack. The measure would eliminate about $330 million through the end of September for preventative-health services, including federal funding for contraception and cancer screenings, at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. ........ "There is a vendetta against Planned Parenthood, and it was played out in this room tonight," Speier continued. "Planned Parenthood has a right to operate. Planned Parenthood has a right to provide services for family planning. Planned Parenthood has a right to offer abortions. Last time you checked abortions were legal in this country." Speier went on. "Now you may not like Planned Parenthood, so be it. There's many on our side of the aisle that don't like Halliburton. And Halliburton is responsible for extortion, for bribery, for 10 cases of misconduct in the federal database, for a $7 billion sole-source contract. But do you see us over here filing amendments to wipe out funding for Halliburton? No, because frankly that would be irresponsible. I would suggest to you it would serve us all very well if we moved on with this process and started focusing on creating jobs for the Americans who desperately want them." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-votes-strip-planned-parenthood-federal-funding/story?id=12951080

joether -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 9:45:24 PM)
Republicans can shout all they want with regards to cutting here or there. All of this has to past the Senata and the Office of the President. Last I checked, both of those are in control of Democrats. If Republicans want to come to the table like civilized adults, that's one thing; but coming to the table with the ususual cuts, will not get them to far. They will try every tactic in the book, including smearing people personally and threating to shut down the goverment. Frankly, if they are the cause of a goverment shut down, I say put 'em in shackles and up on trial for treason! I'm sure the remaining Republicans will either spontaneously grow a brain and come to the table as adults, or join their comrades at the courthouse. Most conservatives (inlcuding 92% of the ones on this forum) do not understand how much $10 Billion actually creates and maintains in jobs for the country. The amount of jobs created by $100 Billion is actually MORE then ten times from the $10 Billion (scale of economies). So, they believe it makes good, rational sense, to cut out money, forcing goverment people into the unemployment market.....DURING......a recession. Not only that, but the scores of American small businesses (including many well known large corporations) that will be forced to lay employees directly (business to goverment contracts) or indirectly (those goverment employees need cloths TOO...). It simply blows my mind that conservatives REALLY are this retarded on the concept. As DarkSteven pointed out above, that reducing a program without understanding what is being reduced, or the effect that reduction will have on the program going forward, needs to be weighed and studied carefully. Since to draw to much out, without proper study, would unbalance the program and create MORE waste then there should be. If conservatives/Republicans want to be taken seriously, they should come to the table with things they want cut, and then things they dont want to cut. As we know, this will never happen, since conservatives do not know the meaning of 'give and take' but only 'take'. Being selfish only further removes the chances of an agreement being reached. Personally, I predict we'll have to raise taxes to pay for the national debt, and show 'good faith' towards our credititors. We can either do it now, and have a low number; or wait a few years with our heads up our butts in 'never, neverland' and pay a higher percentage rate then. Since it was the irresponsable Republicans that created the staggeringly high debt we now have. Wouldn't it be nice of conservatives (who voted for those Republicans) to actually be responsible for their actions? Since they are often demanding the same of liberals/Democrats.

tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 9:47:45 PM)
Im not saying these programs dont need cuts. Im sure all the programs that are federally funded could benefit from some streamlining. Just seems like they are picking on those who voted Obama in. Think about it.

BenevolentM -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 10:00:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven This is beyond ridiculous. The only sane way to do this would be to have bipartisan groups look at the agencies/programs and do the obvious things like see how many pennies in benefits are delivered per dollar of funding, how effective programs are when compared to private sector programs, etc. The sorts of things that any private sector company would do prior to cutting. Done the way described, what will happen is that each and every program will make damn sure that any cuts in its budgets will result in horrible nonperformance and flawed performance, thus justifying that their funding is needed. And then the pols that advocated cutting will look like the bad guys. I cannot believe the level of stupidity that is being shown. What you wrote seems plausible to me, but there are a lot of things they could be doing to get it right and don't. What is mysterious is why they don't bother with getting anything right. They don't want to take the time. When this is brought to their attention they act as if taking their time would constitute an immoral act. This is what freshmen legislators and congressmen are taught to believe (1). Footnote 1 I know this because it's called life experience and I have enough of it to know these sorts of things. In other words, I didn't just fall off the banana boat.

BenevolentM -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 10:07:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im not saying these programs dont need cuts. Im sure all the programs that are federally funded could benefit from some streamlining. Just seems like they are picking on those who voted Obama in. Think about it. No, it seems to me that a deal was made. In continuation of post 7 in reply to DarkSteven. If all of this is about deals having been made, do you really want the freshmen to think?

tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 10:12:51 PM)
Paul Ryan (R-WI), serving since 1999. Hal Rogers (R-KY), serving since 1981. I would hardly call them "freshmen".

WyldHrt -> RE: Women and children first. (2/22/2011 11:57:51 PM)
There is 'fat' in every gov't funded agency and program; and the same goes for most private companies... and most of said fat is at or near the top of the 'food chain'. The norm these days is for both publicly funded agencies/ programs and private corporations to be very 'top heavy', with too many overpaid paper pusher 'managers' and not enough people doing the actual work. Making non-specific 'cuts' to budgets is useless, as they are handled by said paper pushers, who will screw the people under them to cover their asses and those of their buddies. Result? The agency, program or company fails in its mission. A much better plan would be to target the 'fat', force the management to streamline, and root out those who are coasting along without actually contributing anything of substance to the goal of the organization. Hillwilliam made a great point in the recent Wisconsin thread when he said that the administration of many public school systems is cumbersome, overstaffed by people who never did the job in the first place, and obviously useless to those who are actually doing the job. winks at HW, did you think I wasn't paying attention? [:D] quote: while simply retiring (and not replacing) one carrier battle group and its aircraft wing would save $1.5 billion. Bad idea. Target the staff pukes and no loads pushing paper in Washington or elsewhere all you want (and I am with you on that), but as I said, wholesale cuts are a bad, bad thing. I had a whole dealio (read: rant) typed out about de-commissioning needed units protecting our security, but I won't hit my head on a brick wall.

hlen5 -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 12:17:05 AM)
These cuts are pennywise and pound foolish. It sure is a lot safer to cut benefits to those with few resources vs those who can help refinance your political campaign.

BenevolentM -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 1:13:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Paul Ryan (R-WI), serving since 1999. Hal Rogers (R-KY), serving since 1981. I would hardly call them "freshmen". Rolling my eyes. I could explain it to you how these facts are irrelevant, but what would be the point? The microscopic details do not matter and that is how they see it too.

DomKen -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 3:00:52 AM)
Bizarrely the House GOP wants to increase spending on Defence. From 526 billion in 2010 to 533 billion.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 5:40:21 AM)
I see this as grandstanding. Step 1. The House will push all these cuts to services of those who need it most. Step 2. The Senate and/or POTUS will kill those cuts as uncoscionable. Step 3. The Republicans will immediately start whining about they are doing their dead level BEST to balance the budget and make cuts and even give a nice big dollar amount. B-b-b-b-but those mean old Democrats blocked us. Step 4. Insert the proper amount of indignation by Rush and Beck and Palin. Step 5. Take even MORE money from your fat corporate donors to keep the tax man off their ass for another 2 years.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 7:51:56 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? 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.

popeye1250 -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 10:40:17 AM)
They should end foreign aid. That's $49 Billion and then they could keep all that $32 Billion and have $17 B left over. They shouldn't be cutting from Americans first. Cut the State Dept by 50%, we don't need to have lavish embasseys in third world countries. End the Dept of Energy and Education. And why do we need 12 Carrier battle groups? Just have six. There's plenty that could be cut in Defense, an Army division or two, a couple of A.F. wings, close bases in S. Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy. We simply can't afford to be the world's policeman/ rescue service anymore! And close that Mexican border. Illegal aliens cost us $113 B last year! I agree with you Tazzy. There's plenty of FAT to cut before cutting programs for women and children!

eihwaz -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 1:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven This is beyond ridiculous. The only sane way to do this would be to have bipartisan groups look at the agencies/programs and do the obvious things like see how many pennies in benefits are delivered per dollar of funding, how effective programs are when compared to private sector programs, etc. The sorts of things that any private sector company would do prior to cutting. There you go, thinking like a liberal! [:D] The proposed cuts are ideological. The GOP budgeteers want to be viewed as excising "socialism" from the government. ETA Eisenhower quote "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

jlf1961 -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 2:34:26 PM)
Republican and conservative philosophy, "If you aint rich, live on social security, depend on help for health care, fuck you and die." In the perfect Republican United States, the people making more than half a million would control the country and everyone else would either be servants, starving to death, or dieing from health problems that could be cured with antibiotics.

tazzygirl -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 2:39:47 PM)
I commend Popeye for having the guts to post here. He is possibly the only non-liberal leaning poster who has done so.

rulemylife -> RE: Women and children first. (2/23/2011 2:52:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BenevolentM I know this because it's called life experience and I have enough of it to know these sorts of things. In other words, I didn't just fall off the banana boat. Then it must have been the coconut tree.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875