RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (Full Version)

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



Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:21:14 PM)

whine whine whine whine whine
compounding your own inability to discern plain english and attempt to spin, is just pathetic even for you
go ahead attack me all you care too ,Im not playing your game or Aylees
so just whine some more



tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:27:43 PM)

I think she called me a liar.


Anyone remember this little number?


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.

Now, as I said then, and will say now, I am not saying these programs couldn't use some trimming. What I am saying is that these cuts should not jeopardize those in the greatest of need.



Aylee -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:28:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

She was the one that used Fuck first dearie,

Where?

quote:

called me a liar too,



Actually I said that it was lies and that you and Tazzy are spreading them. I think that it is because you have limited math skills.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities" source mentioned in the quote claims to be nonpartisan but the headlines on its home page all scream that theyre far left tax-and-spend liars


Sanity, I am getting all of my information from the House Appropriations Agricultural Bill Summery for FY 2012 that Lucy linked to. It appears that they did not read or possibly comprehend it. Or perhaps it is because it has been so long since Congress has passed a budget they have forgotten how it works. Who knows?



tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:30:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I will wait till you catch up.


Cutting from a requested amount does NOT equal a cut in the program. Especially with a 3 billion mandatory increase.

Let me put it in a simpler analogy:

Your kid gets a $20 / week allowance.

He requests you to up it to $50 / week.

You tell him 'no' but that he can have $25 / week.

You did NOT cut his allowence by $25 / week.

You cut his REQUEST by $25 / week.

Do you see the difference?


Yes, you are comparing the increase of an allowance with the ability for some people to eat.

If it costs 75 to feed your family for a week, and prices are going up, so you request an additional 25 to cover the new expences, and you are told no... someone isnt eating.

Food costs are going up. Who isnt eating tonight?



tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:31:50 PM)

quote:

Actually I said that it was lies and that you and Tazzy are spreading them. I think that it is because you have limited math skills.


My math skills are just fine, thank you very much. I happen to be able to add up the fact that with food prices going up, even a cut to requests means someone isnt eating.



mnottertail -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:34:51 PM)





*Table is an illustrative summary of program funding and does not include every account funded in the bill. The line items do not total to the final amounts.



Aylee -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:36:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Yes, you are comparing the increase of an allowance with the ability for some people to eat.

If it costs 75 to feed your family for a week, and prices are going up, so you request an additional 25 to cover the new expences, and you are told no... someone isnt eating.

Food costs are going up. Who isnt eating tonight?


You are deliberately missing the point.

And I have already quoted where they have set aside funds for food price increases.



tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:37:15 PM)

And Lucy showed the numbers that would be turned away. Your point?



Lucylastic -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:39:13 PM)

Aylee, I apologise you did not use Fuck.
however,just continue to gloat, spin, obfuscate the fact that WIC will loose out
Despicable but informative
I am not spreading lies and or bullshit, so I have no more to discuss with you.



mnottertail -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:39:26 PM)

and I showed the caveat at the bottom of the fairytale written by the chair.  Sorta like a CEO message at the beginning of a Balance sheet that aint gonna make GAAP.

The numbers in the mirror may actually not be following you.



tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:41:53 PM)

I glanced at the balance sheet. What I am talking about has nothing to do with that sheet.



Aylee -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:54:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And Lucy showed the numbers that would be turned away. Your point?


I do not accept numbers from a vague source known only as, "economists," which is what that Center place cites. It is bad research and a bad source. And the numbers do not make sense. A 2% increase effects over 300,000 but an additional 3% will effect less than 200,000 more? That is some interesting admin cost scaling.




tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 12:55:45 PM)

According to the Government Accountability Office, every dollar invested in WIC “generated $2.89 in health care savings during the first year after birth and $3.50 in savings over 18 years.” As Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said regarding an earlier attempt by Republicans to cut WIC, “On two levels [the cuts are] wrong. One is they’re wrong morally…But on a second level it’s fiscally stupid, because if you don’t feed kids, if you don’t feed mothers and get them up to speed, they deliver a low birth-weight baby that then you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with in the premie units of hospitals.”



SternSkipper -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:04:22 PM)

quote:

In terms of absolute numbers how do Maintenance Of Azalea Collection and the financial aid to low income women compare?


It's a human priorities thing. I doubt you'd understand.

But just in case you're actually interested. There are these people called single mothers. They in turn have one or more offspring for whom they are responsible. In order to fulfill that responsibility they'll need food, warm clothing and other basics.
Now, due to a variety of economic circumstances (which for those of us breathing an actual oxygen/nitriogen/CO2 mix know there are MANY right now... we call that a recession). So, since the government and those of it's constituents who have a CONSCIENCE don't want to see children under the age of 5 starving or their moms having choose between living on the street or in a shelter and feeding their kids, they came up with a program called WIC that ensures that certain nutritional/ basic need items are available to said mothers. Babies don't starve, mothers pay rent, early life survival is afforded to those human babies you apparently have trouble understanding.

Okay, so now we have man arboretum full of very rugged Azalea bushes... at least on the east coast of North America, you can let them go to weed and THEY WILL THRIVE. So, it would follow that during times of particular hardship, that Americans can afford to let the aesthetic niceties move to last on the list and get funding ONLY if the human needs of those in need are taken care of. If you stopped paying to prune the Azaleas and the other collections. The Society that created the Arboretum would pick up the ball quickly, cause they're all good people and they know as members it's worth it to them. Or, they let it go to weeds and come back and spruce it up when times are better
  And as far as this real numbers comparison goes... read this below cause they're looking for AT LEAST 2 Million from Donors:

"1) On February 14, 2011, non-profit Friends of the National Arboretum (FONA) started an endowment fund to “maintain and preserve the azalea and boxwood collections” by securing a $1 million gift. They need a total of $2 million for this fund called Save The Azalea and Boxwood Collections. The same day National Arboretum announced it was suspending actons to remove the Glenn Dale Azaleas from their extensive collection of azaleas, as well as the National Boxwood and Perennial Collections. 2) On March 10, 2011, the U.S. National Arboretum convened a meeting of over 30 representatives from the societies most involved with the Arboretum. These are called stakeholders since they have a stake in the operation of the Arboretum. This meeting emphasized the need for the Arboretum to rebuild trust with the stakeholders by consulting with stakeholders and informing them of any changes in the plans of the Arboretum. Hopefully this meeting was just the first in an ongoing series of stakeholder meetings."
STAKE HOLDER ... whahahahahaha-ha-fucking-ha
WHAT THE FUCK is a 'stakeholder' when it comes to Azaleas vs children?

Okay, so you tell us... EVEN if it's 'only' $2 million in matching funds the fed co-sponsors with, in times of massive budgetary concerns, do we even have time to waste on shit like azaleas?
The sober answer is - If it keeps even just a few thousand children from experiencing starvation or anything approaching that, I say mow the azaleas, and slap the GOP for wasting their time AND OUR MONEY on shrubs.

Because in truth, here's what will happen... JUST AS IT DID IN THE PAST: (Washington Post)

"Last year, The Washington Post reported that the financially strapped Arboretum was considering removing some of the beloved shrubs to deal with budget shortfalls, including the loss of private donations.   After public outcry and a $1 million endowment gift from an anonymous donor, the Arboretum announced in February that it was reversing its decision."
Cut their funding and you'll see the head of the Arboretum Society on the cover of the weekend section  brandishing a Nine holding a potted azalea with the caption "nobody move or the azalea gets it".   And a week later some trophy wife (or some old GOP with knowledge of numerous affairs and a good attorney) will say "Darling, write a check with some of that tax cut you're getting and give the arboretum a few million dollars or I will divorce you for being cheap".





tazzygirl -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:06:31 PM)

Thank You! My point exactly!



SternSkipper -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:09:46 PM)

quote:

According to the Government Accountability Office, every dollar invested in WIC “generated $2.89 in health care savings during the first year after birth and $3.50 in savings over 18 years.” As Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said regarding an earlier attempt by Republicans to cut WIC, “On two levels [the cuts are] wrong. One is they’re wrong morally…But on a second level it’s fiscally stupid, because if you don’t feed kids, if you don’t feed mothers and get them up to speed, they deliver a low birth-weight baby that then you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with in the premie units of hospitals.”


Yep, nourished kids cost less. My kids eat great and they go to the doctor once a year and don't even need shots at this age. But see, it's impossible to determine how 5 year olds will vote in 13 years, so they are a risky investment.  Plus several of them may become upwardly mobile and we'd have to let them into the racquet club. How could a good conservative reconcile something like that?[:D]



SternSkipper -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:12:10 PM)

quote:

Thank You! My point exactly!


I'll be happy to pose as the Arboretum Director... I look very menacing when I put on my "just read the National Enquirer ... Uh I mean Fox News website again" face.




juliaoceania -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:17:27 PM)

quote:

Yep, nourished kids cost less.


Not only from a healthcare point of view, but also from an educational point of view. Kids that are well nourished do better in school, require less special educational services, and that equals less likely to also be a behavioral problem... which in the end saves us money even on the our overburdened prison system.

It is a win win win win win.... at every step it saves us money over the course of a child's life. So even if we were to say "screw it, we can't afford to be feeding poor people", in the long run, we really cannot afford not to.

Part of the problem is this corporatization of our culture that stretches into the public sector. We have begun looking at costs and benefits as a yearly, or even a quarterly statement, instead of looking at long term investments that do not become profitable for a generation. If our ancestors had the same attitude as we do, nothing great would have ever been built in this country

We need people with foresight, not shortsighted self centered greedy cretins



Hillwilliam -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:27:11 PM)

Azaleas typically grow in the form of a BUSH.


coincidence? I dont fucking THINK so. [8D]



SternSkipper -> RE: Cutting assistance, but keeping up the azaleas (6/14/2011 1:54:24 PM)

quote:

Azaleas typically grow in the form of a BUSH.


coincidence? I dont fucking THINK so.


HEY ... Stop bogarting the Joint![:D]




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.298828E-02