GOP House To Cut Aid For Pregnant Women, Children While Spending $17 Billion More On Defense

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-adds-defense/

This really doesnt help the country. Your just increasing the social and economic divide within this country while propping up the military. Lessons should be learn from history when empires have literally fallen because the country was spending too much on its military and too little on its people.

Today, the Republican-controlled House will begin another onslaught on programs designed to help low-income and middle class families. The GOP quite literally wants to take food from the mouths of children, cutting $47 billion — or 10 percent — from domestic programs, to pay for more defense spending. In negotiations to reach a debt ceiling compromise, Republicans have declared defense cuts “off the table,” even though Pentagon spending is notoriously bloated and Secretary of Defense Gates and other top generals have admitted spending should be curtailed:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But the GOP-dominated chamber will soon resume its budget-slashing ways as it kicks off debate Tuesday on a food and farm spending bill that cuts aid for low-income pregnant women and their children and slashes a key overseas food aid program by about one-third below this year’s funding.
At the same time, the Appropriations Committee is set to approve a $649 billion measure that slightly boosts the Pentagon’s operating budget [...]
Once money is added for programs like defense, veterans and homeland security, spending on domestic programs like food aid for the poor, education, health care and housing subsidies falls to levels where lawmakers are going to find it difficult. After a $17 billion increase for the Pentagon is factored in, domestic agencies and foreign aid programs would absorb cuts of $47 billion that would translate into cuts averaging about 10 percent.

Essential programs on the chopping block include the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Commodity Supplemental Food programs, which both help low-income people get nutritional food. Hundreds of thousands of people will be cut from the programs if House Republicans get their way. WIC “provides healthy foods like milk, eggs and infant formula to about 9 million poor mothers and pregnant women and their children,” and would absorb a $868 million cut under the GOP bill, which falls $1.3 billion short of what’s needed to adequately fund the program with food prices on the rise.

The GOP measure also calls for cuts to food safety programs, a childhood obesity initiative backed by First Lady Michele Obama, and food aid for senior citizens:

The bill also cuts a program that delivers food to low-income senior citizens 23 percent below current levels. The popular Food for Peace program, which uses taxpayer dollars to buy U.S. commodities and ships them to deprived areas in Africa and elsewhere across the globe, would absorb a $457 million cut of almost one-third. The White House says that would translate into 1.1 million fewer people getting U.S. food aid.

Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) spoke out against the GOP’s callousness, saying, “Tightening our belts is one thing. But people who depend on supplemental food programs, like WIC, or food stamps, or school lunches, have belts that are already cinched.”

Yesterday, the White House blasted the proposed deep cuts to food programs, saying it would leave children and mothers hungry, but stopped short of threatening a veto.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Who knocked up the women?

[chamaeleo]

Who knocked up the women?

Republicans, obviously!

[MathiasOfAthens]

Whats your point?

Besides they are cutting 47 billion from domestic programs only to spend 17 billion on the military. 47,000,000,000 can help a lot of ing people.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Whats your point?

My point is that it isnt my job to pay for someone elses kids. I have my own kids to pay for. You want to help pregnant women, then find the so-called fathers.

Besides they are cutting 47 billion from domestic programs only to spend 17 billion on the military. 47,000,000,000 can help a lot of ing people.

Also, use a real news source, not a biased blog site for your information.

First point, the GOP controlled House cant do a damn thing without the Presidents signature. Notice the last line of the article that says Obama wont veto.

Second point, 47 billion is a far cry from the amount of money in all programs that help women and children. While this particular program might lose 47 billion (which it probably need to) every other program is going up. How many programs do we need? How much money could we save by consolidating all these programs? More than 47 billion I suspect.

Third point, if we cut all military spending, as some suggest, how many people will that put out of work? Nobody ever talks about that.

Fourth point, the Food for Peace program is a complete failure. They mention a 457 million cut to this program (over several years I might add), but dont tell you how much the entire budget for this program is. If they are cutting that much then the entire budget must be enormous. So we have been giving the food, where the hell is the peace?

The sad reality is that we cannot continue these levels of spending. Even if we eliminated the entire military budget, we would still be deficit spending. The $14 trillion deficit is a joke because of how they do accounting. If you apply the same methods the government forces a business to use, then the real number is more like $61 trillion. This is old news, but nobody ever talks about it.

Its time for people to figure out how to live without sponging off other people.


EDIT: Point number 5, which proves this entire article to be complete BS. Do the math. The article claims that "hundreds of thousands of people will be cut from the program."

Ok lets use their numbers, times 2 or 3, and say that 1 million people will be entirely cut from the program.

47,000,000,000 cut ÷ 1,000,000 people = $47,000 each. Are you telling me we are currently giving $47,000 to each person on that program?

Someone is completely exaggerating here. Its not hard to figure out who.

[MathiasOfAthens]

My point is that it isnt my job to pay for someone elses kids. I have my own kids to pay for. You want to help pregnant women, then find the so-called fathers.

Nobody is forcing you to pay for someone elses kids mate... You pay taxes to support the society in which you live in. Welfare, social aid, etc doesnt just pay for someone elses kids. It provides for the kid to become a productive member of society. As well as the parent... she can get supplemental income while still working and eventually become stable and stop living off the state. But without this forms of protection and aid your only create a society in which no one would want to live in. You wouldnt want to drive your car down run-down neighborhoods... thats why you live in the fanciest neighborhood you can afford.

Also, use a real news source, not a biased blog site for your information.

Didnt look for any other source but I do realize it is a blog but as you can clearly see for yourself if you clicked the link the page has sources embedded within the article. Thats clearly a reputable source then.

First point, the GOP controlled House cant do a damn thing without the Presidents signature. Notice the last line of the article that says Obama wont veto.

Still doesnt change the fact that the GOP wants to punish children... but force parents to raise kids their cant afford.
[QUOTE]
Second point, 47 billion is a far cry from the amount of money in all programs that help women and children. While this particular program might lose 47 billion (which it probably need to) every other program is going up. How many programs do we need? How much money could we save by consolidating all these programs? More than 47 billion I suspect.[QUOTE]
Regardless of how much the budget currently allocates 47 billion is still a lot. Is the GOP suggesting we consolidate or cut?

Third point, if we cut all military spending, as some suggest, how many people will that put out of work? Nobody ever talks about that.

Nobody is suggesting this though... obviously we fighting some wars now and we cant cut. There was a recession following ww1 directly caused by the soldiers returning to no jobs... not to mention few programs to help the unemployed. People forget that that was one of the major reasons why Unemployment Insurance was nationalized... because of the post ww1 recession.

Fourth point, the Food for Peace program is a complete failure. They mention a 457 million cut to this program (over several years I might add), but dont tell you how much the entire budget for this program is. If they are cutting that much then the entire budget must be enormous. So we have been giving the food, where the hell is the peace?

Its not a completely failure... otherwise war is a completely failure since idk 1783. Why are we not at peace yet if we have won nearly every war since becoming a country.

The sad reality is that we cannot continue these levels of spending. Even if we eliminated the entire military budget, we would still be deficit spending. The $14 trillion deficit is a joke because of how they do accounting. If you apply the same methods the government forces a business to use, then the real number is more like $61 trillion. This is old news, but nobody ever talks about it.

Its time for people to figure out how to live without sponging off other people.

Obviously we cant continue this level of spending but neither can we afford to keep cutting taxes.

You made the analogy that cutting money to the military will lose jobs. Cutting financial aid will harm families and cut jobs as well...

[GrnEyedDvl]

Nobody is forcing you to pay for someone elses kids mate...

Actually, they are.

You pay taxes to support the society in which you live in.

Wrong. I pay taxes so the government can do the things it is constitutionally required to do. Big difference.

Welfare, social aid, etc doesnt just pay for someone elses kids. It provides for the kid to become a productive member of society. As well as the parent... she can get supplemental income while still working and eventually become stable and stop living off the state. But without this forms of protection and aid your only create a society in which no one would want to live in.

I dont have issues with the idea of the so-called "safety net", and I agree the goal is to get people off the programs. However we have FAR too many people that are on these programs their entire lives, or even generations. They think its the governments job to support them. There are far too many people who think the government is there to pay their bills. These two idiots arent the only ones who think this, I am not even sure they are in the minority when it comes to people on these programs anymore.

You wouldnt want to drive your car down run-down neighborhoods... thats why you live in the fanciest neighborhood you can afford.

Actually, I dont. I live fairly cheaply compared to my income.

Still doesnt change the fact that the GOP wants to punish children... but force parents to raise kids their cant afford.

I am so tired of semantics like that. Nobody wants to punish children. I could turn that around and say Dems want to punish me for being successful. Its a BS way to make an argument.

Regardless of how much the budget currently allocates 47 billion is still a lot. Is the GOP suggesting we consolidate or cut?

There is no regardless, we use percentages as a way of comparison. This is like taking two pennies out of a suitcase full of pennies.

Obviously we cant continue this level of spending but neither can we afford to keep cutting taxes.

Taxation reaches a point that it is counter productive, and actually costs jobs. Lowering taxes stimulates job growth. It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan, hell it even worked for Clinton.

Cutting financial aid will harm families and cut jobs as well...

Just who is going to lose their job when we cut financial aid? The only job involved is a government job, the guy processing the checks.

[kentuckybandit]

Still doesnt change the fact that the GOP wants to punish children...

Oh I love it. Just how the dems want to punish me for not being poor, ignorant and lazy?

[MathiasOfAthens]

Actually, they are.

Ok we have to agree to disagree. This is an opinion based on how you look at things because I agreed then basically the Republicans are forcing me to pay for corporations subsidies, politicians farms, corporate bailouts of corporations I dont like, tax breaks and other , and any number of I dont like that congress enacts.

Wrong. I pay taxes so the government can do the things it is constitutionally required to do. Big difference.

Like what exactly because the Constitution does not specifically forbid welfare spending or spending money on domestic programs. Neither does it mention an Airforce or a Coast Guard, nor a Marine Corps. It doesnt even mention aid to other countries, dictators like the former dictator of Pakistan. Constitution doesnt even mention Primaries or Political Parties so theres a lot of things we do the constitution doesnt specifically mention. Why you only picking on domestic spending for the poor? Aid that helps lift people out of poverty? If not the state then who will life the destitute out of their poverty?

I dont have issues with the idea of the so-called "safety net", and I agree the goal is to get people off the programs. However we have FAR too many people that are on these programs their entire lives, or even generations. They think its the governments job to support them. There are far too many people who think the government is there to pay their bills. These two idiots arent the only ones who think this, I am not even sure they are in the minority when it comes to people on these programs anymore.

Ok I see your point... unfortunately some people will choose to live off these programs. Their choices should not destroy other peoples chances at getting help. Plus during recessions unemployment aid typically increases which is logical if you assume these safety nets are meant to get people through the recessions when the market forces take a downturn some corporations and companies will be forced to lay people off... those layed off for reasons not their own need to get by until the market turns around and they can get a new job. Thats just how the modern economy works.

Plus the aid can help people get to new markets. Say their town or city is hit hard in a specific area of work. They could move to another town to find work knowing they will have some form of assistance once they get there.


Not even worth responding to really... here you posted a video of some random black girl saying something completely random and you think it proves your point about what exactly?

Actually, I dont. I live fairly cheaply compared to my income.

lol reread the quote, I phrased it very specifically.

thats why you live in the fanciest neighborhood you can afford.

We all live in the fanciest neighborhood we can afford. I live an apartment for around 700-800 dollars a month, not sure what it is in US dollars, I am living out of the country now. The same apartment may go for 1400 in the states.

I am so tired of semantics like that. Nobody wants to punish children. I could turn that around and say Dems want to punish me for being successful. Its a BS way to make an argument.

I toned it down too... Originally I was going to write You guys are trying to kill the children but I thought that might of been too rough. Anyway semantics like how you said earlier dems are forcing you to pay for other peoples children.

There is no regardless, we use percentages as a way of comparison. This is like taking two pennies out of a suitcase full of pennies.

No its not man... unless your a freaking trillionaire 47 Billion with a B is a little bit of money compared to the overall budget but what the money is spent on effects millions... helps thousands of low income families and their children. So dont give me that argument that this is chump change because its not. Its a lot of ing money that is or could be spent on low income families to get them by and help them pay their bills. To give a kid a lunch one day or put food on the table. Children are most susceptible to malnutrition. Without a proper diet they developer slower which affects their brain cognition and reasoning. The conservative argument to balance the budget may in fact be leading to malnutritioned children who grow up to become less capable adults.

Taxation reaches a point that it is counter productive, and actually costs jobs. Lowering taxes stimulates job growth. It worked for JFK, it worked for Reagan, hell it even worked for Clinton.

And were definitely not at that point now so this argument is mute. Besides Republicans are arguing we should lower the rate even more... as if not enough jobs are being created now and the deficit isnt getting smaller so lets increase the amount of debt we have. Its foolish logic. Like how some say we should widen a road to reduce congestion.

Just who is going to lose their job when we cut financial aid? The only job involved is a government job, the guy processing the checks.

Were cutting the aid to the poor. Fewer funds equal less people who get approved, obviously. Like you said government offices in some districts may close to save some funds to continue helping families.

Anyway, the economy still gets worse if people cant spend money even welfare checks. Families need food and stores need to sell their supplies. The money will put food on the table and keep stores in business saving jobs. No wonder recessions affect sales and stores are forced to lay people off.

Oh I love it. Just how the dems want to punish me for not being poor, ignorant and lazy?

God man. Dems are not punishing you for not being poor. You earn more so you can pay more. Thats fair. Honestly man do you want a man earning millions a year paying the same amount of money in taxes as a man making 20,000 a year? nm of course you do.

[Cougar109]

My point is that it isnt my job to pay for someone elses kids. I have my own kids to pay for. You want to help pregnant women, then find the so-called fathers.




Also, use a real news source, not a biased blog site for your information.

First point, the GOP controlled House cant do a damn thing without the Presidents signature. Notice the last line of the article that says Obama wont veto.

Second point, 47 billion is a far cry from the amount of money in all programs that help women and children. While this particular program might lose 47 billion (which it probably need to) every other program is going up. How many programs do we need? How much money could we save by consolidating all these programs? More than 47 billion I suspect.

Third point, if we cut all military spending, as some suggest, how many people will that put out of work? Nobody ever talks about that.

Fourth point, the Food for Peace program is a complete failure. They mention a 457 million cut to this program (over several years I might add), but dont tell you how much the entire budget for this program is. If they are cutting that much then the entire budget must be enormous. So we have been giving the food, where the hell is the peace?

The sad reality is that we cannot continue these levels of spending. Even if we eliminated the entire military budget, we would still be deficit spending. The $14 trillion deficit is a joke because of how they do accounting. If you apply the same methods the government forces a business to use, then the real number is more like $61 trillion. This is old news, but nobody ever talks about it.

Its time for people to figure out how to live without sponging off other people.

Nor do they talk about the people who'd be put out of work by slashing the entitlement programs. That massive bureaucratic nightmare isn't run by magic robots. It's the unfortunate side effect have having the government either directly or indirectly responsible for the employment of so many. When it comes time to trim the budget people are going to lose jobs no matter what you look to cut.

[Visna]

Who knocked up the women?

Democrats?

Spend more on guns when the country is in debt? Hilarious.

Guns are important. Children are not. Or something.
And besides the parents who receive those benefits most likely won't be voting Republican anyway, that is assuming they even vote in the first place.

[justicar5]

Third point, if we cut all military spending, as some suggest, how many people will that put out of work? Nobody ever talks about that.

Fourth point, the Food for Peace program is a complete failure. They mention a 457 million cut to this program (over several years I might add), but dont tell you how much the entire budget for this program is. If they are cutting that much then the entire budget must be enormous. So we have been giving the food, where the hell is the peace?

You want the peace? Stop supporting dictators and invading countries....

[Sphere]

I'd extend a little more respect to this republican plan of cutting discretionary programs if the Republican leadership and it's members hadn't slinked away from pushing entitlement reform, refused to consider any tax/revenue raising, and are showing no interest in trimming defense. In other words the three key items to closing the deficit.

Scoring political points by increasing the strife of the impoverished while being on the wrong side of the big elephant-in-the-room items is niether brave, honorable, nor honest.

[Exarch]

seems the republican party has been hijacked by arms manufacturers, neocons and the religious right

[Armenum]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-adds-defense/

This really doesnt help the country. Your just increasing the social and economic divide within this country while propping up the military. Lessons should be learn from history when empires have literally fallen because the country was spending too much on its military and too little on its people.

I don't understand how politicians could make such a ridiculous calculation. Why would any one increase the all ready over-bloated US military budget at the expense of crucial social programmes, especially during a financial crisis? The only way I see this is the huge defence companies of America pulling the strings on this, but even then I would think there would be some logical balance. It seems that unless one is in the military of the US, talking about any cuts to the military is taboo - which isn't healthy.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I don't understand how politicians could make such a ridiculous calculation. Why would any one increase the all ready over-bloated US military budget at the expense of crucial social programmes, especially during a financial crisis? The only way I see this is the huge defence companies of America pulling the strings on this, but even then I would think there would be some logical balance. It seems that unless one is in the military of the US, talking about any cuts to the military is taboo - which isn't healthy.

You posted after I edited my post, so you might want to check the math on the claims in that article. This "hundreds of thousands of people cut from the program" is complete nonsense.

[Armenum]

You posted after I edited my post, so you might want to check the math on the claims in that article. This "hundreds of thousands of people cut from the program" is complete nonsense.

Though even in a more abstract form it's still absurd. The fact that one would support a motion to increase the military budget of the US, given all the debt that the US holds, whilst thinking about cutting down on social programmes. I'm assuming you have seen that chart of US's spending on military versus other countries, the cold war is over, US doesn't not need such massive military capabilities, more it comes from, in my view, a taboo that exists in US in touching the military (as a politician).

[Thorn777]

Why is it the kids fault their father sucks? Aren't they punished enough already? Should society abandoned them as well, for some very debatable ideological principal?

Kay, let them work at the mines...

[mongrel]

The US military budget is arguably the most expensive welfare programme in history.

[Enemy of the State]

Didn't you know bombing brown people overseas is more important? God forbid we cut any of that.

Don't call it defense, it's clearly not what America is using its military for.