Cleo's Mom

Thank you for your post and a fresh perspective on this thread. But I would ask that you not allow republicans to intimidate you into not voting for your candidate of choice. I say let the republicans and tea party be enflamed. Or go up in flames, metaphorically speaking. Pres. Obama has shown time and time again that not only can he tackle the tough problems but he can give major and minor smack downs to the republicans when it calls for it. He has put them in their place (the minority party) more than once and countered their lies with the truth. And also thank you for your husband's service to our country.

from pattygreen: No. They won't go hungry. If the government didn't have any of these programs, and we didn't have to give the funds to the government for them, then we would have plenty left in our paychecks to give to the local food pantrys where they could receive food and eat. Also, if the government wasn't soooo huge and needed so much funds to run, the price of everything would go down and be more affordable for the people to care for themselves. First of all, you are making a HUGE assumption about people - that if they had more money in their paychecks they would give more money to food banks, etc.. Well, they did get more money in their paychecks starting a year ago with the tax cut Pres. Obama gave to 95% of working people. Did the food banks benefit? No, because everything I have been reading is that all of these charity endeavors are hurting more than ever. Also, I haven't noticed the price of anything going down as a result of this tax cut.

The government sets the standards for eligibility for these programs. If someone qualifies (truthfully) then it is justified. They have not committed a sin. That is only in your mind.

This kind of dangerous thinking is what you hear from those right wing militias that oppose the government. I see they are already gearing up to oppose financial reform. I mean why would we want to regulate the greed, excesses and gambling with our money by unregulated wall street that brought our economy to the brink of collapse? Just let them continue to toss a coin: heads they win, tails we taxpayers lose. Well, I WILL remember in November that Boehner said he had the banks backs and not to let the punks (government) push them around. I will stand with Main Street while he stands with Wall Street. If the republicans hate the government so much they should get out and let the big boys and girls in the democratic party handle the tough problems. That's what we've always done. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NEVER DONE ONE THING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA. NOTHING. SQUAT.

Why are you reluctant to give your neighbors (who you KNOW are receiving government aid but don't need it) all your wonderful ideas for earning more money? When you see them at the grocery store buying the cheerios or juicy juices, or at the gas station (filling up their late model car, no doubt) or out to their weekly restaurant dinner- tell them to shovel snow or cut grass or make crafts to sell so that they don't have to accept the free lunch program. You seem to have an intimate knowledge of their personal incomes, aid they receive and individual situations. So, I would think you would feel comfortable offering these suggestions. Let me know how it goes. All the people I know and hang out with voted for and support Pres. Obama. Go figure.

Here's another suggestion. You claim to know all these families where you live who don't need the government goodies they receive. The next time you see one of them offer them the suggestions you haver posted here so that they can become more self sufficient and not rely on the government for their kid's lunch, among other things. You obviously don't think your elected officials are going to enact any changes, so it's up to you.

I'll take that as a "no". Here's what I support: When the banks gamble with and lose our money, it should be made up by all the executives liquidating their assests, and paying back that money. Then maybe they would qualify for section 8 housing. There's a plan that I could get behind.

Well, put me squarely in the camp of wanting my tax dollars to go for cheerios and juicy juice NOT a big government tax break to Goldman Sachs. Let them do without!!

Have you written to your congressman and two senators to tell them they should eliminate all these programs and why? And better yet, tell them to run on eliminating these "wasteful" and unnecessary programs. And see how willing they are to go public with their objections to these programs, especially "independent" Lieberman.

The reason the government has to step in is that it has been shown that left on their own the private sector will not self-regulate. Their goal is to maximize profits. So, yes, I want my child being watched in someone's home to have mandated safety protections. Whether their own children touched the perfume or not is irrelevant, I don't want it where my child can get into it. And the caregiver doesn't have any "freedom" or "right" to have that perfume on the dresser if they are going to charge money and make a profit from me. Their freedom was their right to open up a place of business in the first place.

Then may I suggest you spend as much time researching it and the abuses by the private sector as you do people welfare and government abuses?

I've said this before. It is our government, we the people. How hypocritical it is for republicans to on one hand bash the government and on the other ask for us to give them a job in it. :bored: They act like if you give them a job in it, they will "fix" it. Well, we're living with their disastrous "fixes" from the bush administration: huge deficit, tanking economy, rising unemployment, recession, two wars and the list goes on....

Exactly. And the proof is that I posted about the costs of corporate welfare, which is greater than people welfare. If spending and deficits were the REAL issue, then PG would rant about corporate welfare. And though she says she's against corporate welfare, all of her posts are against the programs that help the least among us, which shows her real agenda. So, you see, it really isn't about spending and deficits, which is what I have been saying about her specifically and the whole teabagger movement generally.

Concerning WIC, let's see how you twist this "drama" around: How WIC Helps WIC saves lives and improves the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants and children. The results of studies conducted by FNS and other non-government entities prove that WIC is one of the nation’s most successful and cost-effective nutrition intervention programs. Since its beginning in 1974, the WIC Program has earned the reputation of being one of the most successful Federally-funded nutrition programs in the United States. Collective findings of studies, reviews and reports demonstrate that the WIC Program is cost effective in protecting or improving the health/nutritional status of low-income women, infants and children. The following highlights some of the findings (pertinent references are provided). Improved Birth Outcomes and Savings in Health Care Costs Improved Diet and Diet-Related Outcomes Improved Infant Feeding Practices Immunization Rates and Regular Source of Medical Care Improved Cognitive Development Improved Preconceptional Nutritional Status Other Improved Outcomes Summary References Improved Birth Outcomes and Savings in Health Care Costs Research has shown that the WIC Program has been playing an important role in improving birth outcomes and containing health care costs.7,20 A series of reports published by USDA based on linked 1988 WIC and Medicaid data on over 100,000 births found that every dollar spent on prenatal WIC participation for low-income Medicaid women in 5 States resulted in: longer pregnancies; fewer premature births; lower incidence of moderately low and very low birth weight infants; fewer infant deaths; a greater likelihood of receiving prenatal care; and savings in health care costs from $1.77 to $3.13 within the first 60 days after birth.3,4,5 Improved Diet and Diet-Related Outcomes Studies have found WIC to have a positive effect on children's diet and diet-related outcomes such as: higher mean intakes of iron, vitamin C, thiamin, niacin and vitamin B6, without an increase in food energy intake, indicating an increase in the nutrient density of the diet;19 positive effects on the intakes of ten nutrients without an adverse effect on fat or cholesterol;14 more effective than other cash income or SNAP benefits at improving preschoolers' intake of key nutrients;14 and decline in the rate of iron deficiency anemia from 7.8 percent in 1975 to 2.9 percent in 1985 which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention attributed to both a general improvement in iron nutrition and participation in WIC and other public nutrition programs.20 Improved Infant Feeding Practices WIC promotes breastfeeding as the optimal method of infant feeding. Studies show: WIC participants who reported having received advice to breastfeed their babies from the WIC clinic were more likely to breastfeed than other WIC participants or eligible nonparticipants;18 WIC breastfeeding policy and program activities were strengthened in the early 1990's; Between 1996 and 2001, the percentage of WIC mothers breastfeeding in the hospital increased by almost 25 percent, from 46.6 to 58.2 percent; The percentage of WIC infants breastfeeding at six months of age increased by 61.2 percent, from 12.9 to 20.8 percent; and, For those infants who are fed infant formula, 90 percent received iron-fortified formula, which is recommended for nearly all non-breastfed infants for the first year of life.1 Immunization Rates and Regular Source of Medical Care A regular schedule of immunizations is recommended for children from birth to 2 years of age, which coincides with the period in which many low-income children participate in WIC. Studies have found significantly improved rates of childhood immunization and of having a regular source of medical care associated with WIC participation.19 Improved Cognitive Development Cognitive development influences school achievement and behavior. Participation in the WIC Program has been shown to: improve vocabulary scores for children of mothers who participated in WIC prenatally; and significantly improve memory for numbers for children enrolled in WIC after the first year of life.19 Improved Preconceptional Nutritional Status Preconceptional nutritional status is an important determinant of birth outcome. A previous pregnancy can cause nutritional depletion of the postpartum woman, particularly those with high parity and short interpregnancy intervals. One study found: women enrolled in WIC both during pregnancy and postpartum periods delivered infants with higher mean birth weights in a subsequent pregnancy than women who received WIC prenatally only; and, the women who received postpartum benefits had higher hemoglobin levels and lower risk of maternal obesity at the onset of the subsequent pregnancy.2 Other Improved Outcomes WIC participation has also been shown to: increase the likelihood of children having a regular provider of medical care;19 and, improve growth rates.6,8 Summary: WIC reduces fetal deaths and infant mortality. WIC reduces low birthweight rates and increases the duration of pregnancy. WIC improves the growth of nutritionally at-risk infants and children. WIC decreases the incidence of iron deficiency anemia in children. WIC improves the dietary intake of pregnant and postpartum women and improves weight gain in pregnant women. Pregnant women participating in WIC receive prenatal care earlier. Children enrolled in WIC are more likely to have a regular source of medical care and have more up to date immunizations. WIC helps get children ready to start school: children who receive WIC benefits demonstrate improved intellectual development. WIC significantly improves children’s diets. WIC reduces fetal death and infant mortality. I don't see how you can call yourself pro-life and be against WIC. Of course, you will notice that I don't call you pro-life, which you aren't, but rather anti-abortion, a BIG difference. But it doesn't really matter because people who are heartless can find numerous ways to justify it.

A private business would scrutinize every penny. Really? I guess wall street banks didn't get this memo when they sqandered our money. But hey, they knew we'd be there with our tax dollars to bail them out. Government employees don't give a crap how they dish out government funds. Which employees, exactly, have this power? Because I want to contact them to dish me out some money.:bored:

With regard to the Head Start Program and its effectiveness: According to Datta (Datta, 1976 & Lee et al.,1990) who summarized 31 studies, the program showed immediate improvement in the IQ scores of participating children, though after beginning school, the non-participants were able to narrow the difference. Children who attended Head Start are, relative to their siblings who did not, significantly more likely to complete high school, attend college, and possibly have higher earnings in their early twenties. They are less likely to have been booked or charged with a crime.[12] Head Start is associated with large and significant gains in test scores. Head Start significantly reduces the probability that a child will repeat a grade.[1] Recent criticisms of Project Head Start have resulted in plans to improve program services and to expand in a more thoughtful manner to make the program more responsive to the needs of children and families. New directions include expansion below and beyond the ages previously served by Head Start.[13] This study goes beyond first grade.

Not her brand.

I can't believe the lengths you will go to to justify your cold-heartedness. Oh, so I guess you and the gossipy teachers had a field day discussing the income and needs of the family getting free lunch. This was highly unethical for both of you to do that. And guess what, unless you prepare those family's tax returns as well as know their personal situations, you do NOT know. Period. And these families are not everyone. And without head start those students would be behind the rest of the students starting kindergarten and first grade. Don't you get it? And for the WIC program - well, you just know. That's very convincing. And kids who qualify for WIC and don't get it don't die? What about if they don't thrive or grow properly and their brains don't develop as well as a well nourished child. I guess that is okay, then. And the guidelines for maternal and child health are too high? Well, then by all means let's kick kids off so that they will not get the healthcare they deserve. Again, they might not die from lack of healthcare, but then again they might. But that would just be collateral damage.

I am glad that the government regulates corporate america. Left to their own devices they would do everything they could in order to maximize profits, including selling defective products, creating unsafe working conditions, and putting consumers at risk. I agree with Leigha that the restaurants have a lot to hide with the fat and sugar filled and salt satured foods they serve us. We have the right to know. And it will force them to serve healthier foods.

Really? Because you certainly never bring it up. You are too busy trying to take food out of poor's children's mouths. And I bring it up to show that corporate welfare costs us taxpayers more than welfare to people. So, if you were really concerned about spending and the deficit, you would be posting about corporate welfare all the time and not personal welfare to the least among us, because corporate america is sure not the least among us. But of course you won't, because spending and the deficit aren't the real issues. It's just a smoke screen. The real issue is parroting all the talking points of the extreme right wing conservatives and promoting their agenda which is to take us back to a country of two classes, the very rich and the very poor (with no safety nets) with no middle class. We were there once and that's where they want to take us. And guess which class they will be in?

School lunches: This is sometimes the only meal a poor child eats all day. I have personal experience with this one. I happen to know that most people who get free lunches don't 'need' them. Who are you to make that conclusion? You don't know every person's situation. Maybe a few anecdotal ones that you extrapolate to include EVERYONE!! They meet the income guidelines so they figure, "hey, why not. I can get it for free, I'll take it. Head Start: For every dollar we invest in head start we save $7 in incarceration costs. A new study proved that children who went to head start where on equal levels with every other child in the class by the beginning of first grade. Then it sounds like the program is working. It is a very successful program especially for urban children. It is a horrible waste of tax payer dollars and is not needed. Women, Infant, Children: You want to cut this and you call yourself pro-life? This program provides care for pregnant women and their babies. WOW. This is a program that gives away free milk, eggs, ceral and juice. It is a waste of money. The majority of people who get these checks do not need themAgain, how would you know if the majority does not need them? That's quite a sweeping statement. and sometimes sell them to others. How does that compare to not wanting babys murdered? Oh brother! You can't be pro-life and want to deny children milk and juice. It is inconsistent. Maternal and Child health: Cutting this would be consistent with the anti-abortion philosophy which is to believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. Again, WOW. Denying poor women and their children healthcare. I would never deny them HC. They may go to any Dr. they choose and pay for it like everyone else does.If they could afford to pay, they wouldn't qualify for this program. Geez. Are you really that dense? Rural housing loans: Have you ever seen those programs about Appalachia? Those people live in shacks, literally, and you would cut programs that would allow them to do what, move up to a trailer? I am glad you posted this. It confirms what those of us who consider ourselves progressives always knew about those of you on the extreme right.

According to OMBWATCH.ORG: Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures) Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures) Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor — programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996). Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people. Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability. Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole. Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress. …and we already know of the multi billion dollar bailout that American tax payers are in the midst of shelling out to save some of Wall Streets most profitable companies. The largest Government handout in the History of the United States. If we followed Mr. Savages logic, that would mean thousands of corporate executives, and company employees would be turned way from the polls. But I am sure that the back lash against welfare is against individuals. Americans. Struggling Mothers, and laid off workers trying to feed their families. Not corporations, right ? The fact of the matter is , Moderate and Conservative republican groups continue to pull off the biggest con job in America politics. By literally scarring hard working Americans who are not wealthy by any means, and feeding into this country’s underlying racism and hang ups, they continue to sell the bill of goods that Democrats want to give money to some fictional “home boy’s” outside of a liquor store, and unwed teen mothers (like Bristol Palin - who’s baby and health insurance is paid for by tax dollars). And each and every time, they pull off this con, they cut benefits from people that really need it, some of them are your neighbors, parents, and friends who have hit a rough patch, and give it to their buddies in corporate America so they don’t have to spend their own money to expand….and thousands of people fall for it every election. Americans are truly misinformed about who really gets the lions share of Government handouts. As long as your attention is mis-directed at fear, ignorance and racism against fellow Americans, the con job will continue to be a success. Apparently in the eyes of conservatives it is better that corporations and executives get a government handout instead of actual people that need a lift, right? How’s that working out for ya ? Courtesy of: TheMansfiedHearld.com