Party of Compassion
 

I noticed an article in the Daily Sun this morning that was revealing about Republicans - and in a Republican newspaper, too.

It said that the Republican led House of Representatives voted to slash $868 million from the Women, Infants and Children program which offers food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and their children.

This money would be used to fund a spending bill for farm subsidies. 72% of the country's farms are held by corporations and most of those pay little or no Federal income tax.

I would speculate the Republicans believe it is better to give farm subsidies to corporations which pay no Federal income tax but vote Republican than to give food aid and educational support for low-income mothers and children who vote Democrat.

I see there have been quite a few views of this posting - but no conservatives will write a response.

Obviously, even they can see the Republicans do not have compassion but only want to give money to big Republican corporations at the expense of low-income women and children.

Very sad indeed.

Homework not done
 

Once again, doing a little homework beyond the snippet in the Sun that was extracted from a 3-day-old longer, syndicated article, leads one to a lot more information than what one poster here provides.

A former employee and client of WIC has good information at the links below, on how Food Stamps have been expanded greatly, and how once this family got onto Food Stamps (aka SNAP), "As soon as we qualified for Food Stamps, we were given more benefits than we could use in a month, so there was no reason to stay on WIC......."

Part of what has expanded Food Stamp eligibility is removing the cap on assets. (This would be why the $2 million dollar lottery winner in MI is still collecting food stamps 11 months after winning.
http://detnews.com/article/20110518/METRO/105180337/$2M-Michigan-lottery-winner-defends-use-of-food-stamps

http://wicwoes.com/2011/do-wic-cuts-matter

http://wicwoes.com/2011/cut-504-million-from-wic

Well TBug, ya know they would point out some miniscule example of abuse and lump all the recipients as lazy bums who don't want to work and just want a hand-out. Compassion is not in their vocabulary.

While ilovetv does not seem to have compassion for others - he or she may be the most compassionate person on Earth but just does not express it well.

I also love The Villages and our lifestyle here. We are very fortunate to have worked, saved, and been lucky enough to land in this slice of Heaven. However, we are a bubble here in the midst of some mighty depressed area. Take a look at Wildwood, Fruitland Park, Okwalha, Lake Weir, and some of these close-by places. There are people that need help.

Even if you do not think the slashing of the Women, Infant, and Children aid program to fund corporate farm subsidies just about borders on the immorality of the House of Representatives, I hope you have the compassion to do something to help families in need. This can be done through contributions to area food banks on a regular basis, special donations through your churches, and attending programs such as Seeds of Hope.

The VIllages has a great record of charitable giving. Please keep it up.

Part of the problem with the Food Stamps is the USDA is in control of it so the USDA makes the rules concerning eligibility. IMHO that is a conflict of interest. This is one of just many problems with the welfare system. With so many different departments responsible for different programs the rules are as hard to administer as the US income tax code. One hand doesn't know or care what the other hand is doing. Our government and its program rules and how they are administered has become a cluster ___ . Neither party wants to do what we elected them to do and clean up the mess. These programs are just the touch of the iceberg. Please don't take this out of context, I don't have a problem with our children having their needed food and medical needs taken care of. I have a problem when our children are going hungry and need medical attention. The US Government is giving billions of foreign political aid to countries who are not by any means our friends or allies. Our government is so full of corruption and waste that no politician has the kahua''s to get involved. Too bad, if waste and corruption were under control this country could and would have a starting point for something positive to happen to help rid this country of debt and to regain the lost respect of the rest of the world.

Tbugs, Before I criticize elimination or adding of a government program at any level I need to know several things: (1) What are the objectives of the program? (2) How is success defined? (3) What are the metrics that will be used to measure success? (4) How much success has been achieved against the projections?

I know that many believe that it is enough to say that,"It's for the children" or "It's for the poor" or "It's for unwed mothers", etc. Good intentions do not equate to good results. I have no knowledge of the programs that were eliminated or their costs and results. Can you provide this so we can either agree or disagree with the actions?

We need results on a cost effective basis, not just good intentions.

You know some folks think that there is a difference between forced compassion (taxation) and true charity. It is sharing the wealth because you want to, not because you are forced to.

We need to go back to the "You don't work, You don't eat." The work can be cleaning up the road ways, helping the elderly or something other than just sitting on your butt and playing games. If you have children, some of the money that you earn goes to pay for child care. They need a taste of "real life." I for one don't want to just give things to the "poor" the "children" and the "unwed mothers."

So, unless my 91-year-old granmother works, she doesn't eat?

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw
__________________________________________________ ___

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he proposes to pay off with your money..
-G Gordon Liddy
__________________________________________________ ____

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong
enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

ROFL, surly you jest? The liberal mind doesn't work that way.

Let me give it a try...

1. More votes and more dependency on the government for all your needs.

2. When more people depend on the government instead of themselves.

3. I guess that would be the government sensuous to see how many are actually on the take.

4. Depends on how many vote Democrat to keep the gravy train (paid for by others) alive.

Ain't that the truth.

I, for one, would not want to live in the world Figmo envisions. :yuck:

Figmo,

Hopefully you will have a change of heart once you move to The Villages and will not be stressed out anymore. I hold out hope and change for you.

We're Going To Find That There's...
 

...a whole lot of stuff that we're not going to be able to afford. Without going into the arithmetic again, if we kept Social Security, Medicare and the Defense budget untouched, we could eliminate ALL federal spending on everything else and still not produce a balanced budget. The problem is that dire.

We can't afford either the programs for women and children or farm subsidies, plus a whole lot of other stuff. If anyone thinks a balanced budget can be accomplished without life-changing cuts to discretionary spending, massive cuts to the defense budget, big changes to both Medicare and Social Security and yes, tax increases, show us all how it can be done.

The stage is being set. Today's papers announced that AARP will not try to defend no changes to Social Security. When the Congress finally begins to cut expenses with seriousness, the hue and cry from all idealogical corners will make the hub-bub in Madison, WI look like kindergarten child's play.