WIC program in jeopardy after shutdown

[glenn1]

Oh noes. Now instead of outsourcing their compassion to government, progressives will actually need to donate time and money out of their own pockets and interact with the hungry in homeless shelters and food pantries. BTW, not that I expect to see any of you progressives there, but you should bring something other than lasagna or pasta since that's the most common donation and it gets a bit boring for the recipients when they are offered it every other meal.

 

[dank69]

Well the stats and the fact the Progressives repeatedly use single mothers as an example for why we need more government programs.

Funny that NPR is essentially in agreement with me.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

All that proves is that it is difficult for single mother to get out of poverty. What it does not prove, even though you think it does, is that single motherhood causes poverty.

So by your logic 3rd World Countries should be filled with single mothers right?:hmm:

Sane people realize that there are also other contributing/mitigating factors.

By your logic as the US has become more wealthy we should see a decrease in unwed motherhood right?:hmm:

Perhaps you are unaware of the wealth distribution problems of the US these days? No, you are aware but choose to ignore it.

Single motherhood is a problem caused by values not poverty.

...

Faulty conclusion based on twisted logic and unsupported premises.

 

[classy]

That would appear to be the contention of many on the left actually. They are the ones that contend we need programs such as WIC because poor people are too stupid to figure out they shouldn't have kids they cannot feed.



WIC is designed to amongst other things feed pregnant women.

If a woman cannot feed herself maybe she shouldn't be having a child? Or are you contending that poor women are basically animals, or at last sub-human, and therefore incapable of grasping such simple concepts?

Its not just about giving away free food. WIC does a whole lot more in education of young mothers, not just single or poor mothers to boot. What about widowed mothers, mothers who's husbands became disabled, etc. Your just a self righteous idiot.

 

[unokitty]

Oh noes. Now instead of outsourcing their compassion to government, progressives will actually need to donate time and money out of their own pockets and interact with the hungry in homeless shelters and food pantries. BTW, not that I expect to see any of you progressives there, but you should bring something other than lasagna or pasta since that's the most common donation and it gets a bit boring for the recipients when they are offered it every other meal.

What a great opportunity!

Now, all of the 'progressives' have the opportunity to demonstrate their compassion by donating their own time and their own money!

Or, are they going to demonstrate that they only believe in donating other people's time and money?

The whole world is watching.

Uno

 

[Engineer]

Oh noes. Now instead of outsourcing their compassion to government, progressives will actually need to donate time and money out of their own pockets and interact with the hungry in homeless shelters and food pantries. BTW, not that I expect to see any of you progressives there, but you should bring something other than lasagna or pasta since that's the most common donation and it gets a bit boring for the recipients when they are offered it every other meal.

Do the progressives get a badge that says "I'm a Progressive" when they show up? Also, what line on the volunteer form states political and ideological affiliation? The one that I'm around and donate money to doesn't have either but I could talk to the man who runs it to see if we could get those things added. I know him very well. He is my employer (he runs a business and and a food bank) and is also a *cough*progressive*cough*.

 

[umbrella39]

The people who need the government food benefits are the same people who need the Obamacare insurance discounts, though.

It's pretty obvious that the Republicans weren't going to get any votes from these people anyway.

What a load of utter horse shit. The VAST majority of food stamp/medicaid/welfare recipients I have ever known are/were white and vote straight party R then returned home to their double wide. But I don't try and pass off my anecdotal experiences as common fact

 

[nehalem256]

Its not just about giving away free food. WIC does a whole lot more in education of young mothers, not just single or poor mothers to boot. What about widowed mothers, mothers who's husbands became disabled, etc. Your just a self righteous idiot.

I believe I addressed this earlier. For example for widows there are Social Security death benefits.

And if your goal was purely feeding the children of widows and the disabled it would be pretty darn easy to design a program that did just that.

But you are not really interested in doing that. You want the government to support your perverse ideology and are using widows as pawns to try and extort that support. You are truly a sick individual.

EDIT: And it is amusing that for all your protestations that it is not about "single mothers" that you use the phrase "education of young mothers" not "education of young parents"

All that proves is that it is difficult for single mother to get out of poverty. What it does not prove, even though you think it does, is that single motherhood causes poverty.

Lets think about this. You are clearly conceding that single motherhood makes it more difficult to get out poverty.

Accepting on this premise. If a person engages in activity that makes it harder to get out of poverty do you think that will lead to an increase or decrease in poverty?:hmm:

Sane people realize that there are also other contributing/mitigating factors.

Like having values?:hmm:

 

[Texashiker]

The VAST majority of food stamp/medicaid/welfare recipients I have ever known are/were white and vote straight party R then returned home to their double wide.

Whats wrong with living in a double wide?

 

[dank69]

I believe I addressed this earlier. For example for widows there are Social Security death benefits.

And if your goal was purely feeding the children of widows and the disabled it would be pretty darn easy to design a program that did just that.

But you are not really interested in doing that. You want the government to support your perverse ideology and are using widows as pawns to try and extort that support. You are truly a sick individual.

EDIT: And it is amusing that for all your protestations that it is not about "single mothers" that you use the phrase "education of young mothers" not "education of young parents"



Lets think about this. You are clearly conceding that single motherhood makes it more difficult to get out poverty.

Accepting on this premise. If a person engages in activity that makes it harder to get out of poverty do you think that will lead to an increase or decrease in poverty?:hmm:

Who cares if it increases or decreases poverty? It doesn't support your end conclusion that it is impossible for a single mother to not be in poverty, which would be the conclusion that you would need to reach to begin to support your stance that single motherhood is immoral.

Like having values?:hmm:

If you call stoning unwed mothers "values," then yes.

 

[nehalem256]

Who cares if it increases or decreases poverty? It doesn't support your end conclusion that it is impossible for a single mother to not be in poverty, which would be the conclusion that you would need to reach to begin to support your stance that single motherhood is immoral.

I have never made that claim.

Single motherhood is however largely dependent on government bailouts to be a viable lifestyle.

Its possible to win the lottery. Doesn't mean you aren't an idiot if you invest your 401K in Power Balls.

If you call stoning unwed mothers "values," then yes.

See my post about South Korea. South Korea doesn't stone unwed mothers and yet has no problems with unwed motherhood.

 

[dank69]

I have never made that claim.

Single motherhood is however largely dependent on government bailouts to be a viable lifestyle.

Its possible to win the lottery. Doesn't mean you aren't an idiot if you invest your 401K in Power Balls.



See my post about South Korea. South Korea doesn't stone unwed mothers and yet has no problems with unwed motherhood.

So now your argument is that the chances of being a single mother without entering poverty is the same as winning the lottery.

 

[glenn1]

Do the progressives get a badge that says "I'm a Progressive" when they show up? Also, what line on the volunteer form states political and ideological affiliation? The one that I'm around and donate money to doesn't have either but I could talk to the man who runs it to see if we could get those things added. I know him very well. He is my employer (he runs a business and and a food bank) and is also a *cough*progressive*cough*.

Well, if progressives really do respresent the majority of the country, and you care for poor and hungry like you claim, then why are there still so many hungry people and why is the government still needing to do it? The fact that shelters and pantries aren't overflowing with food you donated and such huge remaining need would seem to indicate that a sizable portion of progressive indeed expect the government to do it for them, with possible outliers like you being the exceptions. BTW, you can't blame conservatives since you think they're already greedy, uncaring bastads anyway so you shouldn't be counting on them to do the work for you.

 

[Jaskalas]

None of this has to be happening. Democrats can fund nearly everything with the House bills.

 

[Texashiker]

None of this has to be happening. Democrats can fund nearly everything with the House bills.

Democrats are refusing to fund anything without funding obamacare.

 

[Jaskalas]

Democrats are refusing to fund anything without funding obamacare.

If Republicans were smart they'd throw in elimination of the debt ceiling. Make it an offer Democrats can't refuse. Shame they're not smart.

 

[Texashiker]

If Republicans were smart they'd throw in elimination of the debt ceiling.

Why would anyone want unlimited debt?

 

[unokitty]

From Pew Research:

Never married mothers have a distinctive profile. Compared with single mothers who are divorced, widowed or separated, never married mothers are significantly younger, disproportionally non-white, and have lower education and income. Close to half of never married mothers in 2011 (46%) are ages 30 and younger, six-in-ten are either black (40%) or Hispanic (24%), and nearly half (49%) have a high school education or less. Their median family income was $17, 400 in 2011, the lowest among all families with children.

Today’s single mothers are much more likely to be never married than were single mothers in the past. The share of never married mothers among all single mothers has increased from 4% in 1960 to 44% in 2011. During the same period, the share of single mothers who had children from previous marriages has gone down from 82% to 50%.

Just thought I'd add a few facts here.

Uno

 

[Jaskalas]

Why would anyone want unlimited debt?

Debt limit is meaningless, such things are best decided when you make the budget in the first place. Not after you choose to make agreements and then say "oh, well nevermind..."

 

[Texashiker]

Debt limit is meaningless, such things are best decided when you make the budget in the first place.

Do you have a credit card? Does it have a spending limit?

Would you want an unlimited credit card that your town was going to pay off and not cost you a penny?

Yea, give me a credit card that will be billed to the grandchildren of the next town over from me. There is some land I want to buy, and my neighbors grandchildren get to pay for it.

 

[momeNt]

We could feed the poor on prison biscuits / rice / cheap grains for pennies on the dollar of the WIC program.

Problem is the hoops that a Red Cross or other charity group would have to go through to distribute this gives the WIC program a monopoly on charity.

It probably would also greatly decrease the correlation with poverty and obesity which would ease the burden on the healthcare system.

 

[cubby1223]

Good.

WIC is by intent a program designed to give support to people who don't deserve any.

If you can't feed yourself maybe you shouldn't be having children?

Your views are consistently frighteningly disturbing.

 

[fskimospy]

We could feed the poor on prison biscuits / rice / cheap grains for pennies on the dollar of the WIC program.

Problem is the hoops that a Red Cross or other charity group would have to go through to distribute this gives the WIC program a monopoly on charity.

It probably would also greatly decrease the correlation with poverty and obesity which would ease the burden on the healthcare system.

You realize that soup kitchens are more expensive than food stamps for precisely the reason that you have to pay people to distribute the food, run the kitchen, etc, etc, right? Pennies on the dollar? unlikely.

 

[tmc]

I think there are good arguments from both sides on this thread.

Let me say this to the people who argue that:

"they could afford the child at that time, so they got pregnant, but lost job (or some reason, accident, act of god, etc), so can't afford now"

why didn't they plan that:

"hey, if something happened tomorrow, will i still be able to support my child? oops, no. so let me get my savings up, and then have that child."

the problem is that, for every ONE person that truly deserves the help, there are TEN others that are abusing the system.

I guess it all depends on what the INDIVIDUAL has seen in their life.

A person seeing a genuine case tends to think it is all right, whereas a person that has seen many people abusing the system, tends to think otherwise.

I have seen a family that has 3 children (NOT triplets!) and abusing the system. if anything, they should at least limit support to MAX one child. say, a family using the support tries to get pregnant again, they should be denied (actually, aborted - since I think the children should not be held responsible for their parents actions!).

amen.

 

[cubby1223]

If Republicans were smart they'd throw in elimination of the debt ceiling. Make it an offer Democrats can't refuse. Shame they're not smart.

(1) I don't see Dems conceding on Obamacare for no debt ceiling.
(2) I do see hordes of partisan talking heads making "Eliminating the debt ceiling is a Republican idea" as their new never-ending talking point.

This would be a lose-lose scenario. Only way this could work is if the Democrats propose the deal, and if they did I think there is a strong possibility of the deal happening - but they would not every propose such a deal, because it would massively piss off their financial donors.

 

[nehalem256]

Your views are consistently frighteningly disturbing.

You find the idea that:

If you can't feed yourself maybe you shouldn't be having children?

to be frighteningly disturbing?:hmm: