you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
>>>You thought I was lying about the republican plan to reduce funding for poor mothers to buy formula for their new borns, but it is part of the republican plan.
Can you please post the part of the republican plan where it states funding for baby formula for the poor will be cut. And while you are at it can you please explain the lie the president contiues to spread that social security will be cut if congress does not give him what he wants.
The tea party should focus their ludite mentality on the fact that lawyers and other "professionals" steal more money than mother's on welfare or old people waiting for SS or dependent children wanting government help. Stop funding toys for the ultra-rich and help Obama create more equality including protection of the nation's resources and end the hypocrisy that the "rich" create jobs. Mea Cuppa. They do create jobs...but not in the United States.
When Reid pronounces a bill DOA before it even reaches the Senate, when Hag Pelosi screeches about this bill ending life as we know it, and especially when OweBama’s one requirement to “save” our economy is that the bill be anything but short term, I think the most important thing is to make this short term. They are TERRIFIED of this being a center focus campaign season topic. Therefore, it must be.
Then Tea Party Repubs can unite with old school Repubs to put together a better bill. Baby steps. The longest journey starts with
>>>The tea party should focus their ludite mentality on the fact that lawyers and other "professionals" steal more money than mother's on welfare or old people waiting for SS or dependent children wanting government help.
First things first, once the tea party gets people in office who are committed to doing what is best for the country the rest will fall into place.
Here are go. :-) You can Google "food stamp cuts in Congress" and find multiple sources for this same information. This was take from www.economist.com.
The struggle to eat
As Congress wrangles over spending cuts, surging numbers of Americans are relying on the government just to put food on the table
Jul 14th 2011 | WASHINGTON, DC | from the print edition
WHEN the dismal news came on July 8th that the unemployment rate had risen fractionally to 9.2%, both Republicans and Democrats declared the data proof of the folly of the other party’s policies. How, Republicans asked, could Democrats even consider raising taxes when the economy is so weak? How, Democrats retorted, could Republicans advocate big cuts in the safety net when so many Americans are in desperate need? As the haggling over raising the legal limit on the federal government’s debt reaches a climax (see Lexington), the feeble state of the economy is making the budgetary trade-offs involved ever less appealing.
Take food stamps, a programme designed to ensure that poor Americans have enough to eat, which is seen by many Republicans as unsustainable and by many Democrats as untouchable. Participation has soared since the recession began (see chart). By April it had reached almost 45m, or one in seven Americans. The cost, naturally, has soared too, from $35 billion in 2008 to $65 billion last year. And the Department of Agriculture, which administers the scheme, reckons only two-thirds of those who are eligible have signed up.
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives want to rein in the programme’s runaway growth. In their budget outline for next year they proposed cutting the amount of money to be spent on food stamps by roughly a fifth from 2015. Moreover, instead of being a federal entitlement, available to all Americans who meet the eligibility criteria irrespective of the cost, the programme would become a “block grant” to the states, which would receive a fixed amount to spend each year, irrespective of demand. The House has also voted to cut a separate health-and-nutrition scheme for poor pregnant women, infants and children, known as WIC, by 11%. (The Senate, controlled by the Democrats, is unlikely to approve either measure.)
I am not sure of what you are referring to cocerning Obama saying Social Security will be cut because of Conrress not giving him what he wants. Obama has offered to make cuts to Social Security as a part of a larger deal that included revenue increases that was a no go with the republicans.
My oh my! But if a plan isn’t made law the world will end on August 2. Children will begin to die, adults jumping from tall buildings, chaos, riots, the end of civilization. My oh my!
Then again, maybe not.
>>>I am not sure of what you are referring to cocerning Obama saying Social Security will be cut because of Conrress not giving him what he wants.
This is what BO said in is speach.
"On Aug. 3, Social Security checks that are supposed to be sent out to beneficiaries are at risk if the debt ceiling is not raised"
BO is heartless in threatening those who depend on SS by cutting off their checks. It would be BOs decision to cut off SS which is unthinkable since there is money available to pay these benefits without an Aug 2nd increase in the debt ceiling