0

I completely understand the government getting rid of food stamps & WIC for the adults but there is no reason the government should shut down WIC for the newborn babies that need formula Formula comes in at $15 per can and only lasts every 2-3 days thats not cheap at all. So starving the newborn babies for families that can barely feed themselves is outrageous. Some one please explain this to me, me and my girlfriend are very curious please let me know what you know about this issue!?

16
Contributors
48
Replies
177
Views
4 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Ancient Dragon
Featured Replies
  • 1

    I'm curious, what's wrong with breast milk? Completely free, and arguably healthier in the long term. Read More

  • 1

    In that case I'd question *why* the baby won't latch. Something is wrong if the natural process of nurturing isn't working. Then again, I'm a problem solver and not a doctor. In my experience, doctors have a tendency to treat symptoms without digging deeper to correct the root cause. Read More

  • I think the question should be why is the government cutting food stamps for poor people but leaving subsidies for wealthy corporations making record profits and run by rich people who only want to end handouts for the poor. Agricultural subsidies were actually increased this year. If the Republicans want … Read More

  • > Why do people need WIC anyway? GET A JOB. Wow there is just so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to start. Poor nutrition causes diminishes a childs ability to learn and can decrease IQ if sustained over the long term. The lack of education that … Read More

  • > if you are in a position in which you know for sure (100%) that you can hardly financially support yourself (and spouse), but will not be able to support children: why get children? 1) You assume these people deliberately have children. Often this is not the case given the … Read More

1

I'm curious, what's wrong with breast milk? Completely free, and arguably healthier in the long term.

0

well thats a good question it really is! Our baby won't latch my fiance tried breast feeding but our daughter just didn't take to it so we had no choice the doctor said to go to formula and to be honest there are alot of babies that don't latch on or take to breast feeding

I'm curious, what's wrong with breast milk? Completely free, and arguably healthier in the long term.

1

In that case I'd question why the baby won't latch. Something is wrong if the natural process of nurturing isn't working. Then again, I'm a problem solver and not a doctor. In my experience, doctors have a tendency to treat symptoms without digging deeper to correct the root cause.

0

well thats not my point on here to ask medical advice im asking why the government feels the need to starve babies?

1

I understand that's not your point, but please understand that your question is impossible to answer without inside knowledge. We can only speculate.

What I can do is observe that the question presumes financial support for infant formula is truly needed. That may very well be the case, but it might also be the case that a doctor didn't try to ascertain the underlying issue and simply prescribed formula as a band-aid. In that case, the proper solution is not to assist in purchasing formula, but to assist in medical expenses for fixing the real problem.

My purpose in pointing that out is to reach a logical rationale about why related programs could have been shut down.

0

ok thanks for that but i was hoping someone with government knowledge and the new laws that obama will start taking away wic so thats all im saying

I understand that's not your point, but please understand that your question is impossible to answer without inside knowledge. We can only speculate.

What I can do is observe that the question presumes financial support for infant formula is truly needed. That may very well be the case, but it might also be the case that a doctor didn't try to ascertain the underlying issue and simply prescribed formula as a band-aid. In that case, the proper solution is not to assist in purchasing formula, but to assist in medical expenses for fixing the real problem.

My purpose in pointing that out is to reach a logical rationale about why related programs could have been shut down.

0

Dont listen to that person talking about breast feeding. I breast fed but my son had issues with it and I couldn't breast feed him. I had a lactation consultant and everything. People all agree that breast milk is the best choice but dont come on a site trying to make people feel bad about the issues they have had with breast feeding. You have no idea what some of us go through to try to get the breast milk for the baby. Assuming that there is something wrong either us or the baby or the doctor is ludicrous.

0

but dont come on a site trying to make people feel bad about the issues they have had with breast feeding.

As opposed to coming onto a techical site asking an obviously impossible to answer question about politics? I'm almost tempted to view this thread as a trolling attempt.

Votes + Comments
not helpful
0

i was hoping someone with government knowledge and the new laws

You won't find anyone here. Not even members of congress have that kind of knowledge.

Votes + Comments
not helpful
0

I agree that they should have taken the food stamps from the adults FIRST before taking it from the kids. Totally! There was a comment that someone made about breast feeding and why not do that since it is free and more healthy for the kids anyhow. I do agree with this, which is why I CHOSE to breastfeed all three of my boys; however, not all woman are as blessed as I was and are able to breastfeed due to issues such as infection, or simply not producing enough milk. Take it from the ADULTS first, then if need be the children last when there is absolutely NO OTHER choice. I am pretty positive the president, congress, and all those people with still be getting their checks.

Votes + Comments
helpful
-1

I reckon the idea was that healthy mothers and their healthy children are good for the future of this country!
However, that is not on the agenda of the Koch brothers who supported many of the radical members of congress. They want less taxes!

Edited by HiHe

0

The us government spends about $60 BILLION per DAY. That cannot go on forever, just like you have to control your own spending the US government needs to do the same. So how are they supposed to control spending? Simple, by reducing the size of government, stop all the pork bills, stop entitlements, and stop foreign aid. Phase out social security administration, require people to get privatized retirement plans. Abolish Obamacare, which is going to cost several Trillion dollars per year. Abolish the War on Drugs -- it's a disaster anyway. Release non violent prisoners, such as those in prison for drug charges and other non violant crimes. Abolish Agriculture department, it's outlived it's usefulness. Abolish Secretary of Interior, which oversees national parks and land management, which can all be privatized. Abolish Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Education, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Nice to have, but not absolutely necessary. Last, but not least, streamline US military. Why do we need army, navy, marines, air force and coast guard (technically a branch of US Treasure, not the armed forces)? Why not just combine them all into a single military and eliminate all the duplication.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

-1

The land owned by the US government is worth about 320 trillion. So borrowing about 1.5 trillion is nothing.

Yes, waste not want not should guide all of us.

1

So I guess you're willing to sell the US to China? I don't think so.

According to this research paper, the 1987 estimate was $175 Billion, or $360 Billion adjusted for inflation to 2013 dollars. So where did you get that $320 Trillion from? Most of the land owned by fed government isn't even usable, such as the mountains of Alaska.

Edited by Ancient Dragon

1

I think the question should be why is the government cutting food stamps for poor people but leaving subsidies for wealthy corporations making record profits and run by rich people who only want to end handouts for the poor. Agricultural subsidies were actually increased this year. If the Republicans want the government out of their business then they should comply and immediately end all subsidies and handouts to corporations. Of course, those same rich people could always refuse subsidies on principle. I imagine only Warren Buffet would be willing to entertain that.

0

@AA=

Why do people need WIC anyway? GET A JOB
WIC is for children/babies - we have laws against child labor. "Get a Job" Is a pointless remark as there have to be jobs to get. I first thought you were making a joke, then I read your other rants.

1

GET A JOB was referring to the parents, not the newborn babies! I thought that would be inferred, but maybe not.

If people can't get jobs then do something else with the time instead of making babies. Too many unwed mothers who have nothing better to do then get pregnant.

2

Why do people need WIC anyway? GET A JOB.

Wow there is just so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to start.

Poor nutrition causes diminishes a childs ability to learn and can decrease IQ if sustained over the long term.

The lack of education that results from chronic malnutrition is a huge barrier to them getting jobs when they grow-up and hurts America's competitiveness in the global economy.

In case you haven't notices there is still a global recession which means there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone, so many people who really want to work can't find jobs (after all if hungry children isn't enough incentive to work what is?).

In addition many jobs are at the minimum-wage which means even working full-time may not be enough to provide healthy food for the whole family. Sure they might be able survive off canned beans, dried pasta, and other processed cheap foods but this sort of unhealthy diet is ones of the main causes of diabetes and other health issues (Poor people are much more likely to be obese and have type 2 diabetes than middle class or rich people).

Since they are the 'working poor' there is a decent chance they make too much money to claim Medicare (or you might prefer Medicare just be cancelled anyway) so they have no health insurance to cover their type-2-diabetes drugs or regular trips to the doctor to manage the condition. So they will get sicker and sicker until either:
(1) They end up too sick to work (diabetes causes blindness and many other serious problems) and have to start collecting disability allowances. or
(2) They end up in emergency rooms at which point they will recieve treatment and everyone else who does have health insurance ends up paying for them from raised health insurance premiums.

In either case, YOU have ended up paying more money either as a tax-payer or through health insurance than you would have paid if the gov't had provided preventative health-care and/or nutritional supplement programs (or raised the minimum-wage).

In addition, the average productivity of the USA has been decreased, another generation of kids have been condemned to the poverty-cycle, and millions of people have lived needlessly unhealthy stressful lives.

But, Hey I don't live in your insane country so if you want to pay more for less just so that you have the comfort of having the cost be hidden so you don't know how much you are paying, to whom, and how then that's your decision. Keep voting for the party that knows as much about how America works as an elephant knows about the NY subway system.

Votes + Comments
Awesome!
1

Abolish Secretary of Interior, which oversees national parks and land management, which can all be privatized.

Wow that is amazingly generous of you! An absolute ton of that land probably contains mineral, oil, gas etc... that we just don't have the technology to acquire yet so the land right now is worth peanuts but in 50-100years it could be worth a fortune. Plus who cares if rivers become so over exploited that they run completely dry or national parks are clear cut to turn into printer paper. Nobody actually cares about fish, deer, bears, or those pesky Bald Eagles anyway they're just the national symbol - it would be easy to change it to a sewer-rat. Besides its not like you can every run out of this stuff it literally grows on trees - at least it will until we cut them all down.

Abolish ... Secretary of Transportation

Too true. These road things are completely useless. Why do we keep spending money to make sure their flat when we could all just go back to riding horses? And air-traffic controllers are completely unnecessary there hasn't been a airplane-airplane collision in decades.

... Secretary of Energy

Again great idea after all why are we wasting so much money inspecting nuclear power plants? is not like it would be a disaster if something went wrong? And consumer choice will make sure only energy companies that haven't been responsible for a nuclear melt-down in the past will get any business, surely that will be ample incentive to prevent there ever being another Long-Island or Fukachima or Chernobyl-esque problem every again.

1

If people can't get jobs then do something else with the time instead of making babies. Too many unwed mothers who have nothing better to do then get pregnant.

Except that the stuff that would prevent you from getting pregnant (or undo it if it happens by accident) is kinda expensive and you want to cut the programs that would help the poor/unemployed pay for it.

Of course I'm forgetting that sex is in no-way necessary or important in people's life (and should be treated as a luxury for those with the money to deal with the consequences) and its easy for people to go years or decades without it. I mean lots of priest do it out with absolutely no cases of pedophilia or other sexual abuse/disfunction.

Edited by Agilemind

1

In my area there are places where women can get free birth control stuff. And for men, there is always the vasectomy.

1

GET A JOB

That would be a lot easier if the corporations hadn't been shipping all of the manufacturing jobs overseas. And now a lot of the jobs that are left do not pay enough to live on.

average productivity of the USA has been decreased

I believe that studies show that Americans are more productive now than in the past. Unfortunately the benefits from that gain have gone to the corporations (whose profits have increased) instead of the workers (whose net income has been steadily dropping for decades).

Except that the stuff that would prevent you from getting pregnant (or undo it if it happens by accident) is kinda expensive and you want to cut the programs that would help the poor/unemployed pay for it.

Plus the Republicans don't want to teach sex-ed or provide birth control. They just want people to stop having sex. period.

0

I believe that studies show that Americans are more productive now than in the past

Yes on average living standards have improved (social security and other gov't programs do sort of work) so productivity has increased and a disproportionate amount goes to the rich who supply the capital necessary for capitalism to work because so many people think redistribution of wealth is akin to communism or satanism.

In my area there are places where women can get free birth control stuff.

Most (if not all) of those places are financially supported by gov't of some level. They are not self-sustaining businesses and generally don't bring in enough donations through fundraising to cover all the costs.

0

Yes on average living standards have improved

Living standards have gone down over the last few decades as wages dropped and the middle class had less and less disposable income and more debt.

so many people think redistribution of wealth is akin to communism or satanism

The entire financial system is based on the transfer of wealth. When you work, wealth is transferred from the company to you. When you spend it, it is transferred from you to the shopkeeper. When you are taxed, wealth is transferred from you to the government and, hopefully, into services that benefit society as a whole.

Incidentally, where did the rich get the idea that they create jobs? Jobs are created by people who spend money on goods thereby creating a demand for products which are then made by businesses. If the masses don't have the money to spend on goods then the jobs disappear. If the jobs are all shipped overseas then wages do no go to the masses to spend on goods, etc.

0

Living standards have gone down over the last few decades as wages dropped and the middle class had less and less disposable income and more debt.

That depends greatly on the time frame you are looking at. Since the 50s living standards have improved, since the turn of the millenium they have gone down. I think the expectation is for them to continue decreasing for a while longer but then economists seem to be as often wrong as they are right so I'm not sure if I believe any of their forecasts anymore.

0

even though I can understand some of the comments made on AncientDragon's "GET A JOB" post, I think most of you don't really get what he's trying to say:

if you are in a position in which you know for sure (100%) that you can hardly financially support yourself (and spouse), but will not be able to support children: why get children?

yes, everybody want's em, and everyone has the right to them, but those children also have the right to decent housing/food/clothes/education/... and all the other stuff unemployed people can not provide them.

when choosing for children, you are not only choosing for yourself, but also for the child, and, if you are unemployed, you are making a decision for those who'll have to pick up the check. might not be nice to say, but it's a fact, that those who'll have to work longer, since money for retirements and such run out, are the ones that are paying for a lot of children, they'll never even know. and yes, there are a lot of good people out there, that are just down on their luck, but there are also the types that don't plan to work, just collect benefits and have nothing to do in their free time but to work on the next 'member of the family'. even when trying to count in 'grey' areas, this is an issue that goes over the nation, not over a single child, not even only on poor families with children.

1

if you are in a position in which you know for sure (100%) that you can hardly financially support yourself (and spouse), but will not be able to support children: why get children?

1) You assume these people deliberately have children. Often this is not the case given the inadequate sex-ed many state-school educated people recieve and the high cost and inavailablity of birth-control in many regions. Also birth control isn't perfect (success depend on the method) many people still have accidental pregnancies and many USA states find ways to restrict abortion services.
2) You assume they got pregnant/had children after knowing they are financially unable to support them. Many people unexpectedly lose their job and few people expect they will be unable to find another similarly-paying job to one they had already. These are probably unrealistic in the current economic climate but people are not perfectly rational.

that those who'll have to work longer, since money for retirements and such run out, are the ones that are paying for a lot of children, they'll never even know.

Frankly that is the whole point of public services. Those older working people recieved gov't benefits when they needed them (had young families/unexpectedly unemployed) which were paid for by people now long dead, now it is their turn to pay into the system.

The working longer thing is because medical science was way more successful than was expected, so people now live a lot longer than they were supposed to based on the design of the pension system. The contributions older people made throughout their life were based on the expectation that they would live ~10 years post-retirement but now it is common for people to live 20 years or more.

that are just down on their luck, but there are also the types that don't plan to work, just collect benefits and have nothing to do in their free time but to work on the next 'member of the family'

Countless studies have shown that ~90% of people collecting benefits are employed but are paid so poorly they can't get by on it. Of the rest only a tiny tiny fraction ~1% are people who have been chronically unemployed (aka might be these people who have no intention of working).

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.