posted on August 11, 2004 12:55:53 AM new
The Women's Infant's and Children's Food Program, a.k.a. WIC.
In another thread Twelevepole suggested this program was socialist and should be removed tomorrow. His quote is.......
National health care, free money for street bums, WIC, welfare... all socialistic ideals that should disappear tomorrow.
In his posts he also steers himself towards that element in this country called the religious right. You know, those people that claim to be compassionate and caring people. (What a farce)
I don't know about anyone else here, but I think it is better to shell out a few bucks of tax money to feed a hungry child than to allow that same child to be hungry. I'm sure that anyone will agree that a nourished child will perform better in school than a hungry one. When a child performs better in school, it gives him or her reason to want to continue.
The idea behind the program is to make sure that women who can't sometimes afford to feed the child will have food to do so. Also, to give the child proper nourishment for such things as brain development and function, bone growth and over all health in the early growing years. Additionally, to support the mother's nutrition during her pregnancy.
I know that there will be a few that will say something like, "then they shouldn't be having kids". These same people are the ones saying they are against abortion. Well, that is a separate issue. The fact the children ARE HERE and need to be fed. Think of how many children were born in this country and in the world during the Great Depression.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I wouldn't personally want to see a child go hungry.
One final thought. There is not a person here reading this that made a choice to be born. I don't know if your family background was poor, middle class, or rich. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. After your birth, one of your most simplest needs was to be fed. These children of poor families are the same.
posted on August 11, 2004 06:11:41 AM new
This will be interesting...to see how those who so strongly oppose social programs will justify not feeding and taking care of poor children. Those children are not responsible for their birth or responsible for the fact that their parents are poor or irresponsible or in jail or sick .
Is there ANYBODY here who will admit that they oppose those kind of programs that they have labeled socialist??? Based on what I've read here, I'll bet there are but they are too cowardly to admit it.
One characteristic of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest. Does that include little children?????
posted on August 11, 2004 06:19:46 AM new
Do either of you know what an orphanage is?
WIC is allowed so some gutter slut that was too stupid to use birth control can have a kid that she can't care for... WIC, Welfare are banes on society... best done away with or heavy restrictions placed on both...
Two years and then they get to work or starve... their choice.
I hope you don't call yourself a Christian because I'll argue that point with you tooth and nail. You simply aren't worth the headaches you create with your hatred for people you consider not as good as yourself. Reading your blabbing comments just ruins my day and since I have too much to do today to be thrown into a bad mood by you, I think I'll steer clear of your comments. At least for today...
"Five minutes after you die, you'll know how you should have lived." Maybe you should keep that quote fresh in your mind.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 11, 2004 06:32:10 AM new
I have never claimed to be "christian" in people's warped sense of that word... that is a label those have placed on me and others here...
Christian values do not include free handouts from cradle to the grave...
posted on August 11, 2004 07:19:33 AM new
I don't see anything wrong with any of these programs. Based on what I see,it is really hard for most mothers of small kids to even get by even working everyday.It doesn't pay them to even try to work if they have to pay for childcare. I would rather see somebody benefit from these programs,than the government waste the billions they do on stupid projects that benefit nobody.
posted on August 11, 2004 07:24:47 AM new
So, twelvepole, you're the kinda guy who would remove poor people's children from their parents and their home and move them to a orphanage. Forget the question about Christianity. That would be a violation of American values. In fact, I would call that barbaric.
The fascist values that are currently underway may someday support such an action. After all, that's another industry which would rival the prison industry benefiting the corporate dudes that you support.
posted on August 11, 2004 07:28:59 AM new
Ya, toss all those little ba$tards into orphanages and then train them as future soldiers. Sounds like a great plan.
posted on August 11, 2004 08:08:24 AM new
I think the little boy they are talking about in the EO would be better off in an orphanage. There he will get fed, learn to get along with other children and maybe turn his life around. It is sad to see children like that, but it is going to be difficult to change this young lad into a good child unless he gets some help other than the neighbors. Obviously the parents don't care about him. This child has never learned anything in his short 4 1/2 years and that is sad.
posted on August 11, 2004 08:15:43 AM new
I think you missed my point, Twelvepole.
Or do you really think they should toss underprivileged children into orphanages and then train them as soldiers from the time they are small?
Institutional care. No freedom. No love. Taken from their parents because their parents happened on hard times. Most institutions don't care about emotional problems that children have, they only house them.
And Twelve, are they really all well-off in the military? I heard that some can't get by with the low pay and are on food stamps. Some fell through the cracks when they became injured and were no longer wanted by society and are homeless now.
posted on August 11, 2004 08:23:46 AM new
Here's the latest report on orphanages.
This report, developed with the generous support of the Center for Adoption Research, University of Massachusetts, describes the current landscape of “orphanages” in the United States. Unlike “orphanages” of the past, contemporary facilities are now known as “children’s homes,” “ranches,” “academies,” and “villages.” Like “orphanages” of the past, however, they provide institutional care for children in foster care; they view themselves as substitutes for families on a long-term basis; they do not provide comprehensive professional treatment services to address children’s emotional and behavioral problems; and they do not promote children’s connections with their birth families or find new families for children through adoption.
posted on August 11, 2004 08:32:40 AM new
OH I LOVE this one!!!
Libra says, " think the little boy they are talking about in the EO would be better off in an orphanage. There he will get fed, learn to get along with other children and maybe turn his life around. It is sad to see children like that, but it is going to be difficult to change this young lad into a good child unless he gets some help other than the neighbors. Obviously the parents don't care about him. This child has never learned anything in his short 4 1/2 years and that is sad. "
Especially,"difficult to change this young lad into a good child unless he gets some help other than the neighbors"
WELL, libra, WHO or WHAT would be "help other than the neighbors???????
PUBLIC PROGRAMS!!!!!!!!FUNDED by TAXES!!!!!!
You neocons bite yourself in the asp so many times it ain't funny!
posted on August 11, 2004 08:44:45 AM new
I believe that the Social Welfare system was created with all good intentions. Unfortunately, certain segments of our population took advantage of the "helping hand" and have now changed the initial concept of "helping hands" into a "ways and means" of living totally dependent on the government". The more children you have as an unwed mother, the more you can collect"
This crutch has become the crippler. It has created a population of needy, dependent people.
I agree, that the children hold no responsibility for the life they were born into and there is no question,we must help the children. But the system must cease being a "means of support" or "a way of life"
posted on August 11, 2004 09:00:10 AM newIf the parents are unable or unwilling to support the child then they would be better off in an orphange...
Ah yes take the children out of a loving home and stick them in an orghange where they are without the parents who love them and can get abused. Hey that doesn't matter because they may be getting more food than they would if they lived with their parents.
I suppose you are in favor of just killing the elderly when they can't feed themselves and demand care.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 11, 2004 09:04:50 AM new
I agree with you, drdolittle. What was a good thing for some became too good of a thing for others.
As far as welfare goes, there should be supportive services for everyone to help the adults get back into the work force so families can stay together. It would be less costly in the long run and better for the children if they saw their parent or parents working at a job to better themselves. But this requires taxes being spent for those support services and once things have gone too far one way it takes a while to turn it around again.
Edited to add that with increasing job losses perhaps it will be more difficult for these parents to find jobs that pay more than welfare does.
I believe that it's a myth that most people use welfare as a way of life. I certainly agree that there are a few people who will abuse any system but most people don't want to rely on a pitiful and tedious lifestyle dependent on welfare. To use such tales of abuse of the system in order to eliminate or restrict the benefits that children now receive is wrong.
posted on August 11, 2004 09:16:08 AM new
DrDoolittle
You've brought up some valid points. Back in the 70's I knew nothing about the welfare system as it was known then. I was brought up in an upper middle class neighborhood so the whole concept was foreign to me. Enter the early 80's.
A girlfriend of mine who was married with a young child found herself abandoned by her husband. Without a job and out of money, she asked if I would go downtown to the welfare department with her so that she could get help. I couldn't believe what I walked into. It was a chaotic mess! I'd say about 80% of the people there were black, about 15% were hispanic and about 5% were white. I watched as black women with multiple children in tow were dropped off in front in cadillacs. If you stood outside long enough, you would see that almost all the whites or hispanics arrived by public transportation. The blacks, on the other hand, mostly arrived in very nice cars. It's not a statement of bigotry. It's a statement of fact.
Now, you can't blame the welfare recipients for all of this. You have the caseworkers, for example. More often than not, they'd turn a blind eye to the overwhelming number of recipients committing welfare fraud. People learned how to milk the system and the caseworkers (not all, but most) couldn't be bothered about it. I knew of some who were actually borrowing another's children just to get more money. If you knew one of the caseworkers, you had it made in the shade. Single men were also able to get assistance at that time. Foodstamps were often sold for money, alcohol or drugs. I think by the 1990's the system was an irreversable mess. Enter the days of calling it the Department of Children and Family Service.
Now, you get assistance for a max of 2 years (at least here in Cuyahoga County). They are supposed to assist you in getting job training so that you are prepared for being abruptly cut off. They don't. They are supposed to assist you in getting your education before being abruptly cut off. They don't. Now, job assistance and education assistance is not a service voluntarily provided by the DCFS, it is a mandatory service for which the federal government provides funds. Again, the caseworkers and managers are failing the very people they are paid to help.
The system will never work the way it was intended to until everyone from the bottom all the way up get on the same page.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 11, 2004 09:39:49 AM new
It's especially interesting that neocons don't believe in abortion but when the child is born, don't expect any help from the neocons.
Anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon of Twelvepole, Drdolittle adn Cheryl with stories of welfare abuse?
posted on August 11, 2004 09:56:21 AM new
Helen, I would like to respond to you.
I have a couple of appointments this afternoon. I will reply as soon as possible.
Doc
You of all people should know that I DO believe in offering help. But, the system as it stands with its two year limit is not providing it. Some of these people do not have the skills or the education to support themselves let alone their children. You don't offer help for two years and then just cut it off. There needs to be job training and education inbetween. If it were to work the way it was intended to, it could be a great program. It's far harder to abuse the system now than it was back in the 70's and 80's. Caseworkers are supposed to help, not to hinder and that's what they do all to often. There are programs in place; they just aren't working. So, thousands of children fall through the cracks created by the welfare cheats back in the early days of the welfare system. Then, you have attitudes like that of the neocons that were probably created in part due to the early days of cheating.
Twelve
Most people that are on public assistance do not want to be on it. They are forced to be on it by circumstances that are beyond their control. It is attitudes such as yours that throw these people into feeling shame. A person who is full of shame for themselves is hardly going to do anything to better themselves. You've already drilled it into their heads that they are worthless. Tell a person that long enough and they are going to believe it.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on August 11, 2004 10:41:56 AM new
Don't rush with your response, dolittle. I prefer not to spend the day discussing this topic. The ignorance, greed, and insensitive racist attitudes which accompany this issue are shameful in my opinion and exceedingly disturbing since it concerns little children who have no responsibility for their condition. It's shameful to focus so much hostility and concern about a program such as this when no one bats an eye over corporate welfare, corporate fraud and aid to the wealthy in the form of tax breaks.
Later...
Helen
Before I go, I understand the importance of preventative measures such as affordable health care, better education or what cheryl refers to as job training and birth control. But when these systems fail, welfare services should be available to feed and shelter the poor.
posted on August 11, 2004 02:19:08 PM new
WIC is an example of a program that responds to escalating taxes. By the simple step of assuring adequate nutrition to pregnant mothers and their children we eliminate a significant health cost down the road. Although I joke that it should be called 'Not Men' to save on letterhead, I know this is a crucial program that is effective. An example of our government actually doing the right thing.
posted on August 11, 2004 02:34:04 PM new
I, too, completely agree with Dr.Dolittle's statement. 100%
cheryl mentioned the two year limit. In CA it was a total of 5 years...could be spread out.
The point I don't think ultra-liberals have the ability to see is that these programs ENCOURAGE those people to become dependent upon their services. So...what's the big deal if I get pregnant again...I don't have to pay for it....I don't have to pay to feed and care for my own children....we can always get aid. That alone encourages the dependence.
But I disagree with cheryl in the point that two years isn't enough help. And I disagree that they need or have to again rely on our 'government' to make it better for them...train them...etc. If they haven't graduated from High School....they don't need government assistance to sign up for school. Same goes with getting a 2 year degree. They don't need a government agency to help them apply for college. And by that limit being set...it gets them in gear to doing what they should have done in the first place.....be able to take care of themselves BEFORE they bring more children into this world.
But with all the government handouts available....there are just too many taking advantage of these programs and not growing up and learning to take care of themselves. Take pride in their ability to support themselves. It's just too acceptable now-a-days.
I'm glad the welfare reform was changed during the clinton administration. Everyone was screaming at that time that all these 'poor children' were going to suffer because of their mothers/fathers lack of receiving government paychecks. Well...it didn't turn out that way. They were in a sense forced to do what they should have been doing all along....taking care of themselves and the families they choose to have.
posted on August 11, 2004 02:41:31 PM new
Parklane - If you're willing...I'd like to hear a couple of answers as to your opinion on the WIC program.
First, don't you think these women are quite able to eat well, nutritionally on the money their familes are given from food stamps?
Second, a mother can normally [althought I understand not always] give proper nutrition to her baby via breast feeding....even up to the whole first year or so.
I see the WIC program as a duplication of what is already available to these people in need.
Just curious why you don't appear to.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing is for sure: the extremists have faith in our weakness. And the weaker we are, the more they will come after us." --Tony Blair
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration -- not the terrorists -- as the enemy, we are in trouble." --Oliver North
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
posted on August 11, 2004 02:54:03 PM new
helen said:
It's especially interesting that neocons don't believe in abortion but when the child is born, don't expect any help from the neocons.
That's a FALSE statement....the difference is we just don't think the government needs to do it.
In the past...my mother and grandmothers day...if a family met with hard times friends, family, the community, religious based groups, churches, good hearted people always stepped in are were willing to help. And if you had no family...no help of any kind then they did put their children up for adoption or in an orphanage. But they sure did everything within their power to be sure that wasn't necessary. Not like the people today....who have maybe little or no education but know they can just go on welfare....no big deal.
Also with government programs there's no expectation that they'll improve their situation, just keep receiving those government checks. With the current welfare limitations that FINALLY got passed....there are expectations that they improve their own lives and get off the government dole.
Helping when they need a short-term helping hand is different than the generations of families that have been/were welfare dependant. It was a vicious cycle.
posted on August 11, 2004 03:19:03 PM new
Just my 2 cents, which is about all I can afford...
When I was pregnant with my daughter that we were transferred to San Antonio. At the time, we had $30.00 every two weeks for groceries. After Jazz's birth, my pediatrician recommended that we check out WIC, as she was not gaining weight. (Turned out she needed heart surgery, but I digress.) I was mortified to have to resort to "assistance", as I had always had to work for anything I ever wanted. We qualified for WIC, and received it until my second child was 2. (My husband was lower enlisted, a PFC, and I worked part-time.)
I "approve" of WIC, as you HAVE to choose healthy foods, unlike food stamps. Most people that live here, on food stamps, choose foods that you "warm up", not prepare. Soda, microwave sandwiches, potato chips, etc. are filling their carts where milk, eggs, bread, vegetables and fruit should be. (And they wonder why their kids are obese!)
posted on August 11, 2004 04:17:00 PM new
Thank you, TerryAnn, for sharing your own experience. I wasn't aware of the 'have to choose healthy foods'....that's a good requirement, imo.
posted on August 11, 2004 06:01:00 PM new
Perhaps I misunderstood drdolittle's statement about "certain segments of our population took advantage of the "helping hand".
I thought he/she meant just a certain segment of the total welfare population, not all who are on welfare.
