Trump calls on Congress to pull back $15 billion in spending, including on CHIP

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 11:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ofc.  My point is that it’s not the only thing between poor children and death.  

It’s a good program, but none of this stuff is necessary.  I support the program, it’s a shame the democrats didn’t when they had a chance to fund it for five years.

Yeah, those awful democrats, not signing just any bill blindly just because it has chip in it. 
And yet it's completely ok for republicans to use the program to extort democrats.

That's really messed up.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-09-2018, 11:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, those awful democrats, not signing just any bill blindly just because it has chip in it. 
And yet it's completely ok for republicans to use the program to extort democrats.

That's really messed up.

They could have Also given daca people a path to citizenship as well. They must also hate daca as well. That’s an anti children agenda for chuck and Nancy.

[hollodero]

(05-09-2018, 11:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They could have Also given daca people a path to citizenship as well.   They must also hate daca as well.  That’s an anti children agenda for chuck and Nancy.

Oh for heavens sake, just stop it. Unless this is some kind of act. In which case, stop it.

[Griever]

(05-09-2018, 11:30 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They could have Also given daca people a path to citizenship as well.   They must also hate daca as well.  That’s an anti children agenda for chuck and Nancy.

you do know both sides came up with a bipartisan deal multiple times....it was trump that nixed it

and yet you ignore mitch blocking a bill that would fund the military during the shutdown

[*michaelsean*]

(05-09-2018, 11:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, those awful democrats, not signing just any bill blindly just because it has chip in it. 
And yet it's completely ok for republicans to use the program to extort democrats.

That's really messed up.

Of course it's messed up, but it's a constant.  It's done on purpose so you can say someone hates children or the poor.  But let's not pretend it's a one way street.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2018, 11:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ofc. My point is that it’s not the only thing between poor children and death.

For some children, it absolutely is. For some families, CHIP makes it so they don't have to choose between food and health care. There are other programs out there, but even with CHIP there is not enough to meet the need. Poor children die all the time because of inadequate access to health care, and cutting CHIP funding will increase those numbers.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 09:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's messed up, but it's a constant.  It's done on purpose so you can say someone hates children or the poor.  But let's not pretend it's a one way street.  

Yeah, this is a regular thing that everyone does. That's why I just refer to it as political gamesmanship. Unfortunately, in order to solve the problem our elected officials would actually have to do their jobs instead of going to meals with lobbyists and fundraising for their next election.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-10-2018, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, this is a regular thing that everyone does. That's why I just refer to it as political gamesmanship. Unfortunately, in order to solve the problem our elected officials would actually have to do their jobs instead of going to meals with lobbyists and fundraising for their next election.

It's one of the things I hate more than anything else.  And I truly hate it no matter who does it. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 09:33 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's one of the things I hate more than anything else.  And I truly hate it no matter who does it. 

Agreed. It's something I have grown to hate more and more over the years as I have seen the changes in Congress. As they have reduced the staff in DC, spent more time fundraising, and relied more on lobbyists to do their work for them it has become worse. The act of governing and the concern for the citizenry has gone out the window as we have move closer to an oligarchical society where the concerns of the ruling class are the only ones that matter as they play their games to overcome the other side. There is no concern for the actual problems our nation faces for if there were they would address them with legislation that focuses on these issues. This isn't to say there aren't Representatives and Senators that care about these things, but the political structure and the gatekeeping that occurs from the party leadership with the hyperfocus on winning and treating everything as a zero sum game prohibits real good from coming out of it.

Edit: that was a little mini soapbox rant that went off topic. I apologize. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 09:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For some children, it absolutely is. For some families, CHIP makes it so they don't have to choose between food and health care. There are other programs out there, but even with CHIP there is not enough to meet the need. Poor children die all the time because of inadequate access to health care, and cutting CHIP funding will increase those numbers.

Not for nothing but both of our children were preemies. Because of their birth weight (2lb 10oz and 1lb 111/2oz) we were given a state medical card even though we both worked and both and insurance.  In fact it was one of the first things that happened after both births.  they scheduled a meeting with the person who did all the work for us to get the card as fast as possible.

Out insurances were tapped out almost immediately but thanks to that card we paid maybe $100.00 total to bring both of them home safely and healthy.

Close to one million dollars between the two of them and my wife's bills when her liver started bleeding due to complications from the second pregnancy.

That net saved us...and we were in a good place.  It needs to be there for those who are not.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 10:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Not for nothing but both of our children were preemies. Because of their birth weight (2lb 10oz and 1lb 111/2oz) we were given a state medical card even though we both worked and both and insurance.  In fact it was one of the first things that happened after both births.  they scheduled a meeting with the person who did all the work for us to get the card as fast as possible.

Out insurances were tapped out almost immediately but thanks to that card we paid maybe $100.00 total to bring both of them home safely and healthy.

Close to one million dollars between the two of them and my wife's bills when her liver started bleeding due to complications from the second pregnancy.

That net saved us...and we were in a good place.  It needs to be there for those who are not.

I have been fortunate to never have to rely on government assistance. I have lots of family and friends, though, that have. I know the impact it makes on people and how necessary these programs actually are. Getting involved more in the local community and seeing how these programs are actually needed by people and understanding more about them is what moved me to the left. My wife would like to take the credit, but really it was learning more about the functions of our government and its failings.

Most people don't understand these programs, even the people that rely on them. They don't know how they work, how they're funded, the requirements, or the results. This is because these everyday programs are run by bureaucrats that don't seek praise and don't play politics. They do their jobs to help the public. Unfortunately, this low-key approach is why people are ignorant to these policies and why they don't realize how much of a blow to our people their cuts will be.

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2018, 10:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have been fortunate to never have to rely on government assistance. I have lots of family and friends, though, that have. I know the impact it makes on people and how necessary these programs actually are. Getting involved more in the local community and seeing how these programs are actually needed by people and understanding more about them is what moved me to the left. My wife would like to take the credit, but really it was learning more about the functions of our government and its failings.

Most people don't understand these programs, even the people that rely on them. They don't know how they work, how they're funded, the requirements, or the results. This is because these everyday programs are run by bureaucrats that don't seek praise and don't play politics. They do their jobs to help the public. Unfortunately, this low-key approach is why people are ignorant to these policies and why they don't realize how much of a blow to our people their cuts will be.

I'm a super cynic, but sometimes it seems like the neo-cons have romanticized death and destruction.  I've long since given up on expecting them to not love bombing the hell out of foreign countries, but gleefully cutting programs for needy, applauding the destruction of our air, land, and water, getting excited about the concept of harsh penalties for criminals, and thinking positively about shooting people who invade their homes and/or dying themselves as they shoot at the government when they come to take their guns, and so on.

Again, I may be going overboard here but damn.  Sorry for the side-rant, back to business,.

[fredtoast]

(05-09-2018, 06:27 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Still doesn’t change the fact they rejected it.  

And the Republicans rejected the Democrat plan that included money for CHIP and a plan to save DACA.

So what is your point?

[*PhilHos*]

Why are people lamenting the end of CHIP? According to the OP's article, "Almost half of the proposed cuts would come from two accounts within the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that White House officials said expired last year or are not expected to be drawn upon. "

It's 2 accounts from within CHIP, not all of chip AND supposedly, the accounts are expired or are not expected to be drawn up.

Be critical of whatever spending cuts are propsed all you want, but at least be critical of what they're PROPOSING.

"We're going to make some cuts to CHIP" "OMG! THEY'RE GETTING RID OF CHIP!!!"

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 12:20 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why are people lamenting the end of CHIP? According to the OP's article, "Almost half of the proposed cuts would come from two accounts within the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that White House officials said expired last year or are not expected to be drawn upon. "

It's 2 accounts from within CHIP, not all of chip AND supposedly, the accounts are expired or are not expected to be drawn up.

Be critical of whatever spending cuts are propsed all you want, but at least be critical of what they're PROPOSING.

"We're going to make some cuts to CHIP" "OMG! THEY'RE GETTING RID OF CHIP!!!"

This is why I have been saying cuts to CHIP, and not ending CHIP. But if these funds/accounts are expired, how are they cuts at all?

[*PhilHos*]

(05-10-2018, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I have been saying cuts to CHIP, and not ending CHIP. 

Well, then my post doesn't apply to you. 

(05-10-2018, 12:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But if these funds/accounts are expired, how are they cuts at all?

In the end, does it matter? If the money wasn't going anywhere (and I have no idea how something like this works at the governmental level, so bear with me) might as well put them to use (I was gonna say good use, but we both know the government doesn't really know how to put money to "good" use).

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 12:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In the end, does it matter? If the money wasn't going anywhere (and I have no idea how something like this works at the governmental level, so bear with me) might as well put them to use (I was gonna say good use, but we both know the government doesn't really know how to put money to "good" use).

Let me rephrase: if the funds weren't expected to have any expenditures drawn on them, then how would cutting them save money, which is the goal of budget cuts?

I'm saying their explanation about the accounts being expired doesn't make much sense.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-10-2018, 12:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let me rephrase: if the funds weren't expected to have any expenditures drawn on them, then how would cutting them save money, which is the goal of budget cuts?

I'm saying their explanation about the accounts being expired doesn't make much sense.

Gotcha. Good questoin.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-10-2018, 09:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, this is a regular thing that everyone does. That's why I just refer to it as political gamesmanship. Unfortunately, in order to solve the problem our elected officials would actually have to do their jobs instead of going to meals with lobbyists and fundraising for their next election.

Couldn’t agree more.

[hollodero]

(05-10-2018, 09:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's messed up, but it's a constant.  It's done on purpose so you can say someone hates children or the poor.  But let's not pretend it's a one way street.  

Yeah all right, I would never pretend a one way street. I do know and see that, how could one not. In the same sense though, I'd guess I plead for not pretending that there's always total equality in the means used. I don't support an agenda in giving my honest observation that some members of one side take those things way further into absurdity.

Regarding the matter at hand as an example, I can't "blame" democrats equally - or even more - than republicans for a possible lack of chip funding. Or for not continuing DACA. Etc. These points are still unmatched in their messedupness.