If Obama DOES cut Head Start and community block grant funding

[Ken Burch]

He can't call himself a Democrat any longer.

NOTHING can make up for cutting those things. Nothing at all.

And cutting them cannot be a part of any strategy for winning back lost ground later.

The "indenpendents" are NOT demanding that we TOTALLY abandon the poor...and if they were, their votes couldn't be worth having.

NOTHING can make up for the reduction of Head Start.

But some here will defend it all anyway.

[cali]

1. don't kid yourself; he'll still call himself a democrat

and frankly, cutting any of these programs is indefensible- Head Start is no more important that LIHEAP, and it's administered, in many places, through Community Action Agencies, so even if there are no cuts directly to Head Start if the block grant funding is reduced, it's effectively a cut to Head Start.

[Ken Burch]

2. Didn't intended to minimize the LIHEAP cuts.

And yes, he'll still CALL himself a Dem...but it won't mean anything.

[du_da]

3. In today's political climate

I don't see how you don't include Head Start on a cut list. Certainly in a perfect world we wouldn't do that, however the people have spoken and they want the parent's carrying the weight of preparing children for school not government. If they are wrong we need to show them why they are wrong. If you think we can do this without the independents then you are just fooling yourself. You might want to look around see which ideology is winning the votes and dominating communities at the moment. How many times have you read postings on DU from someone complaining how the conservatives have taken over their neighborhood. Now, how many times do you see the same type of post on a conservative site referring to liberals taking over the neighborhood?

Obama's big mistake in all this is to even try to pick and choose programs. He should have accepted that he was going to have to make cuts so as to not lose any more ground to the opposition and simply cut everything by some appropriate percentage across the board with no exception. That would have hurt but it would have shown him willing to take the issue serious which is what the independents want to see and at the same time forced the opposition to show their true colors by giving them the opportunity to stepped forward to try to save their own preferred projects. Thus illustrating that they weren't entirely serious.

[cali]

4. the people have spoken? Really? Got any polls that show that the majority

want to cut Head Start? As for your question about wingnuts on wingnut sites complaining about how liberals have taken over and are dominating communities, go over to freeperville; they're are dozens of those threads every day.

"Shared sacrifice" is obscene dog shit is the light of keeping tax breaks for the wealthiest funding such things as high speed rail and having huge breaks for agribusiness and other corporations.

Your post is absurd- and offensive.

[du_da]

5. We don't have the luxury

of ignoring the previous election results, especially when nothing indicates the trend coming back our direction at the moment. If you don't think part of that message was one of personal responsibility then you weren't paying attention. As for freeperville, I avoid that one. Even if they weren't so off the deep end their format sucks so bad that it is nearly unreadable. As such maybe there's an exception. But I check several sites of all political flavors and the complaints of neighborhoods becoming too liberal have been few and far between lately. It seems we aren't doing a good job spreading the word. Either that or they have managed to scare everyone into hiding. I will give you the possibility that it could be the later but I don't see any evidence of that.

Like you, I would like to take those tax breaks and put them toward getting us out of this mess as well. Guess what, this isn't a dictatorship and we don't have that option and never did. Progressives never had a majority more or less super majority. We have always had to deal with the real world which includes the right leaning tendency in this nation. Truth be told we either were unable or unwilling to sell the people on the fact that rich people are not as deserving of tax cuts as everyone else, as such the method for passing tax cuts for the middle class that did not include tax cuts for the rich simply wasn't there, and not passing them for the middle class was political suicide.

So you want to explore the world of the absurd, lets explore the possibility that we can accomplish anything without getting support from people who are not already part of our choir.

[cali]

6. garbage. doing the wrong thing is never right, no matter how

people like you try to tart up the stinking corpse. And we sure the fuck did have the option of of ending the tax breaks. Duh. We had large majorities in both houses. It should have been addressed before the health care issue.


Guess what? I don't like straw men, dear. and your "this isn't a dictatorship" is a prime one.

[du_da]

8. Fair enough

had it been addressed back then that might have been a winnable battle. Although some might argue that battle at that time might have cost us the health care issue and possibly the Senate. There is a reason they waited. I however am restricting my stance to referring to the battle when it was fought as everything else are what if's with too many variables. By focusing on the later date when they did take up the issue we can minimize the variables.

Also we as a party had majorities, what we didn't have was a magic wand to turn the blue dogs into progressives for the vote in question. Representatives cannot be forced to vote a certain way even if the party leaders press them to do so.

[stillwaiting]

7. The people were most certainly sold on no tax cuts for the rich w/ tax cuts

being passed for the middle/working classes.

This was hugely evinced in polls taken prior to the tax cut tragedy.

It is the elected legislators that were not convinced because they were/are clearly bought by the wealthy.

Nothing will change until we change the system.

[du_da]

10. Not during the last election cycle they weren't.

That argument works for the 2008 cycle however the issue was not addressed then. The tides turned for the 2010 cycle.

Where the elected officials afraid of the rich, absolutely they were. They were afraid if they handled the issue prior to the election and let the tax break for the rich go while keeping the others that they would have lost the financial support from the rich that they needed to run the 2010 election cycle. If they let all the tax breaks go then they were going to get castrated by the middle class. That is why they punted the issue until after the election in hopes of a solid enough turnout from liberals to give the blue dogs political cover. That political cover did not manifest so their hands were tied. We have only ourselves to blame to for not convincing our friends and families to back the tax the rich agenda.

You are right that nothing will change until we change the system. Which begs the question, how do we change the system. Which brings us to the point I continue to press here on DU. That being that we can't do it by ourselves. Since we can't drag anyone along kicking and screaming then the alternative is that we have to convince those who are not currently on board to join us. How do we do that, well I can tell you how you don't do it. You don't do it by call them names and attacking them on a personal level, which is so common here.

[badtoworse]

80. Political reality is not all that popular on this board - nt

[bobbolink]

51. How easily you throw around the word "luxury: when you KNOW this equates to DEATH.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

73. While I completely agree with you, can you iimagine how painful it is for someone like me

to read those words?

This is about ME.. this is my life.

And millions just like me.

It. Is. Soul. Murder.

[Ken Burch]

75. I know it is, and I'm sorry if I added to your pain.

People who defend things like this are edging towards a deep hatred of humanity...of ALL humanity, in the end.

To think that it's no big deal if the poor are sacrificed, you have to open yourself to the view that EVERYONE is expendable, and that no one is more important than the profit of the few.

To sacrifice those with nothing, you have to chip away at your OWN soul. And that's what people like that poster do to themselves.

[du_da]

76. Do you think

ignoring the previous elections is going to save anyone? Unless you are under the impression that the opposition is going to do the saving then I don't see how you expect to save anyone without their cooperation.

Also, what is the hangup on the use of the term luxury anyway. Did you actually read what I wrote? Are you working under the impression that the term is taboo because of its meaning when connected to wealth, a definition that has no direct relation to my statement?

[Ken Burch]

77. The 2010 election doesn't OBLIGATE us to surrender

Reagan didn't surrender after 1982, and the GOP got hammered that year.

Ford didn't surrender after 1974, and the GOP did FAR WORSE than we did this year.

Reducing it to "it's enough that it's Democrats doing the cutting" is not a recipe for victory.

We can't get the idealists of 2008 to come back if we keep moving further and further right. A centrist campaign CAN'T galvanize anyone. The only parts of Obama's message in 2008 that got anyone to the polls were the NON-centrist aspects.

The voters didn't END the discussion in 2010, and if we just move right in response to that result, we can't ever move left LATER. And it can't be worth even carrying on at all if we don't move to the left of cutting Head Start and LIHEAT. Those programs are sacred, and nothing the admin could do could possibly make up for the damage those cuts will do to the poor.

[du_da]

88. No one said anything about surrendering.

It does however obligate us to come to reality about our situation. We simply don't have the numbers and if we can't convince others either the centrists or the right to help us then we can't get anything done. That means we have to be careful about how we deal with these people. We can't be approaching them with insults and accusations unless we want to not be taken seriously. We also have to realize where the limitations of what we can get done are because of the current situation and work within those confines and push our efforts to educating the people in preparation to better prepare the environment in the future. However, that education again means we have to be aware of the methods we use to communicate.

If we focus on the idealists at the expense of the centrists we loose, there aren't enough of them yet. We have to build up the idealists ranks first. It worked in 2008 purely because of the disgust toward Bush. Sorry to use the term again, but we don't get that luxury again. So what are we going to rely upon the economy improving? We can only rely on that if the private sector starts creating jobs because the republicans aren't going to let the government do it, and we have been entirely incapable of convincing the private sector to start hiring because we have managed to convince them we are out to get them. Now they are too scared of what might happen down the road if they start hiring again. Method is important in politics because people have memories.

You say those programs are sacred well how sacred do you think they are going to be if we loose control of the Senate and the White House again? There are no sacred cows in politics. We don't have to like it but we have to accept the reality of the situation and work within its confines to improve our own position. Now if you think there is a way to press to the left without loosing even more ground then we are all listening, but I don't see that path available until we get out there and build up the ranks. We have to start convincing others to join us. Until then we are in full stop the leaking ship mode. Which wouldn't be so bad but we are our own worst enemy when it comes to convincing others of anything because our methods tend to turn them off before we even get started. If we can't fix that then all the leaning left in the world isn't going to save those who need us most.

[Ken Burch]

105. That last part MIGHt be a valid analysis

If there was ANY CHANCE AT ALL that accepting cuts to LIHEAP and Head Start was going to help us IMPROVE our position. It can't. Moving to the right on things like that never does.

Furthermore, it makes it impossible for us to restore cuts to those programs later.

[bobbolink]

87. So, you insist that throwing poor people under the bus is going to get you the results you want.

[du_da]

89. No one said

anything about throwing anyone under the bus. Will some people not get serviced because of cuts, absolutely. That is going to happen either way there is no way around that at this point. The question is how can this work to improve our situation so we can fix the problems in the future.

[bobbolink]

104. How delightful that you can be so calm about the deaths of human beings.

That is NOT the political party I wish to be part of.

Once you have deleted compassion, all you have left is greed.

[Ken Burch]

106. Accepting cuts CAN'T improve our situation.

It didn't when Carter did it. It didn't when Clinton did it(it may have re-elected him, but in and of itself, his re-election was meaningless, since in 1996 Clinton and Dole agreed on everything that mattered, with Clinton remaining "liberal" only on trivial side issues like national parks).

[du_da]

111. That depends

on if you accept that the cuts are coming regardless of what you do or not. Once you get to that point you can either be a purist or be effective. You can't be both.

[Ken Burch]

112. Being "effective" in cutting makes you a Republican.

And it makes it impossible for us to ever gain ground again. It can't be WORTH getting the votes of people who want social programs cut to nothing. Nothing can be worth us failing what is SUPPOSED to be the absolute minimum guarantee in a "Democratic" administration-that, no matter what, at least the poorest of the poor won't lose MORE ground. If we can't even stand for that, why should this party even exist?

Clearly, we have no good reason to go on at all if we reduce ourselves to "we're not QUITE as evil".

We'll destroy democracy if we take this path...because we will be saying that the poor mean NO MORE to us than they do to Rush Limbaugh.

If Head Start and LIHEAP aren't sacred...we stand for nothing at all. And you know it.

[fascisthunter]

55. you this a fucking luxury???? Let me guess, you aren't poor?!

nice slip up there

[du_da]

90. Maybe you should reread the statement

context matters.


Those who do not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[du_da]

101. Please

feel free to follow your own logic

[Ken Burch]

107. You CAN'T defend cuts in programs for the poor and STILL claim to care about the poor.

You either defend the powerless or you don't. There's no halfway point.

A party without core values isn't worth anything.

[du_da]

121. There is no absolute

When the cuts are coming anyway then you have to be tactical about them to defend the poor. We have two choices here, we can either accept the political reality and minimize the effects hopefully gaining some political ground out of it or we can cross our arms and pout saying we will take our ball and go home then after the election find ourselves relegated too our own personal little play area with no one to play with, not invited to any birthday parties, while the other kids control everything else that is going on around us. But hay, why not we still get to be self righteous in the process.

[Ken Burch]

122. You're assuming we HAVE to cut just to survive.

The problem is, we CAN'T cut and still say "we're different from the right".

And we have no reason to act as if the discussion is over.

We COULD use this situation to mobilize support. But that becomes impossible if we're going to cut anyway.

[du_da]

124. In today's political climate yes, I make that assumption.

We have to make the cuts somewhere or we get castrated by the public and the areas we would like to focus the cuts are off limits for the type of cuts necessary ie: massive military spending cuts are not palatable, a standard set by the same public that would castrate us for not making any cuts. Ya, I know it is a rather self-defeating position for the public to take but hay it is our fault we didn't inform them better in the first place. After some time, that dynamic will change but today it is very real and will hurt us very badly if we don't acknowledge and account for it.

The discussion of are cuts going to happen is over the public made that determination already. The current discussion is what cuts, on that question they are a bit more vague and we have some room to work.

As for mobilizing support, you are assuming there is support to mobilize. We didn't do our homework and haven't prepped the fence sitters for the possibility of having to move forward without cuts. They bought into the big government out of control we have to cut it logic lock stock and barrel. That is our fault in many ways. The least of which not being our tendency to make ourselves difficulty to agree with by our methods.

[Ken Burch]

18. +a very, very, very large number!

That's my favorite post of yours, as of now, cali.

[chowhound]

31. what the polls have shown was the the majority of people

wanted the government to move in a more republican direction. otherwise there would be more dems the repubs.
this is what happens when dems stay home just to make a point.

[sudopod]

40. Why are you even here? nt

[chowhound]

46. because im angry about the way the election went

democrats stayed home and we lost. when dems vote dems win isnt that the saying? i want people reminded of the way we lost the election so that in 2012 when we may need a couple of new supreme court justices i dont have to worry about dems staying home cause they didnt get the unicorn that farts gold dust!
obama asked for more dems in the elction and got more republicans that told him the majority of the american people want him to move in that direction. elections matter and too few people voted.

[bobbolink]

67. You want the votes? Then make sure people are heard! Make sure poor people are cared for!

Cutting poor people is a SURE way to lose their votes.

If you can't find it in your heart to CARE about us, at least look at your own invested interest in our votes, for crying in a bucket!

You don't kick people and spit at them, and then demand they vote for you!

[chowhound]

74. and staying home aint gonna get you there either

progress, like the road to hell, is paved in baby steps. the more republicans that get voted in by our abstinence makes those steps smaller.
"You don't kick people and spit at them, and then demand they vote for you!" that will be exactly the administration you'll get by not voting.
im sure princess palin will much kinder to you.
the next president may get to chose possibly 2 s.c. justices.

[bobbolink]

86. Your response, devoid of any compassion, is what is getting the results you don't want.

[du_da]

93. More importantly

based on age and rumored health there is a 50/50 chance the two outbound would be ones we traditionally rely upon. With the other 50/50 being one of each. Either way, we can't afford to lose the WH in 2012. Keep in mind, when it comes to the SC there is no such thing as settled law.

[du_da]

92. Isn't kicking people and spitting at them

exactly what we do here to everyone who is not already part of the choir. Then we get upset when they don't vote with us?

[du_da]

91. The problem wasn't dems staying home

The problem is we did a really crappy job keeping the centrists on board long enough after getting them to turn our direction to turn in to legitimate dems.

[Bigmack]

12. Gotta look at the long-term...

Business Week likes Head Start...

"Programs that put real money into intensive preschooling pay off -- in productive workers."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_43/b4006099.htm

A million kids... per year.

Total cost is $7Billion. That's one MONTH of the Vietghanistan clusterfuck. edit: the Clusterfuck actually costs $10 Billion a month... http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm

Look at the long-term... which gives us a better return?... Afghanistan or "productive workers"?

Repub solutions usually involve the short-term, "hard-earned-taxpayer-dollar-saving" (tax cuts for the rich) bullshit.

[du_da]

15. In another political climate

we are in total agreement. However, if don't curtail any further losses then we are going to hand the reins over to a group that might just cut the program entirely if they think they could get away with it, and with the people calling for cuts, cuts, and more cuts they would have all the political cover they needed to do it.

[Gormy Cuss]

62. Every single independent evaluation of Head Start shows that it's a successful program

in terms of bang for the buck. Head Start does what it was intended to do, namely prepare children who don't have stay-at-home parents or nursery schools to train them in the skills needed for school readiness.

[du_da]

94. It doesn't matter if the program does what it is suppose to do.

You are dealing with people who are trying redefine the appropriate level of government involvement based on a standard from 100 years ago, and if we aren't careful they are going to pull it off. We can't stop them by ourselves at this rate. We have to convince others to help, that means establishing meaningful dialog and convincing them we are right.

What we have to learn first is that we cannot establish meaningful dialog by insulting someone. I don't know if we have forgotten that or never learned it, but either way it is an important lesson and our views will continue being ignored until we learn it.

[Ken Burch]

113. "It doesn't MATTER if the program does what it is suppose to do"?.

What the hell DOES matter then?

Does it at least matter that the program is ESSENTIAL?

Aren't you basically asking us to stand for nothing? That's what we do if we follow YOUR path and reduce our message to "it's enough that we didn't cut AS MUCH as the Right wanted".

That certainly isn't a message that can ever win us an election. The public doesn't want us to be LESS different than the GOP than we are now. They aren't demanding conservatism from BOTH parties.

[du_da]

118. For a program

meeting its goals to matter in the conversation, you must first reach the conclusion that the objective is acceptable for that program. We aren't in agreement with them on that, so the success of the program at meeting its objectives is hardly relevant when we can't come to terms with the opposition that this is a worthy endeavor for the program. You are fighting the second phase of a battle without completing the first.

You ask if if matters that the program is essential. That is certainly a valid point and one to be used within the argument to justify the program's objectives.

No I am not asking you to stand for nothing. I am asking you to step back and view the forest, your vision is being blocked by the trees. You don't even realize that you are trying to get to the other side by walking straight ahead but the exist is actually of the side somewhere.


My point is that you have to do two things. First you have to learn how to communicate your ideals and points. Communication is a formalized process that involves multiple steps. Several of which our side likes to skip. Basically any of the steps that actually involve the opposition. The most predominate examples of which is that prior to formulating a message for communication you must evaluate and understand you receiver. In the political arena that means understanding why they disapprove or approve of something. What we do is attempt to assign those reason for them based on our own preconceived notions. Notions that tend to be wrong more often than not because they are more reflect of our own efforts to justify someone disagreeing with us than with understanding their perspective. Pointing fingers at the RW and yelling racism is a good example. They legitimately disapprove of policies we would like to implement because they don't see this is a role of government or think the policies are more destructive than helpful those are two common reasons for disagreement on polices to help the poor for example. But the moment this occurs many on our side start pointing fingers and say they are just racist because they want all the blacks to die of starvation or some other such nonsense.

Now you also mentioned the specific message of we didn't cut as much as the right wanted not being one that can win elections. Normally that is true, in today's political climate it isn't. This illustrates my second point. You have to pick your battles. We can't win in the current climate unless we show that we are serious about dealing with what people see as out of control spending. So then the question becomes how do we show we are serious and not let people die in the streets at the same time. Well the fact of the matter is that some cut is going to happen we have to embrace that reality. So what happens if we cut by say 10% across the board. Well first off to those small programs that would hurt but hardly be the death knell. They would be able to service fewer people that is true. But that was going to happen anyway, what we would have done by an across the board cut is to implement the same logic that we keep telling society must apply that being shared sacrifice. Here's the kicker, by doing it across the board, programs that are normally off limits aka military spending have to share the sacrifice too. This creates an added benefit that the RW now will stand up and start protecting their little gem projects that they use to sell to the voters back home to round up support. End result, we get to show them as not being serious about cuts when the public is demanding that very approach.

Oh and as far as what the public is demanding, yes they are demanding conservatism from both parties on fiscal issues. What they are not demanding is Republican version of conservatism.

[Gormy Cuss]

117. No, it's time to call a fool a fool with FACTS.

The people you are speaking about are the ones who hurl insults and think rudeness is a sign of their own superior intellects.


eta: and the fact of the matter is programs like Head Start pay off in the long run in terms of worker production (or to code it for the terminally heartless, workers who pay taxes.)

[du_da]

119. I don't disagree that it is a worthy project

however, you still can't ignore our current political climate. The people are forcing the government to make cuts. The question is do we cut certain programs deep and leave pet projects alone or cut them all a little and take them back to service levels a couple years ago. Sorry, but I think both financially and politically we gain a lot better footing with the later idea. Unless of course there are some specific projects that are a complete waste and can just be canned altogether. But those are such a small representation of the budget.

[Ken Burch]

123. Actually, no. The people aren't forcing us to do any such thing.

The election didn't END the discussion. The RIGHT never acts like they can't stand up for their principles after they lose. Why should WE?

And the polls don't even show a consensus around the idea that social programs have to be cut.

[bobbolink]

50. Sacrifice for so many of you is going to one less movie, having one less bottle of wine.

Sacrifice for poor folk is OUR. LIVES.

Get it?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. The President does not control the gov't pocketbook. nt

[Bandit]

14. No but he does submit an annual Budget

It is supposed to be a guideline for Congress. Congress is not supposed to create their own Budget, just tweak the President's..

[PBS Poll-435]

16. OMB is a guideline, CBO is a guideline

And Appropriations ...


You know at this point I don't even fucking care anymore.



We know Congress is not going to pass a budget. We will be on CR for another year.

[badtoworse]

85. Where does it say that? Congress can do whatever it wants with the President's budget proposal...

...and they usually do.

[sudopod]

20. The President has the ear or the nation and the last say on legislation

unless his veto can be overridden. He has allies and fellow Democrats in both houses of Congress (who make up the majority in the Senate).

He can by God make noise if nothing else is possible.

Silence is consent.

I don't see how you can claim otherwise with a straight face, unless you're just bullshitting.

[PBS Poll-435]

21. Probably the stupidest thing I have seen in a while

The Senate and the House is not going to reach a bill to send to the President this FY.

We will be on a CR again this year. DUH.

[sudopod]

23. "Stupidest thing I have seen in a while"

So you didn't brush your teeth this morning?

[PBS Poll-435]

25. I wished they were still so enthusiastic about teaching civics

Or Government

Or Accounting




Sadly, they aren't.

[sudopod]

28. How's that

The President has the ear or the nation and the last say on legislation unless his veto can be overridden. He has allies and fellow Democrats in both houses of Congress (who make up the majority in the Senate).

He can by God make noise if nothing else is possible.

Silence is consent.

I don't see how you can claim otherwise with a straight face, unless you're just bullshitting.

How can letting this go without a fight in the public eye can be considered 'not a big deal.'

Did they put the bully pulpit into storage or what?

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Sad that so few know so little

When does the next budget (FY) begin?


This is pathetic.

[sudopod]

32. *eyeroll*

Educate me. Why does the President carry no burden on these cuts to very important services that amount to a quantitative gnat fart in the face of two bloody pointless wars? I would LOVE to be proven wrong.

I'm through with hearing about how the President of the United States of goddamned America has no power over anything (except trillions of dollars of military hardware). That isn't good enough. "Oh no, he can't do anything because it's a continuing resolution." Horseshit. If bloggers can see this stuff coming down the pike, the President and his advisors sure as hell can too. I guess there are more important things to worry about, like keeping the Chamber of Commerce happy and prayer breakfasts or whatever.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. Go to Congress and testify

I am sure they will enjoy your theories.

[sudopod]

36. So during his 30 minute interview with O'Reilly

He couldn't have brought up his displeasure?

[PBS Poll-435]

37. LOL

The Bill O'Reilly card.


Just let it go.

[sudopod]

39. Why?

Because it makes you uncomfortable?

He can tell military who to kill every morning. He can sort of maybe say that those dictators over there shouldn't torture their people, mostly. Why can't he be bothered to say "Boy, I sure do hate it when people freeze to death because of Republicans" or "I sure would be nice if we could continue paying for Pre-K education at a sustainable level."

I'm not asking for a miracle.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. Because you know the story is a lie, yet you project the future of Egypt with a lie

That's why.

[sudopod]

43. What story is a lie?

The one about the two wars and predator drones?
The torture abroad (and also abroad but closer to home)?
Spending an afternoon talking to a certified moron but not addressing issues that will shortly become life-or-death for many people?

Please feel free to use bold and underline if you think that will help.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. Again, just let it go

Really.

[sudopod]

48. I guess I'll just have to make do

and find some other reason to man the phone banks again and harass strangers to register to vote for "our guy."

He's better than Bush, I guess. Gotta give him that. *Sigh*

[PBS Poll-435]

49. He does not write the budget. We are 7 months from the next budget

Nothing is going to happen. We will be in CR.


Just let it go.

[sudopod]

52. What would stop him from SAYING anything?

Words cost nothing. Why not make political hay out of the fact that Republicans are cold-hearted bastards instead of letting them get away with this shit surreptitiously?

And anyway, why do you keep posting "let it go" over and over? You can stop the conversation by not responding if that's your fancy. You don't even have to cover your ears and scream.

[PBS Poll-435]

54. Because it doesn't matter

At all

There will be no FY budget this year.

We will have a CR.

Who gives a FF?

[sudopod]

56. You, apparently. And everyone else in the dozens of threads discussing the issue.

I don't see how you can say it doesn't matter. I guess poor people aren't as important as supporting Our Team?

[sudopod]

57. I'm sure pointing out that the fiscal year is different than the calendar year

will really impress people who have to live in Minnesota without heat. Just the appearance of giving a damn is worth a little something, even if he has no direct control over the process. Mind you, this also applies to our congress creatures too.

[PBS Poll-435]

59. There will be no reduction in funding until fall of this year in the worst possible scenario

Duh.

[Hannah Bell]

60. oooh, that's reassuring. no reduction until fall, just in time for winter.

[sudopod]

61. This thread is so full of derp that it hurts, isn't it? nt

[PBS Poll-435]

96. It's full of something, alright

Outright and unshielded ignorance.

But, It's Friday so who gives a fuck.

[sudopod]

97. Ignorance of what? nt

[PBS Poll-435]

100. The budgetary process

It's ok. It happens.

[sudopod]

108. wat?

Are we even having the same conversation?

[sudopod]

109. wat?

Are we even having the same conversation?

[PBS Poll-435]

115. I guess not

Congress is who writes the budget. The President may make recommendations via the cabinet or personal preference of budgetary priorities, but the President doesn't get to spend money.



This is so DERP it is scary.

[sudopod]

66. Just so we're clear that this is being proposed by the Administration

and is not just part of a CR:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x393398

[PBS Poll-435]

116. Either a budget passes or a CR does

Budget looks like a non-starter.

So it'll be a CR unless they want a '95 Shutdown.

[du_da]

95. And when the people

look at him strangely and ask why that can't be handled at the local level? Are you sure that is a fight we want to have in the public arena in today's political environment? At this point in time, federal dollars going to specific education programs is not the battle we want to fight. We have to pick our battles carefully at least until the anti-government sentiment dies down and the people that are fired up at the moment go back to watching reality TV.

Let's wait until we are on firmer footing to bring those types of issues to the forefront, unless you want to put the entire program on the chopping block which many of them would be perfectly happy with.

[sudopod]

98. Well damn it what should we fight for?

Where do you draw the line Captain Reasonable.

If we wait long enough we won't have to do anything!

Christ on a pogo stick.

[sudopod]

41. He had plenty of time to talk to a guy

who thinks the tides are caused by God.

[Zhade]

65. We let it go, poor people like our own bobbolink DIE. Is that okay with you?

NT!

[sudopod]

24. it follows that if we're doing these things to permanently "balance the budget"

that they will appear on actual appropriations bills in the not-too-distant future.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. Maybe

But not definitely.


To blame "Obama" for a bill that has not crossed his desk, a bill that has passed neither Chamber is childish.

[TBF]

11. A certain contingent will vote for him no matter what he does,

which is why I've been interested in primary challengers. Doubt there will be one, but still holding out hope.

[spanone]

13. if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,

if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,if, if, if, if, if,

[Ken Burch]

22. OK...you're imititating the "green bells of Cardiff"...what is your actual point?

n/t.

[neverforget]

103. La, La, La I can't hear you?

:shrug:

[JVS]

17. I'm not familiar with the debate over head-start.

Mainly because I don't have kids and up until now I didn't realize there was any debate about head-start. What is the program, who benefits from funding, what is being cut, and how detrimental is this to the people who benefit from the program?

[xchrom]

79. you can start here

http://www.nhsa.org/

Because we believe that

* all children should reach their full potential,
* every child can succeed,
* we can impact the success of "at risk" children,
* quality early education fundamentally transforms children and families.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/index.html#mission

About the Office of Head Start
Mission

The Office of Head Start (OHS) advises the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on issues regarding the Head Start program (including Early Head Start). The Office develops legislative and budgetary proposals; identifies areas for research, demonstration, and developmental activities; presents operational planning objectives and initiatives relating to Head Start to the Assistant Secretary for Administration for Children and Families; and oversees the progress of approved activities. OHS provides leadership and coordination for the activities of the Head Start program in the ACF Central Office including the Head Start Regional Program Units. The Office represents Head Start in inter-agency activities with other Federal and non-Federal organizations.

Early Head Start promotes healthy prenatal outcomes, enhances the development of infants and toddlers, and promotes healthy family functioning.
Purpose

Head Start is a national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enrolled children and families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program

Head Start began as part of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty and Great Society. Born in the Mississippi Freedom Schools,<3> it was modeled on the Little School of the 400. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 first authorized the program,<5> giving broad powers to the Office of Economic Opportunity,<5> headed by Sargent Shriver, which began the program in 1965.<6> The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 also addressed preschool education.<7> In 1968, Head Start began funding a program that would eventually be called Sesame Street, operated by the Carnegie Corporation Preschool Television project.<8>

The Office of Economic Opportunity's Community Action Program launched Project Head Start as an eight-week summer program in 1965. The following year it was authorized by Congress as a year–round program. Congress enacted the Head Start Act in 1981.<2>

In 1969 Head Start was transferred to the Office of Child Development in the Department of Welfare (later the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)) by the Nixon Administration. Today it is a program within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the HHS. In FY 1994, the Early Head Start program was established to serve children from birth to three years of age reflecting evidence that these years are critical to children's development. Programs are administered locally by nonprofit organizations and local education agencies such as school systems.

[Rex]

19. True, if he DOES.

I have no doubt he WILL, but will appease the other posters here and wait till he DOES. Of course it is too late by then, but that never stopped anything before! Disaster always runs its course.

[Arkana]

64. Yeah, just like he announced huge cuts to Social Security in the SOTU!

Wait...

[chowhound]

27. this is what happens when dems sit home....nt.

[MzNov]

53. No, this is what happened when all Dems went out full force and voted for Obama

Dems stayed home because of crap like this.

[bobbolink]

30. News blast... he doesn't give a shit what you call him.

And what party he is really aligned with doesn't matter... the thing that matters is what people like you are going to do.

Call him a DINO or RWer and wash your hands of him?

Not vote?

Or are you going to wave a shoe in the air and Make A Lot of Noice?

Are you going to do everything you can to link with others and make sure poor people have LIFE, or just be satisfied to call Obama whatever...?

[Ken Burch]

33. You're right, of course.

But part of that is getting people here to realize he isn't really one of US.

[bobbolink]

35. I understand there are steps;..... but I am also going to push those of you who hate what he is

doing to poor people to do more than stand by and watch while wringing your hands.

Lives depend on your action.

Literally.

We. Need. You.

[Ken Burch]

38. OK. And you SHOULD do that.

I'll be doing what I can to get people there, too.

[bobbolink]

44. You're great, Ken. I'm very appreciative.

I can't be silent when people are suffering so much. Yet, being on the hotseat all the time is very, very hard.

I need all of you... the time has come, and we must stand up now.

Thanks! :toast:

[somone]

45. When you smell dog shit, you don't pretend it's Valentine's Day perfume

[badtoworse]

84. I ususally check my shoes when that happens

[emilyg]

58. kick

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. Would he still be able to call himself a Democrat is he only froze funding rather than cut it?

[Ken Burch]

70. He'd have somewhat more right to.

It's SUPPOSED to be a core value of OUR party that, when there's a Democratic president, the poor must never LOSE ground. That is supposed to be a line in the sand. If we don't stand for that, we stand for nothing at all, or at least nothing that matters.

No greater good is ever realized by cutting programs for the poor, especially (in the case of LIHEAT and Head Start, the only hopes the poorest of the poor have). Nobody is going to do anything in private charity to make up for those losses. Private charity never does.

[craigmatic]

69. If he does cut those things he'll have to increase prison spending. People turn to crime when they

don't get education or have any options which is what happens when you take away funding for their futures.

[Ken Burch]

71. Exactly

Jesse Jackson made that point back in the Eighties when he pointed out that it would cost less to send criminals to college than it does to incarcerate them.

Therefore, cutting programs for the poor is NOT fiscally responsible.

If you cut them, you lose any right to expect the poor to obey the laws. People don't obey the laws when the system gives them no, er, HOPE.

[Freddie Stubbs]

78. Most criminals are are in STATE prisons, not FEDERAL prisons

[craigmatic]

81. Yeah and state prisons are either privately owned or get federal money one way or another.

[BobbyBoring]

82. I don't see that as being a problem

Now that we've added the prison industrial complex to our many other complexes, there will be plenty of room at the "inns" for the nuevo criminals.

I think that's part of the plan~

[craigmatic]

83. Sad but true.

[bluestate10]

102. "IF" is such a large word when you are making unfounded assumptions.

I prefer to wait until actual policy is proposed. But I am a moderate and do weigh all sides of issues and avoid making assumptions.

[sudopod]

110. Implying liberals don't

oh lawdy.

[woo me with science]

114. You have identified perhaps the cheapest tactic used to deflect from these betrayals,

which is to suggest that any outrage can be nullified by a positive accomplishment. :puke:

Kicked and recommended.

[Rock The Debt]

120. Stand up to big business

I don't understand this! Stand up to big business. So many people would support him.