From the website there are 17 programs being cut, is this good or bad?
I couldn't find one worthwhile program in the whole lot.
Also, I added them up - cutting those programs will save us over $7 Billion per year. That's half of the wall right there.
You couldn't find a single program? How about the office of violence against women?
"Office of Violence Against Women
Budget: $480 million
Cost per American: $1.48
The OVW runs 25 grant programs created through the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, in an effort to reduce domestic violence, sexual assault and dating violence. "
I'm not a fan of the wall. I think we need more patrols guarding the border instead.
ok I think trump should create a program for men for every program only for women haha, how would you like that? or would that be too misogynist for your liking? lol. after all men are more likely to be assaulted then women
There is some merit to your words. That too much affirmative action can make people who are struggling but in the majority feel alienated.
see it is reverse sexism to have womens shelter and laws against violence against women, but not vice versa? why can;t it be a crime to be violent against anyone. you know? exercise the equality you liberals love to pretend to care about so much?
Again, there is some merit, but we have to help the people who need help the most. For example, if we were to give out welfare to the wealthy as well as the poor, it would defeat the purpose of welfare but at the same time be more equal.
Another example is tax brackets. That by taxing the rich more than the poor we are practicing discrimination. Nevertheless, taxing the rich more is the best course of action anyone has come up with.
A down to Earth example would be two people one with a cut and one without. It would be discrimination to give a bandage to the person with a wound, and not the unscathed person. Therefore, in the name of equality we must give the unscathed person a bandage too.
Is violence against women still a big problem in this country? If yes, then that office has been around for 20+ years without producing much results, so why keep them around. If no, then there's no need for them anymore.
Also, that math seems a bit off, don't you think?
$480,000,000 / $1.48 = 324,324,324 Americans.
But there's only half that many federal income taxpayers out there - so obviously whoever tallied this thinks children & babies foot the bill too.
Violence is still a problem against women. Some problems like crime seem so persistent that they will never go away. I think the purpose of the office is to mitigate violence against women, not end violence entirely.
In 2005, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner.1 That’s an average of three women every day. Of all the women murdered in the U.S., about one-third were killed by an intimate partner.2"
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006. That’s more than 600 women every day"
Again math isn't your friend here:
Taking your numbers for 2006, there were 0.07% women raped/assaulted. Are you arguing it would've been higher than 7 one hundredths of one percent? Obviously it would be great if it were zero, but we can't legislate utopias.
Also that number evidently includes "crimes that were not reported to the police" - whatever that means. How then is it a "crime" if it wasn't even reported to the police?
Yes, I am arguing without this organization that more crimes against women would have occurred.
Crime "1. An act committed in violation of law where the consequence of conviction by a court is punishment, especially where the punishment is a serious one such as imprisonment."
A crime does not have to be reported to the police to be in violation of the law.
How many more? 10 times more? 100? There's no way to know - can't prove a negative after all. Common sense tells me those numbers would be the same though, with or without that office.
My point about the non-reported crimes is that it casts doubt on the numbers overall. Anyone could've claimed anything, there's no control, no authority to back it up.
Here's a seventeen page report on the office in question's accomplishments. I found the part about women with disabilities to be interesting. I never would have thought someone would stoop so low as to attack a disabled woman.
That's not much of a surprise though: the gov't funding a report that validates their very own funding.
Well here's a 30+ page report showing the VAWA actually hurts the people it's trying to protect. The VAWA and OVW are pretty much connected at the hips, so I think it's applicable here:
Basically, mandatory arrests cause under-reporting, which can lead to more violence and homicides. It's believed the reason they don't report is because they're afraid to lose their main income earner. There's also fear that they may lose their children to the state.
The best line is right there in the abstract (emphasis mine):
"Domestic violence remains a major public policy concern despite two decades of policy intervention."
Thanks for continuing the conversation.
Let's say you are 100% correct about the office doing more harm than good. Here's the problem life is often counter intuitive. Humans learn from their mistakes.
You are effectively making an argument for the office needs constructive criticism and to revamp its efforts. That fact that the office has found a way to get the opposite of its goal shows it is making progress.
"“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
― Thomas A. Edison"
I think cutting these programs is a bad idea. I'm worried what will happen next.
Explain what you find so hilarious?
you liberals getting your panties all up in a bunch because MSM told you too. your acting all paranoid because MSM told you too. thats what is so hilarious
I can't speak for others. I don't even identify as a liberal. I'm upset because of the environment and man made global climate change.
yeah and giving it back to american people whats so wrong with that?