Most American cities developed largely after the widespread availability of personal automobiles, and their design and size reflects that. The basic structure and design of most European cities reflect the fact that they were cities long before the advent of personal car travel, and their comparatively compact size is conducive to efficient and useful public transit. There's no way to design effective and efficient transit services to support the majority of the population in many US metro areas. Nothing you can do would make large scale mass transit really work in somewhere like Atlanta, Los Angeles or Charlotte, NC.

The large, integrated intercity passenger rail networks that one finds in Europe and Japan are likewise not really feasible in the US, where sheer distance has made long distance rail travel something less than economically viable. This means that American families pretty much need automobiles to do any sort of regional travel, even if they don't need them for day to day use, and, as a consequence, many Americans who might otherwise use public transit (helping to subsidize its cost, in the process) have cars, helping to prevent most cities from having the critical mass of transit users necessary to make the infrastructure investment cost effective.

How is this different from the constituent revolt that deep sixed 'comprehensive' immigration reform last year, other than the fact that you and the libs agreed with the 'ruling class' in their desire to put the stamp of legitimacy on the Brown Invasion.

It is quite similar insofar as a groundswell of vaguely Ron Paul aligned Rightists drove the Republican Representatives' defection from the administration. It should be noted though that Boehner gave them free rein to bolt on this one. It is different in 2 major ways: 1) in the the nature of its target beneficiaries -- the financial elite is a much smaller (and less worthy) group than all those brown people who do the work you are likely to old or self-indulgent to do yourself. 2) in that the opposite side of the aisle voted against it in nearly equal measure, and for very similar reasons.

Illegals were not the only or even primary 'target beneficiaries.' The primary 'target beneficiaries' are the business and Wall Street types who want cheap labor in specific industries and the general downward wage pressures that mass immigration inevitably brings in tow and the political class that wants to benefit by buying the votes of a growing demographic. The American people, who saw through the humanitarian smokescreen, understood what you are apparently incapable of grasping: amnesty had nothing to do with humanitarian gestures towards immigrants and everything to do with making life easier for the elite. That's why Americans rejected 'comprehensive' reform across the board. Large of majorities of self-identified liberals, conservatives [i]and[/i] moderates opposed what was, in essence, an attempt to stick real Americans with the social and economic costs of unrestricted Turd World immigration so that the ruling class could wax in wealth and power on the backs of exploited labor.

The program's reach is so vast that it serves 45 percent of all babies born in the United States, a commentary on how many babies are born into poverty.

Of course, it might just as easily be read as a commentary on the way the behavior patterns of the poor keep them poor.

So what do you object to in what I wrote? If the bottom quartile of income earners are having nearly half of the -children being born today children they cannot support without government assistance - how can this be seen as anything but powerful evidence of how the behavior patterns of the poor help to keep them in poverty? Children are time consuming. Children are expensive. If you have children without adequate means of supporting them, you are perpetuating the conditions which lead to poverty, both for yourself and your children.

es, we should provide programs to help people make better family choices. Yes, we should restructure tax policy to dis-incentivize child-having. However, once the kid is in the world, it does become a responsibility of society. It is amoral to allow a child to go to bed hungry in this country, no matter what stupid choices the parents make.

The government doesn't need to be in the morality business with my money. WIC needs to go, or, at the very least, to be restructured as a true emergency only program to keep the same people from forcing the costs of their own irresponsibility on hard working taxpayers over and over again. What we learned from the welfare reforms of the mid-1990s is that, when you take away the option of suckling at the government teat, people don't starve, they just find a way to feed themselves.

WIC encourages child-having among those who cannot really support children, and, as such, it is the problem, not the solution. It perpetuates poverty in the long run without relieving it much in the short term. The program needs to be scrapped in its present form and replaced by a shorter term program designed to discourage child birth among the poor. Limit recipients to 90 days worth of aid every 2 years. If they request more aid than this, their children should be taken into state custody until such time as they can demonstrate adequate income to support their family without assistance.

Couple this with changes in the tax structure that don't reward people for having children (or, at the very least, change the tax structure so that those who do not pay income taxes don't receive the financial benefits of the child tax credit - giving you the best of both worlds, tax breaks for middle class families and a disincentive for child-having among those who cannot afford children) and free, on-demand access to abortion for low-income mothers, and maybe we begin to actually make a little headway against chronic poverty (instead of just feeding the cycle of dependency and poor decision-making that made people poor in the first place).