• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans block child nutrition bill

Boo Radley said:
I was the one being feed. We ate a lot of hot dogs and beans, not to mention the free cheese.
Click to expand...

My mom frequently claimed she wasn't hungry, or she'd already eaten. She told me that when we were little-little (my sister and I are only 13 months apart), she won a case of canned beans in a radio contest and watered them into bean soup for a month. It's probably better I have no recollection of that time. ;)
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
How much did you get, and how many were you supposed to feed. Perhaps it was poor planning on your families part. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I just checked the benefits calculator and a family of 4 with both parents working minimum wage at 40 hrs/week paying $500/month rent would get $287/month in food stamps. you are not going to be eating steaks on that but you will be able to feed your family. I don't spend much more than that on groceries for my family of 4.

and the way I see it, food stamps are supposed to be a supplement.

If you want a higher standard of living, get training/education so that you can get a job that pays more than minimum wage.
 
Paschendale said:
Which parents are these, exactly? The ones who leave home before the kids get up to get to work and don't get home until after dark? The ones who haven't the time to make their own lunches, let alone someone else's. Oh! You mean the housewives. Because this is still 1952. And women don't work. And everyone of consequence is a suburban white family. And poor people who work 14 hour days to ensure that their kids have a roof over their heads and food to eat at all don't exist in the public eye.

Wake up and get with the program. It's 2010 and the poorest 20% of the population (which is primarily mandated by race) are in trouble. Helping poor people live better lives and giving their children a chance to move up the economic ladder and truly break into the middle class is not about "growing government". It's about some human compassion. But I guess we can't have that now, can we? Not if it means some people have to pay an extra 12 bucks a year on their income tax.
Click to expand...

Read the bill and post a little of the "compassion" here please. Then take out the rest of the over reach of government and maybe I could go for passing it. This bill is not about being compassionate toward kids who parents feed them junk food. It's about growing government.
 
BDBoop said:
My mom frequently claimed she wasn't hungry, or she'd already eaten. She told me that when we were little-little (my sister and I are only 13 months apart), she won a case of canned beans in a radio contest and watered them into bean soup for a month. It's probably better I have no recollection of that time. ;)
Click to expand...

the first pair of pants I ever wore my mother made from the legs cut off a pair of my dad's work pants that he'd worn out. I remember being hungry on many occasions because my parents were "too proud" to apply for food stamps or any other type assistance, though Lord knows we qualified. If we hadn't lived in the country where we could grow a garden, I honestly think we would have starved.

I guess that is one of the reasons I have so very little sympathy for "the poor". I was born poor and grew up poor, so I was not one of those "lucky" rich kids. I worked my ass off, went hungry and did without things in order to get a good education to provide a better life for myself and my family. So it pisses me off to no end to be forced to provide for lazy bastards who don't have the guts and/or determination to do what I did. The opportunities are there, they just won't/don't take advantage of them.
 
randel said:
i'm willing to bet that 300 dollars in foodstamps went a bit further then than it does now...
Click to expand...


Whew! Join the club....My dollar doesn't go as far either.

The average allotment is $133.00 per person. In a family of four that is $532 per month. Now, I don't know about you, but I only spend about that in my family per month.

j-mac
 
why a federal issue?

the government doesn't produce income, so why take money from the state, send it to washington, just to send it back to the state?

the only real reason to do this is you don't plan on paying for it honestly, you plan on paying for it by borrowing and debasing the currency.
 
Here, right out of Barb's link:

Groups representing school administrators, city schools, and school boards oppose S. 3307 and endorse reauthorizing exiting government meal programs. In a November 15, 2010, letter from the American Association of School Administrators, Council of the Great City Schools, and National School Boards Association, the organization stated: “All of the national organizations representing the nation’s public school districts do not support the Senate version of the Child Nutrition reauthorization bill (S. 3307) pending before the House.”
Click to expand...
The schools don't want this ****, you see? This whole corruption with the school lunch program makes me sick.
 
Red Crow said:
That's wat's wrong with the Democrasts. They want to the government to spend, spend and spend to fix ANY problem.

HOW ABOUT FIXING THIS PROBLEM BY PUTTING PEOPLE BACK TO WORK! Dems. will fix two problems by doing this. Dha......

Except that they don't know how, they are so deep that they need scuba diving gear.
Click to expand...

Why does the white house have to put salad bars in schools, can't the school districts think for themselves? Why does the govt have to mandate and fund local food networks, can't the schools buy local products themselves? Are the schools so ****ing stupid that they can't come up with better ideas on their own? Then why are they allowed to teach our children?
 
My :twocents: worth...

After reviewing the summary report on the bill provided by Barbbtx, one thing stood out with me (actually, I thought about it beforehand, but wanted to at least read the summary report before replying):

If S. 3307 is essentially the exact same bill the received unanimous approval by both chambers of Congress in August of this year BEFORE the GOP added their amendments, how is it that the bill now costs an additional $4.6 millions and is, thereby, unfunded by the States when clearly the original unamended bill was and IS being paid for using Stimulus funds? Who (or rather what political party) added the additional spending AND the additional nutrition reporting requirements by public school administrations?

Think it through, ladies and gentlemen...

The answer is very simple and straight-forward, but I'll keep my mouth shut for now and read the various replies before responding.

(Note: I didn't see anything concerning background check for child care providers in the summary report. Either the language isn't in the bill or it wasn't covered in the summary report which would strike me as odd considering that was a hot button point of the amendment.)
 
Last edited:
The Dems were already told that anything except taxes would be blocked.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The only way that it would kill the bill is if the dems were against it and wouldn't agree to it. Is the safety of our children less of a concern than some political gamble on reducing obesity?
Click to expand...

IN case no one pointed this out, the bill was purposely amended so that it would get sent back the senate with little time left in the legislative session. Would that mean it would have to go back the house after the senate oks it with no time left for the president to sign it? If so then then it could be argued that this was done on purpose on the GOP's part to black the bill.
 
jamesrage said:
IN case no one pointed this out, the bill was purposely amended so that it would get sent back the senate with little time left in the legislative session. Would that mean it would have to go back the house after the senate oks it with no time left for the president to sign it? If so then then it could be argued that this was done on purpose on the GOP's part to black the bill.
Click to expand...

if so, good for them. it's a bad bill
 
jamesrage said:
IN case no one pointed this out, the bill was purposely amended so that it would get sent back the senate with little time left in the legislative session. Would that mean it would have to go back the house after the senate oks it with no time left for the president to sign it? If so then then it could be argued that this was done on purpose on the GOP's part to block the bill.
Click to expand...

BINGO! And might I add for once a Conservative spoke the truth on the underhandedness within the GOP (in this case anyway). The amendment was added on purpose for a specific purpose - TO BLOCK THE BILL FROM BEING PASSED...a bill that was voted unamiously in favor of by the Senate BEFORE the amendment was added!!!

Finally, someone within the Republican party took the blinders off and saw things for what they truly are. My hat goes off to you, jamesrage.

(Sorry...I know I said I'd hold off on my response, but once I notied that a Conservative made the connection, there really was no reason to delay.)

OscarB63 said:
if so, good for them. it's a bad bill
Click to expand...

No. The original bill obviously was just fine the way it was. The GOP didn't have to add anything to it for the President sign it. It was fine "AS-IS".
 
Last edited:
Gawd I hope the Dems don't try some shenanigans to pass it.

Republicans block child nutrition bill - wtop.com
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. said the House would hold separate votes on Thursday on the amendment and the bill.Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach.
"It's not about making our children healthy and active," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. "We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is about spending and the role of government and the size of government _ a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not."
 
But again...

The original bill was just fine. Who added the additional $4.6M to it and why? The original expenditures were being funded under the SNAP program and would NOT have cost the tax payers another cent. So, why the amendment when it was unanimously approved by the Senate last August? The GOP didn't think the government was over-reaching with this piece of legislation then? So, what's changed between August and December, 2010?
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
BINGO! And might I add for once a Conservative spoke the truth on the underhandedness within the GOP (in this case anyway). The amendment was added on purpose for a specific purpose - TO BLOCK THE BILL FROM BEING PASSED...a bill that was voted unamiously in favor of by the Senate BEFORE the amendment was added!!!

Finally, someone within the Republican party took the blinders off and saw things for what they truly are. My hat goes off to you, jamesrage.

(Sorry...I know I said I'd hold off on my response, but once I notied that a Conservative made the connection, there really was no reason to delay.)




No. The original bill obviously was just fine the way it was. The GOP didn't have to add anything to it for the President sign it. It was fine "AS-IS".
Click to expand...

seriously dude, it's just politics as usually. no big revelation. nothing to see here, move along. both parties do it all the time.

just another democrat squealing foul because the GOP had the balls to use their own tactics against them. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
seriously dude, it's just politics as usually. no big revelation. nothing to see here, move along. both parties do it all the time.
Click to expand...

So, this justifies the GOP to once again be the "Party of NO" when just after the midterms and more recently as Monday of this week (11/29/10) they claimed to work towards bipartisanship? I call BS!

If the bill was fine w/o the amendment, it should have been fine in it's original form "AS-IS" to send to the President for signature.
 
Objective Voice said:
BINGO! And might I add for once a Conservative spoke the truth on the underhandedness within the GOP (in this case anyway). The amendment was added on purpose for a specific purpose - TO BLOCK THE BILL FROM BEING PASSED...a bill that was voted unamiously in favor of by the Senate BEFORE the amendment was added!!!

Finally, someone within the Republican party took the blinders off and saw things for what they truly are. My hat goes off to you, jamesrage.

(Sorry...I know I said I'd hold off on my response, but once I notied that a Conservative made the connection, there really was no reason to delay.)



No. The original bill obviously was just fine the way it was. The GOP didn't have to add anything to it for the President sign it. It was fine "AS-IS".
Click to expand...


Apparently someone thought differently.

j-mac
 
Objective Voice said:
So, this justifies the GOP to once again be the "Party of NO" when just after the midterms and more recently as Monday of this week (11/29/10) they claimed to work towards bipartisanship? I call BS!

If the bill was fine w/o the amendment, it should have been fine in it's original form "AS-IS" to send to the President for signature.
Click to expand...

The bill increased the size of government, and allows 501(c) to get their hands on taxpayer money. It should have been stopped. I am glad it was. The people have spoken, they don't want to increase government.

j-mac
 
Objective Voice said:
So, this justifies the GOP to once again be the "Party of NO" when just after the midterms and more recently as Monday of this week (11/29/10) they claimed to work towards bipartisanship? I call BS!

If the bill was fine w/o the amendment, it should have been fine in it's original form "AS-IS" to send to the President for signature.
Click to expand...

dat's the problem, the bill wasn't fine. it's a bad bill and the GOP used this "underhanded trick" to stop it from passing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom