• 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

My point is pretty straight up. Liberals love to pretend about how much they care. This thread is a prime example. You 'care' about these poor starving children...so much that you are REALLY upset when all of a sudden it became an issue that republicans blocked a bill that would spend OTHER PEOPLES money on a problem. Ive been pretty specific about medicaid providers and behavioral health units. It would blow peoples minds if they knew how many people in their own county were being 'helped' (such a relative term).

Thats the point. Throwing other peoples money at a problem doesnt FIX anything. It creates a greater problem. Doing FOR people creates MORE problems.

That being said...I FULL ON support your right to put your money where your mouth is and VOLUNTARILY...out of YOUR pocket...your resources and your time actually ACT on all those causes.

Oh, I do volunteer. And do put my money where my mouth is. Sometimes my legs, running ten miles this summer for a charity.

But, no, you have not been specific enough. what you right above is general, and nothing we can really eximine. Show a specific example, one we cna look at closer.
 
Oh, I do volunteer. And do put my money where my mouth is. Sometimes my legs, running ten miles this summer for a charity.

But, no, you have not been specific enough. what you right above is general, and nothing we can really eximine. Show a specific example, one we cna look at closer.

Great...so you and others have been spending these last years combating the problem of those poor children by feeding them dinner year round...right? Its been SUCH an important issue that it was never brought up or discussed...just...you know...to keep it sacred. I THOUGHT that was you...because I have seen so MANY organizations doing just that very thing. They are EVERYWHERE. Right?
 
Great...so you and others have been spending these last years combating the problem of those poor children by feeding them dinner year round...right? Its been SUCH an important issue that it was never brought up or discussed...just...you know...to keep it sacred. I THOUGHT that was you...because I have seen so MANY organizations doing just that very thing. They are EVERYWHERE. Right?

Using government is one way we do this. Not the only way, but one way. We are the government and government often works for us to solve problems. And we do have representatives speaking for us, representing us.
 
Using government is one way we do this. Not the only way, but one way. We are the government and government often works for us to solve problems. And we do have representatives speaking for us, representing us.

Because using government is SO efficient. It works SO well. And they have such a proven track record. And the services HELP so much. (yes...thats sarcasm).
Hogwash.
Liberals advocate government social programs so you can throw the burden and responsiblity on taxpayers...and specifically, higher income taxpayers. And its back to out of sight out of mind. And conveniently, it makes for GREAT election year rhetoric.

Edit: I'll throw you a bone...Not ALL liberals...but I'll stick with 'many.'
 
Last edited:
Because using government is SO efficient. It works SO well. And they have such a proven track record. And the services HELP so much. (yes...thats sarcasm).
Hogwash.
Liberals advocate government social programs so you can throw the burden and responsiblity on taxpayers...and specifically, higher income taxpayers. And its back to out of sight out of mind. And conveniently, it makes for GREAT election year rhetoric.

Actually, overall, it is quite efficient. It has done many things for us since we became a country, and often doing a lot with less. mail has been delievered, people have been help in their old age. During the great depression, even baptist ministers asked that government come and aid people. So, while not perfect, and nothing really is, we've managed use government to do some really decent things in this country.
 
Actually, overall, it is quite efficient. It has done many things for us since we became a country, and often doing a lot with less. mail has been delievered, people have been help in their old age. During the great depression, even baptist ministers asked that government come and aid people. So, while not perfect, and nothing really is, we've managed use government to do some really decent things in this country.

right...we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, 9.8% active and 20+% real unemployment, expanding social services programs (driving some states to bankruptcy), because the government is so good at what it does. Medicare is abused. Medicaid is abused. The contract providers eat huge amounts of the services in 'administrative' costs.

Because the government is efficient.

Sorry...Im in a bit of a cynical mood today.

Shut down about 70% of the fed. Pay off the debt. Let the states tax and provide social services as needed. Kill off as much as possible the abuses and beauracracy.
 
right...we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, 9.8% active and 20+% real unemployment, expanding social services programs (driving some states to bankruptcy), because the government is so good at what it does. Medicare is abused. Medicaid is abused. The contract providers eat huge amounts of the services in 'administrative' costs.

Because the government is efficient.

Sorry...Im in a bit of a cynical mood today.

Shut down about 70% of the fed. Pay off the debt. Let the states tax and provide social services as needed. Kill off as much as possible the abuses and beauracracy.

Yes, we do have a large debt, as do many private companies. But we often do more than the mandate, and have made life pretty good in this country over all. And government has played a role in that. And while there is some validity in moving some things to states, states have to willing to take up the mantle, and some simply haven't been willing. It is a far more complicated situation often not being as easily fit into a simplistic ideaology.
 
Yes, we do have a large debt, as do many private companies. But we often do more than the mandate, and have made life pretty good in this country over all. And government has played a role in that. And while there is some validity in moving some things to states, states have to willing to take up the mantle, and some simply haven't been willing. It is a far more complicated situation often not being as easily fit into a simplistic ideaology.

Holy bat****...

is that 10 letters?

Im done with this thread...
 
So says the one stationed in Taiwan, "I like to have choices, not government dictates." - Did you know that the government dictates and determines your food-choices that are available in the mess hall and your MRE's by a strict calorie-intake checklist? did you know that your estimated calorie intake is high enough to keep a chubby kid happy? . . yours is calculated based on your rigorous workload and is excessively high.

The only time they don't care is when you eat fast food - because they know the calorie content is sufficient for your increased workload, and they profit.

:D That's cute, aint it? :D

ummmm... this is an incredible display of ignorance on so many levels... and you think we should take your posts seriously?
 
You're the one with no sense of humor.

*Why so serious?*

Because you expect us to take you seriously and a post you made with a serious tone trying to make a point was so grossly inaccurate... and now you are trying to imply humor was intended? Yeah, I call BS... your post was horribly ignorant... why don't you fess you and admit you didn't know what you were talking about???
 
Because you expect us to take you seriously and a post you made with a serious tone trying to make a point was so grossly inaccurate... and now you are trying to imply humor was intended? Yeah, I call BS... your post was horribly ignorant... why don't you fess you and admit you didn't know what you were talking about???

Ok - so I failed at sarcasm and it wasn't funny.:shrug: So sue me.

Doesn't negate the truth in it: There's a fuzzy, faint line between military dictation of a military career and our military home-lives. . . and it's getting fainter and fuzzier with every violation, death and accident someone has due to a variety of reasons.

Perhaps I see things differently, though; through the post-war rehab programs which generally are more constrained due to medical-concerns of assigned soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Ok - so I failed at sarcasm and it wasn't funny.:shrug: So sue me.

Doesn't negate the truth in it: There's a fuzzy, faint line between military dictation of a military career and our military home-lives. . . and it's getting fainter and fuzzier with every violation, death and accident someone has due to a variety of reasons.

Perhaps I see things differently, though; through the post-war rehab programs which generally are more constrained due to medical-concerns of assigned soldiers.

1. I am not currently in the service, so your post doesn't hold.
2. If you actually knew what was going on in the U.S. and the world, you would know that the U.S. has not had a meaningful presence in Taiwan since Carter pulled the U.S. out in 1979.
3. I was in the service, and while I was never in a combat zone, I never had the amount of food I ate restricted -- only the amount of time I had to eat it.
4. When in the service, you VOLUNTEER -- you KNOW your freedoms will be restricted but you surrender those freedoms VOLUNTARILY. The law REQUIRES kids to attend schooling... they are civilians... comparing apples and oranges....

Get it?
 
Yes, we are. But we can also decide not to let children suffer for those poor choices where we don't have to. Feeding children when they need it isn't evil. Nor is making sure what we provide, with tax dollars, is nutrious.


Who gave you, as in we the power to decide for my kids? I sure didn't.

j-mac
 
Who gave you, as in we the power to decide for my kids? I sure didn't.

j-mac

I'm not deciding for your kids. All that has been said is what the government provides be nutrious. You can give them all the crap you want. You are really misunderstanding here. Seriously.
 
1. I am not currently in the service, so your post doesn't hold.
2. If you actually knew what was going on in the U.S. and the world, you would know that the U.S. has not had a meaningful presence in Taiwan since Carter pulled the U.S. out in 1979.
3. I was in the service, and while I was never in a combat zone, I never had the amount of food I ate restricted -- only the amount of time I had to eat it.
4. When in the service, you VOLUNTEER -- you KNOW your freedoms will be restricted but you surrender those freedoms VOLUNTARILY. The law REQUIRES kids to attend schooling... they are civilians... comparing apples and oranges....

Get it?

Um.. What? So I guess the constant pressence of the US 7th Fleet for oh, I dunno, 50 years is just an apparition? :)

Tim-
 
Uh yeah... it's page 57 but I'll add my two cents anyway.

I didn't support the child nutrition bill, and it wasn't even because of the issue of background checks (although that is now included in my reasons why). The bill lacked any guidance for how this policy would be implemented on the local level. It seemed to require schools to make this nutrition program but laid no infrastructural suggestions for how this would be done; which basically means, individual schools would be left to figure out what a "nutrition program" would look like. If schools had the capacity to understand sound nutrition choices on their own, the bill wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

Most school cafeterias have unhealthy food because it is low budget food, and it is only one aspect of the problem. On paper, children eat two meals a day at home. If the quality of those meals is suffering or non-existent, then it's the responsibility of the parents. The nutrition program doesn't cover that. Furthermore, children go to school to learn, not eat. There was a breakfast program at my school growing up and I thought it was a great idea. Breakfast is super important for children to start the day. It takes a lot of resources to do that though, and unless the school has the money to hire additional staff whose job it is to do food programming, the responsibility falls to teachers who are willing to volunteer extra time. Have you seen the public system lately? At this point, teachers already have to volunteer time just to get their work requirements completed at the end of the day.

I would rather see the government revamp the food pyramid to not be an utter reflection of industry lobbying, and introducing better nutritional guidelines to the public as a whole. There is not much point in just providing meals to children if there is no education on food choices accompanying it. Also, I believe education PLUS industry regulation are important. I am not someone who believes it has to be one way or the other. Both are to blame: public ignorance and wanton addition of unhealthy additives to food. If the government can't take a multi-pronged approach then there is no point. Children should not have store access to Redbull and energy drinks that have "recommended dosage" written on them.

The nutrition bill seemed to just throw money at schools and expect them to do the work. Well, school administrations are notoriously lazy, and unless they were trained in nutritional counseling at some point, they are just as ignorant as the children the bill would be trying to serve.
 
Uh yeah... it's page 57 but I'll add my two cents anyway.

I didn't support the child nutrition bill, and it wasn't even because of the issue of background checks (although that is now included in my reasons why). The bill lacked any guidance for how this policy would be implemented on the local level. It seemed to require schools to make this nutrition program but laid no infrastructural suggestions for how this would be done; which basically means, individual schools would be left to figure out what a "nutrition program" would look like. If schools had the capacity to understand sound nutrition choices on their own, the bill wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

Most school cafeterias have unhealthy food because it is low budget food, and it is only one aspect of the problem. On paper, children eat two meals a day at home. If the quality of those meals is suffering or non-existent, then it's the responsibility of the parents. The nutrition program doesn't cover that. Furthermore, children go to school to learn, not eat. There was a breakfast program at my school growing up and I thought it was a great idea. Breakfast is super important for children to start the day. It takes a lot of resources to do that though, and unless the school has the money to hire additional staff whose job it is to do food programming, the responsibility falls to teachers who are willing to volunteer extra time. Have you seen the public system lately? At this point, teachers already have to volunteer time just to get their work requirements completed at the end of the day.

I would rather see the government revamp the food pyramid to not be an utter reflection of industry lobbying, and introducing better nutritional guidelines to the public as a whole. There is not much point in just providing meals to children if there is no education on food choices accompanying it. Also, I believe education PLUS industry regulation are important. I am not someone who believes it has to be one way or the other. Both are to blame: public ignorance and wanton addition of unhealthy additives to food. If the government can't take a multi-pronged approach then there is no point. Children should not have store access to Redbull and energy drinks that have "recommended dosage" written on them.

The nutrition bill seemed to just throw money at schools and expect them to do the work. Well, school administrations are notoriously lazy, and unless they were trained in nutritional counseling at some point, they are just as ignorant as the children the bill would be trying to serve.

it would appear this is but another aspect of secretary duncan's intent to make schools community centers:
Secretary Duncan: Schools Must Become Centers of Communities | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 7, 2010 | PBS
 
Um.. What? So I guess the constant pressence of the US 7th Fleet for oh, I dunno, 50 years is just an apparition? :)

Tim-

When did you see them make a port of call in Taiwan after 1979??? I can't believe people are so ignorant about the nature of U.S. relations with Taiwan...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom