• 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!

Obama to sign Child Nutrition Bill today

Maybe you should stop the ad hominem attack calling your political opponents "silly, and stupid" and you might find a better level of debate. People are not al "silly, and ignorant" if they don't agree with you sir.



Clever, so let me get this straight, under the laws that govern "you did it first...." you get to do anything you want and point to the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan to justify your socialist take over of America? That's a real stretch Joe, even for you.


j-mac

read carefull and for meaning. I'm calling the exaggeration silly and supid. I haven't called any person anything.

And no, under logic and consistency, you need to be consistent in your views and not just hate the other side. If money is a real concern, be consistent in worrying about it. If it isn't, then consistently keep to that belief. or at least argue that fighting needless wars is more important than helping people here at home.
 
If I can't think of anything logical to rebut someone's point, I normally just avoid the thread. I mean, I see you have your own tactic, but you might want to give mine a try. It looks a little less...obvious.


Kelzie, just a question....Do you have children?


j-mac
 
read carefull and for meaning. I'm calling the exaggeration silly and supid. I haven't called any person anything.

And no, under logic and consistency, you need to be consistent in your views and not just hate the other side. If money is a real concern, be consistent in worrying about it. If it isn't, then consistently keep to that belief. or at least argue that fighting needless wars is more important than helping people here at home.


And if I disagree that the wars we are engaged in are "needless" as you put it? what then?


j-mac
 
the govt is giving advice, not mandating anything....I agree that we don't need a mulitbillion dollar program to do that, surely the teachers can find time to teach a little bit of nutrition once a week or so. And surely the schools can remove the vending machines that contain junk food, it they want.
This whole thing has been blown out of proprotion, and has about as much merit as the so called death panels.

It'd be difficult for schools to remove the vending machines without unreasonable cuts in their budgets. Vending contracts just for single school districts run into the millions. I don't mind paying more taxes to fund our schools so they don't have to rely on corporations, but I'm often in the minority on that stance.
 
And if I disagree that the wars we are engaged in are "needless" as you put it? what then?


j-mac

Then you make that argument. I don't see it holding up, but you're free to make that arguement. But realize, others are still likely to see your concern of spending money as being quite selective.
 
It'd be difficult for schools to remove the vending machines without unreasonable cuts in their budgets. Vending contracts just for single school districts run into the millions. I don't mind paying more taxes to fund our schools so they don't have to rely on corporations, but I'm often in the minority on that stance.

Good point. Many saw corporations as a savior for school budgets, but didn't really factor in the cost associated with that choice. If corporations could fund without the vending machines or the advertising, it might be a valid way to fund. But without it, we really need to find another way, and I for one agree with you. I would not object to my tax dollar being spent on schools.
 
Kelzie, just a question....Do you have children?


j-mac

I'll tell you when you respond to my post. And by "to my post" I don't mean "at my post." If you're not going to offer anything substantial, I see no reason to actively encourage this bantering, no matter how entertaining.
 
Just a question....Is there money to the schools from the Fed if they comply with the standards?

j-mac
I don't know about money for the schools, but certainly this program will benefit farmers who are getting an enhanced market for their products. So, it looks like corporate welfare for farmers to me, so far.

Once a year or so we go have lunch with our grandkids at their schools, bringing our own food.
It is easy to see how much of these nutritious foods provided by the schools are being wasted. They choose what they want, but still throw a substantial amount of it in the trash cans.
Young children will eat what they want, if it is available.
 
I'll tell you when you respond to my post. And by "to my post" I don't mean "at my post." If you're not going to offer anything substantial, I see no reason to actively encourage this bantering, no matter how entertaining.

I thought long and hard about the argument you are making, and holding up Anamarie as an example, when that example is over 10 years old, the girl was returned to her parents less than two months after the specious charges leveled at them, and has a Yale certified doctor baffled by the case, leading any reasonable person to conclude that it is not the food her parents are feeding her, but some medical condition that is the cause.

However, you continue to reject anything that refutes that these parents are anything but irresponsible in order to make your argument that we need big government to step in and dictate what we as parents choose for our children. And further, that the argument that you are making smacks of the government knowing better for our children than we do as parents. I think that is wrong, and am only asking if you have children, or if you are coming at this from a pure ideological stance?

j-mac
 
I don't know about money for the schools, but certainly this program will benefit farmers who are getting an enhanced market for their products. So, it looks like corporate welfare for farmers to me, so far.

Ok, that I can see as a reasonable conclusion, but it would be interesting to note whether or not the schools are getting a 'carrot v. stick' component to this as well.

Once a year or so we go have lunch with our grandkids at their schools, bringing our own food.
It is easy to see how much of these nutritious foods provided by the schools are being wasted. They choose what they want, but still throw a substantial amount of it in the trash cans.
Young children will eat what they want, if it is available.

Government programs are fraught with waste. This we all know. So why are we arguing on whether to expand that waste?

j-mac
 
Good point. Many saw corporations as a savior for school budgets, but didn't really factor in the cost associated with that choice. If corporations could fund without the vending machines or the advertising, it might be a valid way to fund. But without it, we really need to find another way, and I for one agree with you. I would not object to my tax dollar being spent on schools.


And many would also likewise chastise corporations if they didn't contribute to schools systems, as greedy.....Catch 22 eh?

j-mac
 
And many would also likewise chastise corporations if they didn't contribute to schools systems, as greedy.....Catch 22 eh?

j-mac

Not really. Companies are really too busy to worry. And there is no requirement that they contribute. But they could benefit from positive PR and really don't need to advertise or have vending machines in schools.
 
Not really. Companies are really too busy to worry. And there is no requirement that they contribute. But they could benefit from positive PR and really don't need to advertise or have vending machines in schools.


Would it be ok in your mind if the vending machines had healthier choices in them? Say instead of a can of soda, they had Juice, and water?

j-mac
 
I thought long and hard about the argument you are making, and holding up Anamarie as an example, when that example is over 10 years old, the girl was returned to her parents less than two months after the specious charges leveled at them, and has a Yale certified doctor baffled by the case, leading any reasonable person to conclude that it is not the food her parents are feeding her, but some medical condition that is the cause.

However, you continue to reject anything that refutes that these parents are anything but irresponsible in order to make your argument that we need big government to step in and dictate what we as parents choose for our children. And further, that the argument that you are making smacks of the government knowing better for our children than we do as parents. I think that is wrong, and am only asking if you have children, or if you are coming at this from a pure ideological stance?

j-mac

I have two and one more on the way. And thank you.

Suspicious genetic disorders aside I hope we can both agree that there are clear cases where the government does know better. Would you raise issue if CPS removed a teenage girl whose parent's had starved her down to 70 lbs? Or lets just say this three year-old wasn't the physics defying case she appears to be and her parents had over fed her to the point where she's 120 lbs. How could you not agree that the parents are making a wrong choice to the level of endangering their child?

To be clear, I'm not advocating the government steps in if your child has ten pounds of pudge on him. In this case the medical community got involved and said the child was in danger. However, if the government is going to be spending money providing school lunches, I see no problem with the government deciding their money should be spend promoting healthy food. Your kids don't have to eat it.
 
I don't know about money for the schools, but certainly this program will benefit farmers who are getting an enhanced market for their products. So, it looks like corporate welfare for farmers to me, so far.

Once a year or so we go have lunch with our grandkids at their schools, bringing our own food.
It is easy to see how much of these nutritious foods provided by the schools are being wasted. They choose what they want, but still throw a substantial amount of it in the trash cans.
Young children will eat what they want, if it is available.

The school lunch programs have essentially been a subsidy since it started. Now instead of the meat and dairy industries, we're adding more produce in too. At least it's healthier.

You do raise a good point. A substantial amount gets thrown away. I don't think the better alternative would be for the government to provide kids what they want though.
 
It'd be difficult for schools to remove the vending machines without unreasonable cuts in their budgets. Vending contracts just for single school districts run into the millions. I don't mind paying more taxes to fund our schools so they don't have to rely on corporations, but I'm often in the minority on that stance.

At one time we lived next to Sun City, AZ...a retirement community that was exempt from the schools part of property taxes.
They were of the opinion that if you don't have kids in your part of the community, you shouldn't have to pay school taxes.
Others outside of Sun City would say to them, we aren't retired, so why should we pay into social security?
Apparently, there are lots of people who don't understand that things have to be paid for, and if those things benefit all of us, then all of us should pay into the program.
As for school budgets, I am a little bit older than many posters here, and I can vouch for the fact that in years past, a lot of today's school programs didn't exist. Yet, we managed to turn out a decent percentage of graduates with enough knowledge to be trained for jobs. Maybe if we dumped some of the "fun" programs and made all extra curricular events self supporting, we might have money enough for the essentials...
We did have vending machines, tho., even back in the 60's..
 
The school lunch programs have essentially been a subsidy since it started. Now instead of the meat and dairy industries, we're adding more produce in too. At least it's healthier.

You do raise a good point. A substantial amount gets thrown away. I don't think the better alternative would be for the government to provide kids what they want though.

Well no becase it's precisely the problem that what they'd want is:

mcdonalds.jpg
 
Would it be ok in your mind if the vending machines had healthier choices in them? Say instead of a can of soda, they had Juice, and water?

j-mac

it would be marginally better, as it would at least have some benefit, but no, it wouldn't solve or address the basic problem, a company explorting children for profit.
 
At one time we lived next to Sun City, AZ...a retirement community that was exempt from the schools part of property taxes.
They were of the opinion that if you don't have kids in your part of the community, you shouldn't have to pay school taxes.
Others outside of Sun City would say to them, we aren't retired, so why should we pay into social security?
Apparently, there are lots of people who don't understand that things have to be paid for, and if those things benefit all of us, then all of us should pay into the program.
As for school budgets, I am a little bit older than many posters here, and I can vouch for the fact that in years past, a lot of today's school programs didn't exist. Yet, we managed to turn out a decent percentage of graduates with enough knowledge to be trained for jobs. Maybe if we dumped some of the "fun" programs and made all extra curricular events self supporting, we might have money enough for the essentials...
We did have vending machines, tho., even back in the 60's..

I've noticed the opposite trend in recent years. My high school used to teach three foreign languages, now it's just one. They got rid of shop and wood hobby and home economics.

I very much agree though about paying into a society even if you aren't directly receiving the benefit. Even if I didn't have kids, I'd pay into the school system. A bunch of uneducated hooligans running around isn't to my benefit!
 
I've noticed the opposite trend in recent years. My high school used to teach three foreign languages, now it's just one. They got rid of shop and wood hobby and home economics.

I very much agree though about paying into a society even if you aren't directly receiving the benefit. Even if I didn't have kids, I'd pay into the school system. A bunch of uneducated hooligans running around isn't to my benefit!

Uneducated hooligans are bad, but educated hooligans are worse. :2razz: Corruption on Wall Street and in our Government is an ongoing criminal enterprise....
 
[/B]Uneducated hooligans are bad, but educated hooligans are worse. :2razz: Corruption on Wall Street and in our Government is an ongoing criminal enterprise....

Yeah well, I doubt they'd qualify for free lunches anyway. :mrgreen:
 
Well no becase it's precisely the problem that what they'd want is:

mcdonalds.jpg


Yummy looking....
Except for the soda, what about that meal is unhealthy? There are veggies, dairy, protein, carbohydrates in the bun, potatoes fried in vegetable oil, etc. None of the portrayed foods are unhealthy by themselves.
The only thing bad is the calorie content, a portion control issue, so throw out one meat patty, half the fries,exclude mayonaisse, and it is a fairly balanced meal.
Portion control, aka quantity, is a bigger issue than the quality of the foods.
 
Last edited:
I have two and one more on the way. And thank you.

No, thank you. I think we can ramp this down and still have a reasonable conversation. Thanks for giving it a chance.

Suspicious genetic disorders aside I hope we can both agree that there are clear cases where the government does know better. Would you raise issue if CPS removed a teenage girl whose parent's had starved her down to 70 lbs? Or lets just say this three year-old wasn't the physics defying case she appears to be and her parents had over fed her to the point where she's 120 lbs. How could you not agree that the parents are making a wrong choice to the level of endangering their child?

Well, there are a lot of 'what if's' in that paragraph, but we do already have a dept of children services that follows up on claims like this, in this case the original charges that were the catalyst of the story were found to be without merit.

Would you agree that there is a point were it is a step too far when speaking about the rights of the individual vs the power of the government?

To be clear, I'm not advocating the government steps in if your child has ten pounds of pudge on him. In this case the medical community got involved and said the child was in danger. However, if the government is going to be spending money providing school lunches, I see no problem with the government deciding their money should be spend promoting healthy food. Your kids don't have to eat it.

You're right....They don't have to eat it, unless ofcourse you are too poor to make a lunch for them, then I guess their choice is to starve.


j-mac
 
Yummy looking....
Except for the soda, what about that meal is unhealthy? There are veggies, dairy, protein, carbohydrates in the bun, potatoes fried in vegetable oil, etc. None of the portrayed foods are unhealthy by themselves.
The only thing bad is the calorie content, a portion control issue, so throw out one meat patty, half the fries,exclude mayonaisse, and it is a fairly balanced meal.
Portion control, aka quantity, is a bigger issue than the quality of the foods.

Balanced except for the fact that it contains only protein and carbs. That sliver of salad hardly counts as a serving of veggies. Half the sandwich, no fried and a side salad and then you're talking.
 
Back
Top Bottom