• 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

If there really were a "liberal mainstream media," the fact that the GOP does this sort of thing all the time would me more prevalent in the narrative.

Your must be kidding or just playing dumb. The portrayal of Republicans as uncaring of the needy is constantly part of the narrative. That and racism are the go to strategies used to discredit Republicans all of the time.
 
free lunch is redundent. the ones who qualify for free lunch already qualifiy for food stamps. I ask again..why should we, the taxpayers, provide free money to these people to pay for the same meal twice?
 
So, schools should stop providing lunch altogether?

Who said that? Making things up again?

Look, I don't think that 501(c) should be anywhere near being able to get their hands on this money, do you?

j-mac
 
Maybe they should stop providing free lunches.
I don't really know, but way back when I was in school, I don't remember anyone getting them free. But then they cost like 40 cents :)
Some kids packed in brown bags and some kids walked home for lunch.
No one went hungry and I don't recall kids eating only junk.
It's time parents were given back the responsibility of feeding their kids.

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.
 
Your must be kidding or just playing dumb. The portrayal of Republicans as uncaring of the needy is constantly part of the narrative. That and racism are the go to strategies used to discredit Republicans all of the time.

Reality does have a liberal bias.



Just joking a bit, but on a serious note, republicans do often object to things that help the needy. In some cases they may have justifable reasons, but in some cases they really do appear to just be harsh. Now, if we don't report what they object to, or sugar coat it, that would be bias. Just reporting what they vote agianst, quoting there reasons and quoting how others respond is not bias.
 
Who said that? Making things up again?

Look, I don't think that 501(c) should be anywhere near being able to get their hands on this money, do you?

j-mac

Nope, asking a question. Brown bag lunches come from home, and I don't object to them. But as it was a response to the lunches served at school, I asked if he meant we should stop having schools prepare lunch. It's a fair question.
 
free lunch is redundent. the ones who qualify for free lunch already qualifiy for food stamps. I ask again..why should we, the taxpayers, provide free money to these people to pay for the same meal twice?

I think you overestmate how much food you can get with food stamps. Not to mention that a hot luch at school is not covered with food stamps. So they would have to bring it from home. If we do that, can we mandate that those using food stamps provide healthy food?
 
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.

Well, not exactly. It is about growing government....I'll post it again.

S. 3307 would increase federal spending by $4.6 billion on school meal programs, expand the size of government by creating or expanding 17 programs, place onerous unfunded mandates on local school districts and state governments, increase prices for paying families, and allow federal bureaucrats to determine what foods children can and cannot be served at school.

Oh, and $12 bucks here, $10 bucks there....Before you know it you work for free.


j-mac
 
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.



Hyperbole, mixed in with a little race baiting, make such a nice strawman. :lamo
 
I think you overestmate how much food you can get with food stamps. Not to mention that a hot luch at school is not covered with food stamps. So they would have to bring it from home. If we do that, can we mandate that those using food stamps provide healthy food?




How much food, boo? do tell.
 
Nope, asking a question. Brown bag lunches come from home, and I don't object to them. But as it was a response to the lunches served at school, I asked if he meant we should stop having schools prepare lunch. It's a fair question.


Do you think that 501(c) orgs. should be getting this money?

j-mac
 
Nope, asking a question. Brown bag lunches come from home, and I don't object to them. But as it was a response to the lunches served at school, I asked if he meant we should stop having schools prepare lunch. It's a fair question.



again, yes. yes we should.
 
Do you think that 501(c) orgs. should be getting this money?

j-mac

What would be the objection? Is there something inherently wrong with nonprofit organizations?
 
I think you overestmate how much food you can get with food stamps. Not to mention that a hot luch at school is not covered with food stamps. So they would have to bring it from home. If we do that, can we mandate that those using food stamps provide healthy food?

dude, 25 years ago when I was in college I got food stamps. I had a wife and two kids and we got over $300/month in food stamps. I have never eaten better in my freakin life.

as for the mandating healthy food bit....that's where personal responsibility comes in. If some parents are too lazy, busy, stupid, don't give a ****, whatever to make sure their kids eat healthy...that is THEIR ****ing fault and THEIR ****ing problem. Don't take more money out of my pocket (money I could use to provide more healthy food for MY kids) to feed their damn kids.
 
Last edited:
dude, 25 years ago when I was in college I got food stamps. I had a wife and two kids and we got over $300/month in food stamps. I have never eaten better in my freakin life.

as for the mandating healthy food bit....that's where personal responsibility comes in. If some parent's are too lazy, busy, stupid, don't give a ****, whatever to make sure their kids eat healthy...that is THEIR ****ing fault and THEIR ****ing problem. Don't take more money out of my pocket (money I could use to provide more healthy food for MY kids) to feed their damn kids.

We got food stamps when I was a kid, and didn't. So, maybe our experiences are simply different. But, how would you think they should eat?

And if the money is not there's, shold the choice be?
 
We got food stamps when I was a kid, and didn't. So, maybe our experiences are simply different. But, how would you think they should eat?

And if the money is not there's, shold the choice be?



How much did you get, and how many were you supposed to feed. Perhaps it was poor planning on your families part. :shrug:
 
What would be the objection? Is there something inherently wrong with nonprofit organizations?

I am pretty sure that Media Matters doesn't have the slightest care about school nutrition beyond how they can get at that money.


j-mac
 
dude, 25 years ago when I was in college I got food stamps. I had a wife and two kids and we got over $300/month in food stamps. I have never eaten better in my freakin life.

as for the mandating healthy food bit....that's where personal responsibility comes in. If some parents are too lazy, busy, stupid, don't give a ****, whatever to make sure their kids eat healthy...that is THEIR ****ing fault and THEIR ****ing problem. Don't take more money out of my pocket (money I could use to provide more healthy food for MY kids) to feed their damn kids.
i'm willing to bet that 300 dollars in foodstamps went a bit further then than it does now...
 
I am pretty sure that Media Matters doesn't have the slightest care about school nutrition beyond how they can get at that money.


j-mac

What does media matters have to do with my question?
 
How much did you get, and how many were you supposed to feed. Perhaps it was poor planning on your families part. :shrug:

I was the one being feed. We ate a lot of hot dogs and beans, not to mention the free cheese.
 
Maybe they should stop providing free lunches.
I don't really know, but way back when I was in school, I don't remember anyone getting them free. But then they cost like 40 cents :)
Some kids packed in brown bags and some kids walked home for lunch.
No one went hungry and I don't recall kids eating only junk.
It's time parents were given back the responsibility of feeding their kids.

Yes, they did. I was one of 'em. I'm 52.
 
I did. In the 60's. It really was a help. But I don't see why I should oppose feeding children who could use the food, or why I should oppose making sure the selection is healthy.

It can be done on a local level. Do we really need to pass huge big government bills to make sure our neighborhood children have healthy meals? How much freedom are we willing to give up to receive "goodies" from the government?
 
It can be done on a local level. Do we really need to pass huge big government bills to make sure our neighborhood children have healthy meals? How much freedom are we willing to give up to receive "goodies" from the government?


What freedom is given up here?
 
Back
Top Bottom