• 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

This board seems to have more than it's fair share of arrogant, self-centered people per capita. Not aimed at anyone in particular. Well - okay. Maybe aimed at those who are fine with seeing children go hungry to teach them some lesson I myself can't comprehend.

Oh look, you don't support this so you are racist, homophobic, or hate the poor tactic. That is always fun.
 
Well, it seems like you're trying to speak for them. If you are, should actually learn more I would think.

I wish I could say something good about liberals who love entitlements but if you look at my posts "I DON'T AND HAVE NOT HAVE ANYTHING GOO TO SAY ABOUT LIBERALS" Although (in your mind) you might want or WISH me to say something nice about you guys who LOVE entitlements. I have always believe that I am what I am and have money in the bank because of my hard work and not because the government has given it to me. If you want to learn something learn something about this and try it sometimes, if it's possible.
 
I wish I could say something good about liberals who love entitlements but if you look at my posts "I DON'T AND HAVE NOT HAVE ANYTHING GOO TO SAY ABOUT LIBERALS" Although (in your mind) you might want or WISH me to say something nice about you guys who LOVE entitlements. I have always believe that I am what I am and have money in the bank because of my hard work and not because the government has given it to me. If you want to learn something learn something about this and try it sometimes, if it's possible.

What I said had nothing to do with the bill. It had to do with people showing their ass when it comes to kids going without, just so they can keep toeing their party line. As always, it's easy to talk big on the net. I'd LOVE to see them explaining to kids that thanks to mommy and daddy's ****-up, they don't get to eat.

Yeah, really.
 
This board seems to have more than its fair share of arrogant, self-centered people per capita. Not aimed at anyone in particular. Well - okay. Maybe aimed at those who are fine with seeing children go hungry to teach them some lesson I myself can't comprehend.

Because this isn't about children going hungry for God's sake. It is about bloated government weaseling its way further into our lives with control, and spending our money haphazardly without accountability.

j-mac
 
If that's the best you can come up with in reply to his question, your intellect and credibility - not to mention your sense of compassion - are in trouble. The latter, of course, is what frustrates me about the so-called devout Conservatives. You say let the poor seek the charity of others, i.e., local churchs, community groups, corporations, yet here the government is setting aside grant funding specifically for non-profit charitable organizations to provide for the poor and you're upset about it?

If everything you say here is 100% accurate, it's not inconsistent.

You mind clarifying yourself here?

The impovished and the distitude look toward charitable organizations for financial aid and support. These organizations receive financial contributions in-part from city, state and federal governments. Reps/Convervs consistently insist that the poor should look to charities for assistance. Unless I've missed something, I don't see the problem with the fed providing partical funding in the form of grants to charities to provide aid to the poor. They do it for major industries, i.e., oil companies and farming co-ops. Why should charities be excluded? In most cases, it's matching funds particularly with large charities or corporations. At least the funding is limited; when it runs out it runs out, and the charity has to reapply for the grant. Compare that to the federal welfare system which Reps/Conservs argue is a "revolving door of entitlements", I'd say it's a fair trade off.
 
Last edited:
Kids need to work? There was a time we believed that, true. Many a ten year old put time in the minds once upon a time. Shoudl we go back to that?

The parents need to work instead of loafing around collecting entitlements and spending their money on booze and drugs. :coffeepap
 
What I said had nothing to do with the bill. It had to do with people showing their ass when it comes to kids going without, just so they can keep toeing their party line. As always, it's easy to talk big on the net. I'd LOVE to see them explaining to kids that thanks to mommy and daddy's ****-up, they don't get to eat.

Yeah, really.

I was answering to Boo Radley. I have NO idea what you said because I was not conversing with you and that was not a follow up to any of your posts.
 
Last edited:
Because this isn't about children going hungry for God's sake. It is about bloated government weaseling its way further into our lives with control, and spending our money haphazardly without accountability.

j-mac

You simply must read every post so you can see people saying that kids need to go without food if their parents can't afford to feed them. That's their ****-up, therefore. Kids too. No food for them.
 
let's deny food to hungry kids, eliminate unemployment compensation during a time when jobs are unavailable, object to health care for those without the means to pay, all in the name of fiscal responsibility ... but please, please do not end the tax break for billionaire$
for that we can borrow from the chinese to incur additional debt for the next generation to inherit

No we do not have to "borrow" a dime to keep the tax rates the same. What do you think is going to happen, we borrow 70billion dollars and say "here rich guys, take it." What Dems want to do is TAKE money from people to pay for their little programs that make people dependent.
Please show me some hungry kids and if the libs want the unempoyment benefits extended once again, all they have to do is take it out of the stimulous fund which they refuse to do.
The spending needs to stop.
 
You mind clarifying yourself here?

The impovished and the distitude look toward charitable organizations for financial aid and support. These organizations receive financial contributions in-part from city, state and federal governments. Reps/Convervs consistently insist that the poor should look to charities for assistance. Unless I've missed something, I don't see the problem with the fed providing partical funding in the form of grants to charities to provide aid to the poor. They do it for major industries, i.e., oil companies and farming co-ops. Why should charities be excluded? In most cases, it's matching funds particularly with large charities or corporations. At least the funding is limited; when it runs out it runs out, and the charity has to reapply for the grant. Compare that to the federal welfare system which Reps/Conservs argue is a "revolving door of entitlements", I'd say it's a fair trade off.


So you'd say that for everyone eh? Thanks but no thanks I'll make my own decisions with what to do with MY money. Since when does this idea that Person A is entitled to what Person B earns, and can tell him what to do with it a correct one?


j-mac
 
What I said had nothing to do with the bill. It had to do with people showing their ass when it comes to kids going without, just so they can keep toeing their party line. As always, it's easy to talk big on the net. I'd LOVE to see them explaining to kids that thanks to mommy and daddy's ****-up, they don't get to eat.

Yeah, really.

I don't have any children but if I did, I'd make sure that they have FOOD, A GOOD ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS AND MY LOVE. I don't need the government to provide anything for my kids because I wouldn't consider myself a man. Why?? because I was raised to be this way and I always back up my talk.
 
Because this isn't about children going hungry for God's sake. It is about bloated government weaseling its way further into our lives with control, and spending our money haphazardly without accountability.

j-mac

Alright, jmac and the rest of you who oppose S.3307 (with or w/o the amendment), let me ask you this...

Since you believe the public school nutrition program is another aspect of "big government bloat", what has a Republican government done since Reagan to change the program and make it better? Go back to the "No Lunch Left Behind" article, review it, then do your own research and show where there have been sweeping changes within the program under a Republican administration or a Republican Congress where the problem you all see currently have every been addressed to your satisfaction beyond merely terminating same entirely because that would be unacceptable in my view. Not every student who hails from a low-income household have parents who don't work hard everyday trying to provide better for their children. Sometimes, being a waitress or a mechanic is the best they can do. But that doesn't mean these people are lazy, good-for-nothings.

So, you tell us, what have Republicans done to solve this particular problem over the years? (And need I remind you, we've had 3 Republican presidents since 1980 with a cummulative 20 years in the White House compared to just one Democrat totalling 8 years (10 if you count Obama's 2-years).
 
It really doesn't. there should be limits to how long you can stay on food stamps. perhaps if they know the tit is going to dry up, they will stop sucking long enough to better themselves. if they don't care enough to do that...**** em, let em starve.

I have a friend on foodstamps. The amount varies with their wages. When people are at least working but the income is low, I don't think there should be anything like a time limit.
It's probably non working single mom's who get the most food stamps. Since we have turned into a society where single mothers seem more common then married ones, I wouldn't be surprised.
 
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?

We had a pretty heated argument about this a few months ago. It was pretty much the lefties arguing for the right to buy tonic and other unhealthy drinks and foods with food stamps.
 
What I said had nothing to do with the bill. It had to do with people showing their ass when it comes to kids going without, just so they can keep toeing their party line. As always, it's easy to talk big on the net. I'd LOVE to see them explaining to kids that thanks to mommy and daddy's ****-up, they don't get to eat.

Yeah, really.

This bill is proposing MORE students for not just the breakfast and lunch programs but also dinner AND throughout the summer. Good lord...Lets just seize them...house them...feed them...clothe them...

oh...wait...thats precisely what we are doing...sans the 'seize' part.

When does it end? And how do we CONTINUE to sustain these endless social programs? Who pays for it? Wait...I have an idea...lets start there...All the people that believe this is a good idea...YOU pay for it. Voluntarily...out of your pocket...because its what you believe is the right thing to do.
 
it does not stump me. some people are CONSUMED with making sure they get theirs.

Libs are consumed with taking their's and giving it to someone else. So who is making sure they get "theirs" by stopping people from keeping theirs?
 
I'm more a feed the hungry kind of guy:

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the LORD your God.

Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.

Where does it say we give the money first to the goverment and let them decide who is hungry? I don't see anything there about a middleman.
 
Libs are consumed with taking their's and giving it to someone else. So who is making sure they get "theirs" by stopping people from keeping theirs?

Ya gotta love the mindset that thinks that allowing people to keep the money they have earned is somehow wrong. Thats the latest line on the tax breaks...that the republicans are 'TAKING' from the poor and GIVING to the rich. Good Lord...just...wow.

This legislation is not unlike the unemployment proposals. Costs about the same, continues to extend the 'benefits' (handouts) indefinitely, requires no cuts to pay for thyem which ensures the government will dig the hole deeper and deeper. It grows the government, increases dependency...YEP...thats a recipe for success...
 
As I've told j, we are the government. It's just one tool we can use. BTW, I am a Christian. And I have sat in on Christain meeting were conservative Christians have complained that they shouldn't have to give so much to the poor.

And why won't it see the lunch tray. Explain.

Conservatives give much more than liberals. Of course you're likely to find the exception to the rule.
 
Just think guys when you destory all self responsibility, and all results of bad decisions, then you can sit around the table and bitch about people making bad decisions with their eating habits. Makes sense right? Yeah, ofcourse it does.
 
It really doesn't. there should be limits to how long you can stay on food stamps. perhaps if they know the tit is going to dry up, they will stop sucking long enough to better themselves. if they don't care enough to do that...**** em, let em starve.

So, you're better than poor people, is what you're saying.
 
Just think guys when you destory all self responsibility, and all results of bad decisions, then you can sit around the table and bitch about people making bad decisions with their eating habits. Makes sense right? Yeah, ofcourse it does.

Actually your post is rather confusing. Making people not responsible for decisions means we get to bitch about their decisions?
 
Where does it say we give the money first to the government and let them decide who is hungry? I don't see anything there about a middleman.

If I want to follow the Bible and help my fellow man, I will do so.... of my own volition. I do NOT need the federal government to be the middleman, or force me to help my fellow man.
 
the freedom loss is when they dictate what it is your children can eat. I remember a story of a kid told that he couldn't have his lunch he brought from home because it contained certain banned foods...That goes too far.

j-mac

Some schools even ban their kids from brining in tonic to schools.. my high school had tonic machines in the school cafeteria and I would partake of one two or three times a week.. I am not obese by any stretch of the imagination... let parents make decisions and educate their children to make healthy choices... I wouldn't mind similiar programs from local and state governments, but this goes well beyond the intended scope of the federal government...
 
Back
Top Bottom