• 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

And the slippery slope strawman reveals itself...

Well, not long ago, it was healthy school lunches, now it's breakfast lunch and dinner. Besides if you read the bill, it's really not about feeding kids.
Read The Bill: S. 3307 - GovTrack.us

It wouldn't let me copy. but check out the things on wellness. Sounds like they will be coming into home day cares to make sure the kids are eating right and getting proper excercise. I babysit sometimes for 3 kids. Their parents are on food stamps. Can I look forward to a social worker coming to the house and taking away their ice-cream?
 
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.

I think it will end with condoms.

Just gve them a hot meal and a condom and that will be it.

No more.

That's all.

I promise.

OK, maybe a glass of wine.
 
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.

It's bad to have money taken from you, even if you can afford it. But the government is also taking away money that may well have found it's way into a foodbank or helping a friend, family, or stranger in need. It is taking away the feeling people get when they are charitable. People don't get that happiness when paying taxes.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Just a reminder for everyone to stick the topic please. Thanks.
 
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 has this bill got to do with your income? Fnding for S.3307 would come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the stimulus bill. It's not like a new tax will be initiated to pay for it. Of course, you'll say the stimulus is wasted, big government spending. Still, it's not a direct assault on your earned income. So, as I've said to others who would rather repeat the same stall rhetoric and talking points, pick up the needle on that old 45 and move it to a new position. Your "get your hands outta my pockets" banter is getting old.
 
those on food stamps already qualifiy for free lunches. why expand the program to include yet more people?

While it's true that in most cases food stamp recipients do qualify for free lunches in public school, S.3307 would also expand entitlement to all foster children - you know, those children who have been abandoned or orphanned. You gonna let them starve, too? Surely, you're not that heartless?
 
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.

And you are well and truly blessed that no catastrophic illness or accident has ever befallen you. That's not on you sunshine. That's on the universe. Not all are so blessed.
 
While it's true that in most cases food stamp recipients do qualify for free lunches in public school, S.3307 would also expand entitlement to all foster children - you know, those children who have been abandoned or orphanned. You gonna let them starve, too? Surely, you're not that heartless?

Oh, surely they are.
 
And you are well and truly blessed that no catastrophic illness or accident has ever befallen you. That's not on you sunshine. That's on the universe. Not all are so blessed.

I'd say....
 
Oh, surely they are.

Yes...we are evil...and heartless...what could we be thinking...of COURSE it is the SCHOOLS job to feed 20+ million 'children' breajkfast, lunch, and dinner; and its the federal governments job to create 17 new departments and create grant programs with no definition of purpose or intent; its the federal governments job to takle care of every poor crippled and dependent pet that they have created. Of course...that they create them...manipulate them...use them for political power...keep them dependent...thats MUCH more caring. That the government already provides funding for those families to feed their children...no worries. That they provide money to take care of foster children (all of which are now included in the full meal deal program)...immaterial. That the federal government creates endless social programs and continue to dig us deeper in debt...that doesnt matter...and certainly not to people that wont be responsbile for paying off that debt...

Evil I tell you...heartless.

The irony...there is a reason this evil, heartless conservative bastard has just had to get dressed and is about to leave my home in the dead of night...
 
Yes...we are evil...and heartless...

Dude. Many, MANY posts ago, Oscar and a few other people said that kids SHOULD go without, if their parents cannot provide for them. I don't give a damn about the OP. I, where you quote me, am reacting to those posts.
 

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.

REPUBLICANS BLOCK OR CUT CRYATHON PART 1. (It's time we start counting how many times the Dems pull this ploy)

This is the typical Lib strategy. Create some mess of a buy-a-vote program and then attack Republicans when they want to cut or eliminate it, or as Danarhea notes below, twist the basic argument out of proportion.

I say cut the whole program. Since when is federal government responsible for feeding school children? Where is this bit of socialism found in The Constitution?

Isn't that the role of the parents? Their most basic responsibility? To feed, cloth, and protect? This is $4.5 billion we could cut and return to the taxpayers.

And what is wrong with background checks for child care workers? This is what the issue is really about, not about the GOP being ruthless baby killers. Do Democrats support pedophiles? Just asking. :mrgreen:

.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, but added to the complaints they raised, wouldn't tehy still have those complaints even if democrats accepted the addition? Wouldn't it still be bigger government?

They might. But I'd like to see the Democrats say, "OK, add that" and find out. THEN it would be fine to blame the Republicans, solely.
 
Growing up, my mom and dad divorced, he didn't pay child support and my mom was struggling to make ends meet. Discounted lunches and sometimes free meals helped out greatly. Shame on some of you for making this bill sound evil.

When the ones that think this is socialist or unconstitutional or some other horse **** like Moses brought the constitution and US laws down from Mt. Sinai, take a moment and do this for me:

Think about why you disagree with having a bill that helps pay for school lunches and then say out loud, "I think this bill is socialist and bad for kids." If WHILE you are saying this it sounds like you are trying to get the taste of **** out of your mouth then you probably are an asshole.
 
i'm willing to bet that 300 dollars in foodstamps went a bit further then than it does now...

Some people might classify me as rich, yet I feed my family of 6 for $500 a month. We eat well. This doesn't count going out to eat, but even that is rare these days. My fiancee's sister is on food stampe, two kids, and she gets $500 a month in NY state, so, I don't see how one on food stamps can't afford to send their children to school with a bag lunch?


Tim-
 
Growing up, my mom and dad divorced, he didn't pay child support and my mom was struggling to make ends meet. Discounted lunches and sometimes free meals helped out greatly. Shame on some of you for making this bill sound evil.

When the ones that think this is socialist or unconstitutional or some other horse **** like Moses brought the constitution and US laws down from Mt. Sinai, take a moment and do this for me:

Think about why you disagree with having a bill that helps pay for school lunches and then say out loud, "I think this bill is socialist and bad for kids." If WHILE you are saying this it sounds like you are trying to get the taste of **** out of your mouth then you probably are an asshole.

John we already have school lunch programs. Did you read the bill? There's a lot more in there than free lunches.
 
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.

ARE YOU DEAF? They said nothing gets through except the tax extension.
 
Dude. Many, MANY posts ago, Oscar and a few other people said that kids SHOULD go without, if their parents cannot provide for them. I don't give a damn about the OP. I, where you quote me, am reacting to those posts.

Doood...other than the continued beating of the bleading heart drum...do you REALLY think this legislation should be passed? I mean...at first...whgen it was just a headline followed by a biased article..I can see people doing the kneejerk "but its for the chiiiiiiillllddddrrren thing"...but now that some actual details are out...details about the ridiculous excesses and government spending...seriously...would YOU endorse and pass this bill? Knowing our government and the excesses that have put us this deep in debt...do you still endorse it?

(and you know...conservatives...you meet one...youve met us all...)

Wow. OK...Ya know...I KNOW people struggle. Believe me...I know. So...now we feed 20 million plus children year round, even when they are not in school (ignoring the fact those children's needs have ALREADY been paid for by other social service funding programs). What next? Their home life sucks. Do we take them from their homes for their own good? Do we clothe them as well? And why stop with those 20 million...lots of older folks are homeless and dont have resources...lets feed them too. And house them. And provide for their needs. Indefinitely.

THAT will sove ALL the problems.
 
Last edited:
Yay. I'm so glad we're so serious about cutting the debt and deficit with such great things like a federal employee wage freeze and trying to raise the taxes of the top 2%.

Wait? What's that you say? While simultaneously doing things to "save" money they're also pushing for billions and billions of additional spending?

My god, who EVER could've predicted that :roll:
 
What has this bill got to do with your income? Fnding for S.3307 would come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the stimulus bill. It's not like a new tax will be initiated to pay for it. Of course, you'll say the stimulus is wasted, big government spending. Still, it's not a direct assault on your earned income. So, as I've said to others who would rather repeat the same stall rhetoric and talking points, pick up the needle on that old 45 and move it to a new position. Your "get your hands outta my pockets" banter is getting old.

What the government removes from the economy is a direct assault on everyone's income unless, of course, the government decides that they won't spend responsibly, will continue to borrow, and will just open up the printing presses and churn out more dollars that way.

Many see the latter as the likely scenario which is why the price of gold continues to move up. You may support BHO and his like minded democrats because of your belief system but those who create jobs and wealth use different criteria, and that involves the real world. Giving the government whatever they ask for, with no serious questions being raised, is a form of lunacy.
 
Yes...we are evil...and heartless...what could we be thinking...of COURSE it is the SCHOOLS job to feed 20+ million 'children' breajkfast, lunch, and dinner; and its the federal governments job to create 17 new departments and create grant programs with no definition of purpose or intent; its the federal governments job to takle care of every poor crippled and dependent pet that they have created. Of course...that they create them...manipulate them...use them for political power...keep them dependent...thats MUCH more caring. That the government already provides funding for those families to feed their children...no worries. That they provide money to take care of foster children (all of which are now included in the full meal deal program)...immaterial. That the federal government creates endless social programs and continue to dig us deeper in debt...that doesnt matter...and certainly not to people that wont be responsbile for paying off that debt...

Evil I tell you...heartless.

The irony...there is a reason this evil, heartless conservative bastard has just had to get dressed and is about to leave my home in the dead of night...

here is the republican 'starve the beast' policy, incarnate
we can either give tax breaks to billionaire$ or we can instead use that otherwise available revenue to provide nourishment to CHILDREN
and the reich wing - aka the republican party - makes its choice
starve the children so that billionaire$ do not have to pay a reasonable tax rate

notice further that this post reveals - however snarkily presented - how that element of the political spectrum reveals the victims - the CHILDREN - to actually be the perpetrators:
... its the federal governments job to takle care of every poor crippled and dependent pet that they have created. ...
notice how it is the CHILDREN'S fault that they are in need of sustenance

and the forum member would have us believe that these CHILDREN, being responsible for their plight, are not deserving of a government solution to their hunger problem

Evil I tell you...heartless.
yes, that
and
disgusting, actually
 
Last edited:
Yay. I'm so glad we're so serious about cutting the debt and deficit with such great things like a federal employee wage freeze and trying to raise the taxes of the top 2%.

Wait? What's that you say? While simultaneously doing things to "save" money they're also pushing for billions and billions of additional spending?

My god, who EVER could've predicted that :roll:

And it's not even a "federal" employment pay-freeze.
It's a "civilian-federal" employment pay-freeze.

All the elected and appointed individuals within branches of government are unaffected - that means congress, the judicial branch, and all their many cabinets and committee members.

So who get's a pay freeze? The little guys that run the papers around, answer phones, check badges (like those stationed on post at the gateway), and take messages.
 
ARE YOU DEAF? They said nothing gets through except the tax extension.

To quote the gloating dems in 2008

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
 
here is the republican 'starve the beast' policy, incarnate
we can either give tax breaks to billionaire$ or we can instead use that otherwise available revenue to provide nourishment to CHILDREN
and the reich wing - aka the republican party - makes its choice
starve the children so that billionaire$ do not have to pay a reasonable tax rate

notice further that this post reveals - however snarkily presented - how that element of the political spectrum reveals the victims - the CHILDREN - to actually be the perpetrators:
notice how it is the CHILDREN'S fault that they are in need of sustenance

and the forum member would have us believe that these CHILDREN, being responsible for their plight, are not deserving of a government solution to their hunger problem


yes, that
and
disgusting, actually

there are only 432 billionaires

why do you constantly spew your envy and hate of the uber rich when your masters' want to screw over everyone in the top 2%

why do you think someone making 250K a year or a retired person whose only income is now his investment income ought to face tax hikes. If you make 200K a year on dividends your tax is going to DOUBLE. but that is ok to you because you figures it will "help the poor"

as long as you dems and socialists think that the taxpayers have a duty to fund fund and fund some more every act of irresponsible breeding on the grounds not doing so will "hurt the children" the creeping crud of socialism will continue
 
Back
Top Bottom