• 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

Boo Radley said:
No, it breaths my views. I lean left, but have voted republican (Grassley, Reagan, Dole). But there is no real socialism or nanny state. This is as much an exaggeration as saying republicans want to kill granny. The debate is really about where can we help , where shodl we help, and when can government be used by the people to help problem situations. There is no need to use wild misrepsentations. We do have children who are not cared for well. And they grow up to be problem adults. It benefits all of us if we lend a hand here and there. So while I doubt we can fix every problem, nor do I see any actually trying to, where possible, a little reasonable aid might make a difference for someone.

And it is often beneficials to meet a need, and then start the education, the teaching how to fish as it were. If we're serious about such an education, then we ahve to start by meeting a few basic needs first.
Click to expand...

The next time you present a non partisan or bi partisan position on ANYTHING it will be the first time. And sorry...but you endorse the federal government now feeding kids breakfast, lunch AND dinner with no mention of responsibility or accountability of their providers (despite the fact that those people are ALREADY given taxpayer dollars to feed those children). You call it what you want...but you endorse more and more the federal government taking care of the people in this country. Those policies have destroyed families. They ahve destroyed communties. And as FDR warned...they have destroyed the will of the individual. It doesnt help...it cripples. and you find that humane. Sorry...doesnt work for me.
 
VanceMack said:
The next time you present a non partisan or bi partisan position on ANYTHING it will be the first time. And sorry...but you endorse the federal government now feeding kids breakfast, lunch AND dinner with no mention of responsibility or accountability of their providers (despite the fact that those people are ALREADY given taxpayer dollars to feed those children). You call it what you want...but you endorse more and more the federal government taking care of the people in this country. Those policies have destroyed families. They ahve destroyed communties. And as FDR warned...they have destroyed the will of the individual. It doesnt help...it cripples. and you find that humane. Sorry...doesnt work for me.
Click to expand...

YEs, I favor feeding kids who need a meal. I was not aware this was partisan. I actually know conservatives who favor it as well. And no, I don't see the government as my enemy. A personal view. I grew up believing we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I didn't know that was partisan either. I present my feelings and views on the issues I addresss. I figure that's how it should be. And I do so, as I said, without demonizing republicans or using silly phrases like nanny state.

When you do the same, I won't call you partisan. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
YEs, I favor feeding kids who need a meal. I was not aware this was partisan. I actually know conservatives who favor it as well. And no, I don't see the government as my enemy. A personal view. I grew up believing we have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. I didn't know that was partisan either. I present my feelings and views on the issues I addresss. I figure that's how it should be. And I do so, as I said, without demonizing republicans or using silly phrases like nanny state.

When you do the same, I won't call you partisan. ;)
Click to expand...

Partisan? Nah. Call me what you will tho....I couldnt care less. WHAT I do care is a 14 trillion dollar debt that gets larger with every program and a government that creates more crippled and dependent pets every day. And if you TRULY care, then FEED them for Gods sake. Stop pretending it is the role of the federal government to do the job you allegedly believe in.

Ever been to Juarez? Theres a bridge that connects El Paso to Juarez and when you walk there you have to keep your head down and dodge beggars at every turn. If you stop once you are swarmed. Get halfway across the bridge and you are broke. You didnt help them, you cant help the rest of them, and you have nothing to provide for yourself and your family. The handouts keep them poor and begging. Nothing changes. Thats precisely what your vision of government is doing and heading for.

Edit: I should add tho...if thats what YOU want to do...then by all means...DO it.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Partisan? Nah. Call me what you will tho....I couldnt care less. WHAT I do care is a 14 trilliuon dollar debt that gets larger with every program and a government that creates more crippled and dependent pets every day. And if you TRULY care, then FEED them for Gods sake. Stop pretending it is the role of the federal government to do the job you allegedly believe in.

Ever been to Juarez? Theres a bridge that connects El Paso to Juarez and when you walk there you have to keep your head down and dodge beggars at every turn. If you stop once you are swarmed. Get halfway across the bridge and you are broke. You didnt help them, you cant help the rest of them, and you have nothing to provide for yourself and your family. The handouts keep them poor and begging. Nothing changes. Thats precisely what your vision of government is doing and heading for.
Click to expand...

We are the government. And don't pretend you know what I do either. ;)

We can often do more my working through a larger enitity like the government, so when we use the government to help here, it is really us who are doing it. And if we don't like it, we remove our leaders during the next election.

And no, my vision doesn't lead the what you describe. That's more exaggeration on your part. It's not what you do as much as how you do it. Meet basic needs and then teach to fish.
 
Boo Radley said:
We are the government. And don't pretend you know what I do either. ;)

We can often do more my working through a larger enitity like the government, so when we use the government to help here, it is really us who are doing it. And if we don't like it, we remove our leaders during the next election.

And no, my vision doesn't lead the what you describe. That's more exaggeration on your part. It's not what you do as much as how you do it. Meet basic needs and then teach to fish.
Click to expand...

You endorse the government providing breakfast, lunch AND dinner....12 months out of the year...with no expectation of the parent or provider that is responsible for the child and is being PAID to provide for those children. You want to grow the federal government to accomplish that end. The federal government that already is approaching a debt totalling 100%+ of our annual GDP. It is not sustainable. it is not responsible. It doesnt teach responsibility. It encourages failure and dependency, not growth and development. It continues to cripple people and make them even further dependent on the federal government. Sorry...thats the reality...
 
VanceMack said:
You endorse the government providing breakfast, lunch AND dinner....12 months out of the year...with no expectation of the parent or provider that is responsible for the child and is being PAID to provide for those children. You want to grow the federal government to accomplish that end. The federal government that already is approaching a debt totalling 100%+ of our annual GDP. It is not sustainable. it is not responsible. It doesnt teach responsibility. It encourages failure and dependency, not growth and development. It continues to cripple people and make them even further dependent on the federal government. Sorry...thats the reality...
Click to expand...

we can't afford to feed hungry kids is the assertion of someone who in another thread wants to make sure we give tax breaks to billionaire$

any wonder the right wing has no credibility
 
VanceMack said:
You endorse the government providing breakfast, lunch AND dinner....12 months out of the year...with no expectation of the parent or provider that is responsible for the child and is being PAID to provide for those children. You want to grow the federal government to accomplish that end. The federal government that already is approaching a debt totalling 100%+ of our annual GDP. It is not sustainable. it is not responsible. It doesnt teach responsibility. It encourages failure and dependency, not growth and development. It continues to cripple people and make them even further dependent on the federal government. Sorry...thats the reality...
Click to expand...

Who said I have no expectation for the parents? But let's be real, there are parents who fail for a number of reasons. I merely argue there is no reason to punish the children for it.

And no, the government works for us, and is us, there are palces to cut. I personally think fighting two needless wars is a waste of money. And I think there are much more efficient ways our government could accomplish the tasks we have for them. But, those can each be debated on their merits or lack there of.

And yes, you can teach responsibility. You don't have to ignore their needs to do so. Like I said ealry, Maslow applies here.
 
Boo Radley said:
YEs, I favor feeding kids who need a meal.
Click to expand...

You bet, and conservatives just can't stand the concept of feeding hungry kids. You're right.

This is what your party does. It creates a monstrosity of a bill, then wraps in pretty paper that says "feed the children" or "health for everyone", and then it claims all Republicans want is for poor people to starve and die.

We all want kids to eat, bud. But does it take a $4.5 billion bill with 17 earmark pet projects to do so?
 
at the CA public hi school where i've worked for 24 years an awful lot of the kids THROW AWAY an awful lot of the subsidized breakfasts and lunches they're given

almost all of em, however, eat the cookie
 
Erod said:
You bet, and conservatives just can't stand the concept of feeding hungry kids. You're right.

This is what your party does. It creates a monstrosity of a bill, then wraps in pretty paper that says "feed the children" or "health for everyone", and then it claims all Republicans want is for poor people to starve and die.

We all want kids to eat, bud. But does it take a $4.5 billion bill with 17 earmark pet projects to do so?
Click to expand...

I don't know about conservatives, as I haven't seen any poll on them. But the person I was tlaking to said we should not feed hungry kids.

Now, as for my party, I see it quite differently than you do. We can tackle each one if you like. But it is more about solving problems than anything else in my view.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't know about conservatives, as I haven't seen any poll on them. But the person I was tlaking to said we should not feed hungry kids.

Now, as for my party, I see it quite differently than you do. We can tackle each one if you like. But it is more about solving problems than anything else in my view.
Click to expand...

Well for future reference, if a Democrat draws up the bill, it's NEVER about what the bill is called. It's about handing out million-dollar handshakes to political friends and expanding government as much as possible.

We can feed kids. My church alone provided Thanksgiving and a month's worth of groceries to more than 200 families. And we did it for 1 percent of what it would have cost a government program to do it.
 
Erod said:
Well for future reference, if a Democrat draws up the bill, it's NEVER about what the bill is called. It's about handing out million-dollar handshakes to political friends and expanding government as much as possible.

We can feed kids. My church alone provided Thanksgiving and a month's worth of groceries to more than 200 families. And we did it for 1 percent of what it would have cost a government program to do it.
Click to expand...

You mean like the patriot act? Or no child left behind? Bills that say exactly what they are about? :coffeepap

And, no you likely could not do the scale at anywhere near a lower cost. Sorry. I commend your church, but I've been ppor, and such from chuches were often too little and too limited to help consistently. They are great in short term emergencys, and take nothing from them, but they have not been able to handle larger problems for longer periods of time.
 
OscarB63 said:
maybe because parent sells food stamps for 30 cents on the dollar to buy booze and cigarettes with, instead of spending it to buy FOOD for their kids.


welfare, food stamps, medicaide, free school lunch, low income housing, low income grants and scholarships. we already give and give and give and give to these people.

when will enough be enough?
Click to expand...

It will never be enough, OscarB63, until everyone, apart from the government and its employees, is living at the same poverty level.

Life is not being measured by its quality anymore, its being measured by income. Instead of being grateful for what we do have, we're being resentful for what we don't have. Maybe ths time around tgeey will rationalize that we should "tax the rich". Who comes next?
 
Grant said:
It will never be enough, OscarB63, until everyone, apart from the government and its employees, is living at the same poverty level.

Life is not being measured by its quality anymore, its being measured by income. Instead of being grateful for what we do have, we're being resentful for what we don't have. Maybe ths time around tgeey will rationalize that we should "tax the rich". Who comes next?
Click to expand...

Where does this silliness come from?
 
Boo Radley said:
We're paying for a couple of needless wars, but can't pay to feed children?
Click to expand...

Once again, this isn't about feeding children. The GOP wanted background checks of cafeteria workers included in the bill, and the Democrats said no, then started pissing and moaning that the Republicans wanted to starve the kids. Since it is the cafeteria workers who serve the food to the kids, including this provision in the bill is most relevant.

This stunt by the Democrats was dishonest as hell from the very start.
 
Boo Radley said:
Where does this silliness come from?
Click to expand...

it really is a simple question, Boo, when will it be enough? just how much should we subsidize the standard of living for "the poor"
 
OscarB63 said:
reading trouble? I was not childless and single.

please, I have never stated that those who are "unable" should be punished. but far too many people cry unable, when they are really just unwilling.
Click to expand...

Oscar,

I understand your point of view. I really do. However, not everyone has the opportunity you had to move him or herself out of their poor economic situation as you have. I applaud you for having the courage to step up and do something to change your life situation. But not everyone has that same opportunity. You, sir, obviously got "sick and tired of being sick and tired" and likely had someone to support you while you worked through your difficult times. Not everyone is so fortunate. Thus, I think it's wrong for those who disagree with initiatives such as the topic of this discussion to do as you have a lump everyone who is poor into the category of being "whinning lazy asses". I know quite a few people - black, white, Hispanic, whomever - who work hard everyday but no matter how hard they try they get pulled two steps back for every one step they take trying to move themselves forward. Granted, not everyone poor person on Food Stamps is honorable or ethical; but there are some who really do try to get off the system. These are the people I fight for not those who sit on their butts and do little to nothing to better themselves.

Again, I applaud you but not everyone is so fortunate.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
Oscar,

I understand your point of view. I really do. However, not everyone has the opportunity you had to move him or herself out of their poor economic situation as you have. I applaud you for having the courage to step up and do something to change your life situation. But not everyone has that same opportunity. You, sir, obviously got "sick and tired of being sick and tired" and likely had someone to support you while you worked through your difficult times. Not everyone is so fortunate. Thus, I think it's wrong for those who disagree with initiatives such as the topic of this discussion to do as you have a lump everyone who is poor into the category of being "whinning lazy asses". I know quite a few people - black, white, Hispanic, whomever - who work hard everyday but no matter how hard they try they get pulled two steps back for every one step they try to take to move forward.

Again, I applaud you but not everyone is so fortunate.
Click to expand...

sorry dude..."fortune" had nothing to do with it. any able bodied non retard has exactly the same opportunity that I had, minorities have more because there are special minority programs they qualify for that I didn't. The only person that i had supporting me was a wife who wasn't a lazy bitch and would take care of our kids while I worked. my parents were too busy trying to raise, support my younger brothers to help me and my mother-in-law basically disowned my wife when she married me.


and I have never advocated not helping those who are UNABLE to help themself.
 
OscarB63 said:
it really is a simple question, Boo, when will it be enough? just how much should we subsidize the standard of living for "the poor"
Click to expand...


IMHO you are poor. And this is coming from a person on full disability.
 
OscarB63 said:
sorry dude..."fortune" had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


Your strong opposition to the situation says otherwise. And I never said you had "fortune", just maybe you had a better opportunity than some to excel, to move yourself forward when others may not. However, I don't disagree that there are some out there who will sit back and mooch off the system and then be angry with their subsidy is cut off. Those folks I can care less about.

Any able bodied non retard has exactly the same opportunity that I had.
Click to expand...

True to a degree...

Minorities have more because there are special minority programs they qualify for that I didn't.
Click to expand...

Very true.

I have never advocated not helping those who are UNABLE to help themself.
Click to expand...

Again, your strong stand against this legislation overall indicates otherwise. Nonetheless, if I've misjudged or misunderstood your position, let me be the first to apologize. While I don't agree with the bill entirely, there are some aspects of it I think are worthwhile.
 
Objective Voice said:
While I don't agree with the bill entirely, there are some aspects of it I think are worthwhile.
Click to expand...

which is exactly why it shoudn't be passed. why pass a crappy POS bill because there may be a few aspects that are worthwhile?
 
Boo Radley said:
We're paying for a couple of needless wars, but can't pay to feed children?
Click to expand...

That's not material. In reality the "wars" are Constitutional while the school lunches are not. So yes, we can pay for two "needless wars" but not to feed children.
 
JohnWOlin said:
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.
Click to expand...
The government shouldn't be a substitute for a father or mother, and it shouldn't be paying bills except for those incapable of operating in society; the handicapped.

Where will it all end? We're seeing right now. Trillions of debt that would have been better left in the hands of people to make decisions about their own life.

ksu_aviator said:
That's not material. In reality the "wars" are Constitutional while the school lunches are not. So yes, we can pay for two "needless wars" but not to feed children.
Click to expand...
The Libs think the Constitution is merely a document of suggestions, to be fully ignored unless it serves their purposes... which is rarely.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
The government shouldn't be a substitute for a father or mother, and it shouldn't be paying bills except for those incapable of operating in society; the handicapped.

Where will it all end? We're seeing right now. Trillions of debt that would have been better left in the hands of people to make decisions about their own life.

The Libs think the Constitution is merely a document of suggestions, to be fully ignored unless it serves their purposes... which is rarely.

.
Click to expand...

So it's hard to get the taste of **** out of your mouth huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom