• 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

Barbbtx

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
8,467
Reaction score
1,993
Location
W'Ford TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation to feed more lunches and dinners to hungry children at school is about to become law.
President Barack Obama will be accompanied by his wife, Michelle, as he signs the bill. The ceremony is scheduled to take place Monday at a District of Columbia elementary school.
The $4.5 billion bill would expand free school meals for the low-income students and give the government the power to make them healthier. The government will decide what kinds of foods may be sold in vending machines, lunch lines and fundraisers during school hours.
Supporters say the law is needed to stem rising health care costs because of growing childhood obesity and also to feed more hungry children in tough economic times. Some Republicans contend the measure is too expensive and an example of government overreach.


Read more: President to sign child nutrition bill - Lowell Sun Online

I guess the Republicans failed to stop it.
No more fundraising from bake sales. Is big government going to also pay for things that the bakesales usually pay for? Or should they switch to apple and spinach sales?
 
I'm glad all those kids aren't going to starve to death, now. That's a relief.
 
My biggest concern about this legislation is whether children are going to be willing to eat the healthier food.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation to feed more lunches and dinners to hungry children at school is about to become law.
President Barack Obama will be accompanied by his wife, Michelle, as he signs the bill. The ceremony is scheduled to take place Monday at a District of Columbia elementary school.
The $4.5 billion bill would expand free school meals for the low-income students and give the government the power to make them healthier. The government will decide what kinds of foods may be sold in vending machines, lunch lines and fundraisers during school hours.
Supporters say the law is needed to stem rising health care costs because of growing childhood obesity and also to feed more hungry children in tough economic times. Some Republicans contend the measure is too expensive and an example of government overreach.


Read more: President to sign child nutrition bill - Lowell Sun Online

I guess the Republicans failed to stop it.
No more fundraising from bake sales. Is big government going to also pay for things that the bakesales usually pay for? Or should they switch to apple and spinach sales?

The nanny state continue to grow. We are taking care of the parents by extending indefinitely unemployment welfare checks so why not take care of the children as well. I dont think anyone is shocked.
 
My biggest concern about this legislation is whether children are going to be willing to eat the healthier food.

What? You mean, this might be a waste of money?
 
Kids aren't malnourished, they consume too many calories. Are they going to be fed Splenda sweetened food and salads? Probably not. You could take a multivitamin everyday and still be obese. I agree with giving school lunches to poor children, but the nutritional aspect behind it doesn't address the problem. The government can't control what kids eat at home either.
 
What? You mean, this might be a waste of money?

It might be if it doesn't accomplish the goals set out. If it does, than its well worth it.
 
It might be if it doesn't accomplish the goals set out. If it does, than its well worth it.

So, let me get this straight: we're spending $4.5 billion to keep poor kids from getting fat?

I thought this bill was to prevent them from starving to death, in the street. That's how it was portrayed when the Republicans opposed the bill.
 
Kids aren't malnourished, they consume too many calories. Are they going to be fed Splenda sweetened food and salads? Probably not. You could take a multivitamin everyday and still be obese. I agree with giving school lunches to poor children, but the nutritional aspect behind it doesn't address the problem. The government can't control what kids eat at home either.




I think this is now breakfast, lunch, and dinner.


Statism on the march.
 
So, let me get this straight: we're spending $4.5 billion to keep poor kids from getting fat?

I thought this bill was to prevent them from starving to death, in the street. That's how it was portrayed when the Republicans opposed the bill.

You can argue that with those who made that portrayal. If my memory is correct, the only other time I commented on this was voicing a concern that this would be defunded at a later date.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Legislation to feed more lunches and dinners to hungry children at school is about to become law. President Barack Obama will be accompanied by his wife, Michelle, as he signs the bill. The ceremony is scheduled to take place Monday at a District of Columbia elementary school.

The $4.5 billion bill would expand free school meals for the low-income students and give the government the power to make them healthier. The government will decide what kinds of foods may be sold in vending machines, lunch lines and fundraisers during school hours.

Supporters say the law is needed to stem rising health care costs because of growing childhood obesity and also to feed more hungry children in tough economic times. Some Republicans contend the measure is too expensive and an example of government overreach.

I guess the Republicans failed to stop it.

No more fundraising from bake sales. Is big government going to also pay for things that the bakesales usually pay for? Or should they switch to apple and spinach sales?

It will also increase by 115,000 the number of children eligible to eat free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch at school because of streamlined certification procedures.

Vilsack, countering some reports, said the bill will not keep parents from bringing cupcakes to school for parties. And food sold outside school hours –- at a Friday night basketball game, for example –- won’t be affected.

Although six cents seems like a pittance, it will make a difference, Sam Kass, senior policy advisor for healthy food initiatives at the White House, told reporters Friday. Children will see more whole grains and more fruits and more vegetables, and more children will have the chance to learn “where food comes from and how it grows” through farm-to-school and other programs, he said.

“Hungry kids don’t learn very well,” Vilsack said. “We are in a very difficult competition to have the smartest, most creative kids on Earth” and “we cannot afford to have a third of our kids being obese.”

Tim Cipriano, executive director of food services for New Haven, Conn., public schools, said that more than 80% of the students in his district qualify for free and reduced meals. The bill will enable him to buy more local produce -– and that can have a big effect, he said, citing a child who tried a sungold tomato from a school garden.

“That little tomato can change a whole generation of kids,” he said.
Lunch for 115,000 kids at $10 each = $1,150,000

Cost of bill: $4.5 billion

Add 6-cents to the budget of every school child. Yeah, that'll do it.

Just another sacred cow sacrosanct program to waste taxpayer dollars.

Text in green? Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
I think this is now breakfast, lunch, and dinner.


Statism on the march.
I can semi understand breakfast, but dinner? Are they going to give kids small portions? The obesity problem has to do with kids culture and eating habits. They eat too much crap and sit in front of the TV too much. More calories in than what goes out, and it turns to fat. I would say it may be more beneficial to make kids take PE each year and actually have them physically work. However, I don't think the government can stop the obesity problem. I hope they don't use it as an excuse to encroach upon a family's private life and dictate what they can feed their kids. Being fat may be unhealthy, but that's still a persons right.
 
I think this is now breakfast, lunch, and dinner.


Statism on the march.

and year around...even when the schools arent in session.

So...hey...many of those kids dont have supportive homes to go to...so...its time to start collecting them...providing free housing...clothes...and we want to be humane so we have to take care of the adults too...
 
A great victory for the evil socalists.

We're one more Garden Salad away from taking over... :)
 
I can semi understand breakfast, but dinner? Are they going to give kids small portions? The obesity problem has to do with kids culture and eating habits. They eat too much crap and sit in front of the TV too much. More calories in than what goes out, and it turns to fat. I would say it may be more beneficial to make kids take PE each year and actually have them physically work. However, I don't think the government can stop the obesity problem. I hope they don't use it as an excuse to encroach upon a family's private life and dictate what they can feed their kids. Being fat may be unhealthy, but that's still a persons right.

Actually, the best thing we can do is to stop subsidizing unhealthy food.
 
There is a lot of hyperbole with some here. No one said kids would starve to death. And there was also a discussion that too many wasted calories could be unhelathy, and that people could eat a lot of calories and still be malnuorished. Now, we can talk abuot any of that, but we shouldn't be too silly with the exaggerations.

That said, glad it passed and like megaprogman, hope this serves us well.
 
Actually, the best thing we can do is to stop subsidizing unhealthy food.

I agree that we shouldn't be feeding them corn dogs, pizza, fries, and other calorie rich foods. It's a good idea to give them less calories. I need to do some more research on the bill. By nutritious do they mean more vitamin rich? And are they addressing the calorie issue?
 
There is a lot of hyperbole with some here. No one said kids would starve to death. And there was also a discussion that too many wasted calories could be unhelathy, and that people could eat a lot of calories and still be malnuorished. Now, we can talk abuot any of that, but we shouldn't be too silly with the exaggerations.

That said, glad it passed and like megaprogman, hope this serves us well.




The name of the bill is "hyperbole" :doh
 
Let's pass the bill first and find out later!!!!!!!

Well the reason I have this concern is because Jamie Oliver (the naked chef from the UK) came over and did a school lunch program that didn't really go over well.
 
Well the reason I have this concern is because Jamie Oliver (the naked chef from the UK) came over and did a school lunch program that didn't really go over well.

I'm surprised he lived to tell the tale, you don't get between an American and their junk food...

Your portions in your restaraunts when I come down there, are simply unreal. Impossible to finish man, crazy stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom