Republicans block child nutrition bill

[flopstock]

What a bunch of hypocrites!



I actually hope the background check amendment passes. That's more than can be said for the politicians that propose it. Of course, they'd have to fund that also, in addition to the lunches they are trying to scrap.:yh_glasse





Republicans block child nutrition bill - Yahoo! News--

[Ahso!]

Hypocrites? I don't think so. The GOP has been saying all along for years that they wanted to halt any programs they considered an entitlement or welfare. Are you telling me you didn't think they'd touch anything you supported? This is just a preview of whats to come. They also blocked unemployment benefits, and just in time to screw up to economy even more during the holidays, then they will try to pin it on the dems and Obama during the next election cycle. The GOP wants to win at all costs, they are willing to bring this country to its knees if need be.

[CARLA]

I agree Ahso and its will even get uglier. Sad, sad, sad I think its politicians that are becoming to costly for this country. Their agenda's will bring us down painfully, then they will all go home to their houses on Martha's Vineyard. Disgusting bunch of people who have no idea what the hell they are doing.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1345687 wrote: Hypocrites? I don't think so. The GOP has been saying all along for years that they wanted to halt any programs they considered an entitlement or welfare. Are you telling me you didn't think they'd touch anything you supported? This is just a preview of whats to come. They also blocked unemployment benefits, and just in time to screw up to economy even more during the holidays, then they will try to pin it on the dems and Obama during the next election cycle. The GOP wants to win at all costs, they are willing to bring this country to its knees if need be.


Country is already on its knees. Now their are kicking us while we are down.

[Ahso!]

For all we know the GOP may now be doing the dirty work of the snack industry since there's been a push to rid the schools of soda and snack machines and actually make school lunch at least a bit nutritious.

[Accountable]

Why are school lunches an issue for the federal gov't?

[flopstock]

Accountable;1345733 wrote: Why are school lunches an issue for the federal gov't?


National School Lunch Program « Food Research & Action Center

[Accountable]

If feeding school children at school is a valid issue for the federal government, why isn't feeding all children, even when not at school? And if feeding children is a valid issue for the federal government, why isn't feeding adults part of that program as well?

I scoured the US Constitution and I just couldn't find the "feed the school kids" clause. If the key word isn't food but school, education's been the responsibility of the States since we first had schools. In fact, we didn't even have a department of education until Jimmy Carter mistakenly thought he had been elected the governor of Usa (apparently pronounced Oosah) rather than President of the United States of America.

It seems to me the best way to prioritize spending cuts in the federal gov't is to first read the Constitution (if anyone in Washington can find a clean copy) and start dropping those programs that aren't even addressed in it.

[recovering conservative]

flopstock;1345734 wrote: National School Lunch Program « Food Research & Action Center


For libertarians unfortunately, the merits of preventing childhood malnutrition are not enough to maintain the program, because it's not in the Constitution.

[recovering conservative]

flopstock;1345686 wrote: What a bunch of hypocrites!



I actually hope the background check amendment passes. That's more than can be said for the politicians that propose it. Of course, they'd have to fund that also, in addition to the lunches they are trying to scrap.:yh_glasse





Republicans block child nutrition bill - Yahoo! News--


The only interests Republicans are concerned with, are the millionaires and billionaires -- as can be seen with their determination to protect them from losing out when Bush's tax cuts expire.

[Scrat]

AC, the constitution was written 230+ YEARS AGO!!! You might want to look at what kind of people wrote it too. A lot has changed since then, one of the things that have changed is science and knowledge. Not too long ago they discovered children that are adequately fed, clothed and housed do much better in school than those kids who are cold and hungry.

You sound foolish.

For christs sake, in Belarus they spare no expense for their children. There's not a school there that doesn't have a cafeteria a school nurse and heating. They produce some pretty smart kids.

As for the repugnicans, they'd have us in caves if they could.

[recovering conservative]

Scrat;1345776 wrote: Not too long ago they discovered children that are adequately fed, clothed and housed do much better in school than those kids who are cold and hungry.


Which unfortunately means nothing to idealists who cannot alter rules even in such examples of programs designed to alleviate child poverty. The rules must be followed, even when they lead to bad results!

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1345758 wrote: For libertarians unfortunately, the merits of preventing childhood malnutrition are not enough to maintain the program, because it's not in the Constitution.You really should educate yourself before commenting on things. You'll look less of an idiot. In the US, we have levels of government, of which the federal level is only one, the most general & remote, and the least able to handle problems such as this.



Scrat;1345776 wrote: AC, the constitution was written 230+ YEARS AGO!!! You might want to look at what kind of people wrote it too. A lot has changed since then, one of the things that have changed is science and knowledge. Not too long ago they discovered children that are adequately fed, clothed and housed do much better in school than those kids who are cold and hungry.

You sound foolish.

For christs sake, in Belarus they spare no expense for their children. There's not a school there that doesn't have a cafeteria a school nurse and heating. They produce some pretty smart kids. You sound as ignorant as RC obviously is. You seem to think that if the federal government doesn't do it, then it doesn't get done. You're right about the Constitution being over 230 years old, but your implication that it's no longer valid it, to put it bluntly, stupid. If you want the federal government to take over child nutrition, work to install an amendment. The process is relatively straightforward.



recovering conservative;1345782 wrote: Which unfortunately means nothing to idealists who cannot alter rules even in such examples of programs designed to alleviate child poverty. The rules must be followed, even when they lead to bad results!Are you implying that if the rules lead to bad results that they must be broken, rather than changed? That's dumb. Why not change undesirable rules to something you can follow?

[yaaarrrgg]

Accountable;1345753 wrote: I scoured the US Constitution and I just couldn't find the "feed the school kids" clause. If the key word isn't food but school, education's been the responsibility of the States since we first had schools. In fact, we didn't even have a department of education until Jimmy Carter mistakenly thought he had been elected the governor of Usa (apparently pronounced Oosah) rather than President of the United States of America.


It falls squarely under general welfare and common defense. That's right, WELFARE.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


And

welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1345799 wrote: You really should educate yourself before commenting on things. You'll look less of an idiot. In the US, we have levels of government, of which the federal level is only one, the most general & remote, and the least able to handle problems such as this.
Oh really! You mean there's more than one level of government?

You sound as ignorant as RC obviously is. You seem to think that if the federal government doesn't do it, then it doesn't get done.
And it gets done 50 different ways, with 50 different levels of funding for the problem.....and most likely, the poorest states, which have the most children living in poverty will have the least amount of money to address the problem. So, why not have a uniform system for all American? Oh yeah, that constitution that won't allow you to start a federal program without the arduous task of ratifying an amendment to the constitution.

You're right about the Constitution being over 230 years old, but your implication that it's no longer valid it, to put it bluntly, stupid. If you want the federal government to take over child nutrition, work to install an amendment. The process is relatively straightforward.
And the children will be grandparents by the time that amendment is passed! Why not take a short cut and allow Supreme Court justices to determine if such a program is constitutional?

Are you implying that if the rules lead to bad results that they must be broken, rather than changed? That's dumb. Why not change undesirable rules to something you can follow?


Break em or change em -- the stupid thing is to disregard results so as to adhere to rules and methods.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1345814 wrote: And it gets done 50 different ways, with 50 different levels of funding for the problem.Yes, and that's the beauty of it. I know it pains you that things aren't wrapped up in a single, neat, one-size-fits-all package, but you can always immigrate, get your citizenship, and vote for a "better" way.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1345818 wrote: Yes, and that's the beauty of it. I know it pains you that things aren't wrapped up in a single, neat, one-size-fits-all package, but you can always immigrate, get your citizenship, and vote for a "better" way.


States rights has been used as an excuse to deny equal rights (Rand Paul is still telling us that Civil Rights Act rules applying to private business are unconstitutional), and what doesn't get enough attention, is that the disparity and inequality in your union allowed the first cracks to break in the middle class 40 years ago, when manufacturers set up non-union factories in the South, and closed operations in what came to be known as The Rust Belt. Wages and living standards for the average worker started being driven down even before the effects of outsourcing caused by globalization, began having an impact. It's as if the United States already had their own little third world nation down south that was driving down living standards!

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1345836 wrote: States rights has been used as an excuse to deny equal rights (Rand Paul is still telling us that Civil Rights Act rules applying to private business are unconstitutional), and what doesn't get enough attention, is that the disparity and inequality in your union allowed the first cracks to break in the middle class 40 years ago, when manufacturers set up non-union factories in the South, and closed operations in what came to be known as The Rust Belt. Wages and living standards for the average worker started being driven down even before the effects of outsourcing caused by globalization, began having an impact. It's as if the United States already had their own little third world nation down south that was driving down living standards!
You wanna tie that into the actual subject, or are you just spewing random hate again?

[Ahso!]

Well, he is only a "recovering" (not yet fully recovered) conservative.:wah:

[yaaarrrgg]

The whole point of the Constitution was to create the foundation of a better society, and escape English rule. To prevent the arbitrary taxation, and to give people representation. The notion that "the" founders wanted this or that is oversimplifying the history to align it to a modern political viewpoint. Some of the founders wanted a strong central government that emulated England, and others favored a decentralized approach. Some, like Jefferson, saw banks and corporations as top level threats, equal to standing armies. Many of them thought the people were too stupid to self rule, and others (like Jackson later) nurtured the more modern idea of U.S. democracy.

It's become fairly trendy since Ron Paul to call any and every social policy "unconstitutional." Though by the same logic, I don't see "school lunches" listed as an exception when Congress is defining taxes to provide for the health and happiness of the U.S.. This line of attack is not very far off from birthers calling Obama's presidency unconstitutional. I mean if we are going this route, I can equally claim that libertarianism itself is unconstitutional. Anything that the majority of people vote for, that improves the standard of living for a majority of people, or provided long term cost savings for the whole nation, would fall under general welfare. It doesn't seem implausible that providing better nutrition and education would cut heath and social costs later on down the road. But even if it didn't, like it or not, even bread and circuses are consistent with the Constitution's open wording.

Ironically though, Ron Paul libertarians might suffer from a case of "beware what you wish for" if they ever got exactly what they wanted. Living under arbitrary taxation of an empire across the ocean isn't a whole lot different than living under the rule of a multinational corporation that's monopolized a given market. They have no vested interest in local communities, and if you aren't a major shareholder, forget any representation. You can gripe about paying arbitrary taxes, only to turn around and pay the arbitrary prices set by a monopoly which -- after it becomes big enough -- also owns and operates the government in the market as well.

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1345687 wrote: Hypocrites? I don't think so. The GOP has been saying all along for years that they wanted to halt any programs they considered an entitlement or welfare. Are you telling me you didn't think they'd touch anything you supported? This is just a preview of whats to come. They also blocked unemployment benefits, and just in time to screw up to economy even more during the holidays, then they will try to pin it on the dems and Obama during the next election cycle. The GOP wants to win at all costs, they are willing to bring this country to its knees if need be.And the majority obviously voted them in, yet we'd all be labled communists if we were to dare suggest other countries were more civilised, good ole "America" huh?

Fn idiots these people

[K.Snyder]

CARLA;1345690 wrote: I agree Ahso and its will even get uglier. Sad, sad, sad I think its politicians that are becoming to costly for this country. Their agenda's will bring us down painfully, then they will all go home to their houses on Martha's Vineyard. Disgusting bunch of people who have no idea what the hell they are doing.


Politicians have always been corrupt, it's the lack of law that enables them to breed the greed that is well known in history to bring an otherwise fruitful country to it's inevitable demise...

"Oh, good ole 'Merica will forever be good!!!!!" ... Yeah right

Fn idiots these people

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1345733 wrote: Why are school lunches an issue for the federal gov't?


Because people aren't generally smart enough to have the "Luxury" of retaining the power it takes to place people in office, they're just uninformed. Therefore, it must be concluded that a select few of intellectuals has and always will exhibit the ability to provide what's best for all of society.

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;1345753 wrote: If feeding school children at school is a valid issue for the federal government, why isn't feeding all children, even when not at school? And if feeding children is a valid issue for the federal government, why isn't feeding adults part of that program as well?

I scoured the US Constitution and I just couldn't find the "feed the school kids" clause. If the key word isn't food but school, education's been the responsibility of the States since we first had schools. In fact, we didn't even have a department of education until Jimmy Carter mistakenly thought he had been elected the governor of Usa (apparently pronounced Oosah) rather than President of the United States of America.

It seems to me the best way to prioritize spending cuts in the federal gov't is to first read the Constitution (if anyone in Washington can find a clean copy) and start dropping those programs that aren't even addressed in it.You do realize that the constitution wasn't written by the most compassionate people in existence and because of it the constitution should be improved at every chance possible in order to progress from an ostentatious level of ignorance to ultimately a World in which one might lay down at the end of the night with the bliss of knowing they actually exist, do you not?

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1345853 wrote: You wanna tie that into the actual subject, or are you just spewing random hate again?


Oh, you mean like your crap - telling me to immigrate, or that living in Canada means I'm not supposed to comment on U.S.

[recovering conservative]

yaaarrrgg;1345878 wrote:

It's become fairly trendy since Ron Paul to call any and every social policy "unconstitutional."
And even if something like a school lunch program was unconstitutional -- so what!

If a program was of great value, and abolishing it to abide by a literal interpretation of the Constitution, would be detrimental; an insistence on following rules, even where it cause harm, means that the consitutional constructionist is no different than a religious fundamentalist zealot -- they care more for following rules than they do about the actual welfare of the people!

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1346074 wrote: And even if something like a school lunch program was unconstitutional -- so what!

If a program was of great value, and abolishing it to abide by a literal interpretation of the Constitution, would be detrimental; an insistence on following rules, even where it cause harm, means that the consitutional constructionist is no different than a religious fundamentalist zealot -- they care more for following rules than they do about the actual welfare of the people!I don't like Machiavellian logic. If the rules cause harm then change the rules. If a valuable practice can be accomplished without breaking the rules, then why not practice within the rules? What you're advocating sends the message that rules are only suggestions to be followed if it's convenient, which is far more detrimental in the long run.

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1345880 wrote: And the majority obviously voted them in, yet we'd all be labled communists if we were to dare suggest other countries were more civilised, good ole "America" huh?

Fn idiots these peopleA majority of the electorate voted them in, a majority of the people qualified to vote, don't bother doing so.

[recovering conservative]

Accountable;1346082 wrote: I don't like Machiavellian logic. If the rules cause harm then change the rules. If a valuable practice can be accomplished without breaking the rules, then why not practice within the rules? What you're advocating sends the message that rules are only suggestions to be followed if it's convenient, which is far more detrimental in the long run.


So reforming rules is Machiavellian logic! Unless you are claiming that your constitution is some kind of divine document (like the Christian Right believes), then it is total lunacy to insist on rigidly following a system when it is leading to harmful consequences.

[Accountable]

recovering conservative;1346106 wrote: So reforming rules is Machiavellian logic! Unless you are claiming that your constitution is some kind of divine document (like the Christian Right believes), then it is total lunacy to insist on rigidly following a system when it is leading to harmful consequences.You didn't suggest reforming the rules, I did. You suggested breaking the rules (http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... ost1345814). The system is not leading to harmful consequences, if you mean the US Constitutional system. In fact, it was such a good system that I understand other great societies have emulated it ... societies such as Canada. Don't you have a constitution and representative republic?

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1346084 wrote: A majority of the electorate voted them in, a majority of the people qualified to vote, don't bother doing so.So then we're not as civilized as we thought then huh? I mean, the constitution will save us right? America having leaders that the people don't vote into office...

How long then, 50, 70 years before we're legitimately defined as a dictatorship...Who'll be in office then when that happens? Anyone betting on a democrat?

The government dictating the laws of the people, who heard of such a thing? Sounds like some definitions are flip flopped here, sad

sad

[Ahso!]

It's a good thing the dems were there to ensure passage of this bill, wouldn't you say, Flopstock?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/1 ... 95692.html

[flopstock]

Ahso!;1346567 wrote: It's a good thing the dems were there to ensure passage of this bill, wouldn't you say, Flopstock?

Child Nutrition Bill Becomes Law: Obama Signs Today


Can you find anything on the background check part of the bill?

[Ahso!]

flopstock;1346573 wrote: Can you find anything on the background check part of the bill?Daily Kos: House passes Child Nutrition bill

[flopstock]

Ahso!;1346574 wrote: Daily Kos: House passes Child Nutrition bill


Thank you dear!