It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republicans block child nutrition bill

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:07 AM

WASHINGTON – House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children.

Republicans used a procedural maneuver Wednesday to try to amend the $4.5 billion bill, which would give more needy children the opportunity to eat free lunches at school and make those lunches healthier. First lady Michelle Obama has lobbied for the bill as part of her "Let's Move" campaign to combat childhood obesity.

House Democrats said the GOP amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delayed a final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment.

Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach.
"It's not about making our children healthy and active," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. "We all want to see our children healthy and active. This is about spending and the role of government and the size of government — a debate about whether we're listening to our constituents or not."

I havent read this bill, but from a glace, I think this seems like a good bill.

I wouldnt have a problem if a school fed my children healthy food. Also, arent US children some of the most overweight in the world? Plus, half of Americans are expected to have diabetes by 2020. Why shouldnt our schools feed our kids healthy food???

I also think its good if the schools are allowed to feed children that dont have the money to purchase lunches. If a child is hungry, how will that affect their learning?

Edit - I wonder if theres something else in the bill that is not being said?
edit on 2-12-2010 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:13 AM
See this is one of the down sides to a move to less government control. We will spy on you and put up regulations for every little thing, but we won't feed hungry american children! What a joke. As a libertarian this is not something I would be opposed to.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:22 AM
This is an outrage - denying needy kids healthy food?

I don't think so.

Two of my heroes - Jesus and Jamie - would agree with me.

I am not putting Jamie Oliver up there with Jesus, but Jamie has really tried in America, against huge odds.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:24 AM
From what im getting from the article, the GOP wanted background checks done on child care workers....I dont really see how that goes with feeding schoolchildren healthy lunches? I dont get it....

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:27 AM
I have always said.."If the adults are looked after,the adults will take care of their chillins"....

So what does one do with a society which cannot even look after itself.

"Itself ",being the supposedly "Adult" ,element of it??????////????????.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
I understand that there are a lot of factors at play here,but not so many for excusing how twisted reality has become.

If I were not so scattered,I would start a thread on the theory of everything.

We just focus on something wrong,and forget everything that is right.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:16 AM
I haven't read the bill but isn't Michelle Obama trying for a salad bar bill to make kids graze on leaves instead of tearing into hamburgers, hot dogs, pizza and chili cheese fries.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:22 AM
they seem to be passing a hell of a lot of bills this year huh? they know something we dont? seems the obama administration wants a lot of things put in place just in case he doesnt get an extended term.....

something fishy is goin on...thats all im saying....something fishy

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:33 AM
The bill is S. 3307 or Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

It has one amendment and was passed by the senate in August.

Sure, $4.5 billion is too much to feed kids, they'll still debate the need for tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans though.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 03:55 AM
reply to post by buni11687

Why is it OK for kids to get free lunches at school? Why is it the place of the school to provide free meals? In some cities they are now providing kids with free dinners as well. At what point do we say "if you can not afford to feed your kids then the kids need to be removed from the home"?

Sure, these are tough economic times, but the folks who are having their kids fed off the tax payer back are also the folks who are getting WIC stipends for food and food stamps. You want to provide more in the way of food for poor kids? OK then issue the parents more food stamps. Oh I forgot, many of these parents use the food stamps for smokes, booze or Cheetos and then little Johnny does not get a packed lunch, so we need to feed him at school. We're not going to cut the food stamps his family gets, the amount of which is based on how many people are in the home, we're just going to layer on another program.

Healthy eating? Beyond recommending healthy food and perhaps providing some education about nutrition, why is the government involved with what you feed your kids?

This bill should have been kiboshed. If you want to ensure that kids are given enough food then do one of two things. Remove them from homes led by parents who are too irrresponsible to properly care for their children or modify the food stamp program and make it only possible to purchase certain products with them.

As far as why the bill was voted down from a political sense, it is the same old nonsense. Politicians are always putting things into bills with banal names that force the other side to vote them down and then claim that "those guys voted against feeding children" when in fact they were voting against a rider placed on the bill that had nothing what so ever to do with the title of the bill. Both sides do it all the time.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:13 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Those who support these conservative, “go back to the original intent of the constitution” type movements and their people, such as the Tea Party and Ron Paul, this is a part of what you asked for. Social Services are not part of the original constitution, and expected to be handled by volunteer aid organizations rather then the government. You cannot have it both ways, you either want to move away from socialism and go back to the constitution, or you want to continue to support socialism style social services.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 12/2/2010 by defcon5 because: tags

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:26 AM
reply to post by dolphinfan

So your proposal is to have the state fund the entire child's well being (food, clothing, housing) rather than one or two meals a day if the parent can't afford a lunch? Putting children into homes of sometimes abusive foster parents or into an orphanage because of consequences outside of the parents control? You are a tyrant.

Beyond some of the other things you said, do you know the minimum requirements for food stamps? Do you know the minimum requirements for free lunches in a given school district?

When I grew up we met the requirements for free lunches but rarely for food stamps. They don't always go hand in hand.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:43 AM
reply to post by dolphinfan

If the parents dont feed their kids, but have the ability to but instead spend their money/food stamps on stuff like smokes, alcohol, the stuff that isnt a neccesity, then I believe the state should step in and help the children.

I would support a modification of the food stamp program, where stuff like smokes and alcohol are not allowed to be purchased with food stamps.

Edit - On the healthy eating part, I dont believe it would hurt too much to eat a healthy meal once a day in school. What the kids eat outside of school is their own buisness.
edit on 2-12-2010 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 04:56 AM
Public Schools should not be spending one nickel to feed kids.

illegal immigrants pay no Federal Income Taxes, pay no property taxes, send all their money to their greater family in Mexico/Central America/south America.....

And yet the Federal Government is supposed to appropriate funds to feed kids in school.....who are the kids of illegal aliens?

Either we need to annex Mexico and divide it up as new States or those kids need to starve.

Why should WE pay for illegal alien kids in our schools lunches?????????????

We can't even afford to fully man our Navy Ships. Are we going to cut manning on our naval ships even more for this Social Experiment of no purpose???????

You betcha. We're being ROBBED! And we're losing National Security in the process.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:10 AM
"Why is it OK for kids to get free lunches at school? Why is it the place of the school to provide free meals?"

Did I really just #ing read that here ? I mean sorry for the language but what the hell are you thinking? That we hold all these children accountable and let them starve because their parents are #ed up or hey what about down on their #ing luck because of the asshole bankers and republicans screwing everyone over ? Is that what America stands for ? IN GOD WE TRUST jerk ! take it off the money or act like a Christian nation and take care of our sick, old and young BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR HUMANITY, for Christs sake what is the matter with people that live in a world where we care about a child trapped in a well for 8 hours more then the thousands that are trapped in hell everyday, being fed at school is all some of these kids have to look forward to and you want to make a judgement on their parents and take them out of their homes... to where ?? Idiot, there are millions of kids waiting to be adopted and many in foster homes now, think before you start spouting off on this crap, children are completely and utterly innocent of everything that adults do, what Americans try to do is help those less fortunate, be part of the solution and less finger pointing to those less fortunate then yourself and stop putting everyone in this #ing abuser of welfare benefits category, that's the exception not the rule and its why profiling doesn't work ever.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by SankeySugar

Star for passion and conviction.

Too many people don't look at humanity, only God and country.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:33 AM
reply to post by Pervius[/I doubt you could look at a child and tell them to starve. I know several white people who have mastered the "system" and haven't worked for years. I worked in the same building with an illegal housekeeper who worked graveyard as a janitor, went to nursing school in the morning, then on to an english speaking class. She paid taxes, didn't use any programs, and supported her son. All the while one of her "legal" co-workers got mad at the boss and went out on disability for a "hurt back" and collected checks that was paid for by tax dollars. Bend over next time you talk like that, we'll hear you better.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 05:47 AM
I agree with the simple concept: If you can't feed them, don't have them.
Schools should not be mandated to feed people's kids. This is only perpetuating the irresponsibility of careless parents. Pop'em out and get more tax payer money, live a life free of hard decisions and hard work. Please...where does the stupidity end?
What we really need is a complete overhaul of our failed public school system. States should be the ones responsible for the school curriculum, etc....If they want to make free lunches available to kids, then that should be something the state decides.

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:22 AM
These bills are NEVER what they appear to be.
there is something else to this story,
watch and see.They probably want to feed them
soy/cyanide burgers or want to put in armed guards
with tazers, for the children who want to opt. out.
come on, you know how they work by now, right ?


edit on 2-12-2010 by BrainGarden because: edit of course

posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 06:37 AM
There is no silver lining with these people.
any bill that even looks like it is for the good of the children,
or the good of anything ALWAYS has some shady dark
hidden agenda. Some sneaky lurking underbelly is always there.
just under the surface.That's how they get you every time.
take some time check it out , and you will see.
It happens every time.


top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in