Republicans block child nutrition bill

Originally posted by links234


It's in the preamble.

You should read more Hamilton and less Jefferson.

Are you serious?

The preamble is merely an introduction and doesnt confer any powers to the government.

You should read more Constitution and less Sesame Street.

reply to post by riiver


Come to New Haven. I'll introduce you to several corners where you can get anything you want for your EBT, stamps or vouchers.

They get caught breaking these rules at least once a year but nothing ever comes from it. On several occasions the mayor came out and defended the practice saying "who is the government to tell these people what they do or do not need." Apparently he thinks liquor, crack and even the occasional street handgun are in fact necessary for some.

Just because you arent raping the system or dont know anyone who is doesnt mean it isnt being raped.

It is not the position of the Federal Government to feed children. That's the parents job, to sustain sustenance, and to provide finances whether it be pay for school lunches or take one with.

What part of that common sense don't you people get? Where in the Constitution does it say that the USG is empowered to provide meals for ANY group of children? There is none. This bill should be voted down..PERIOD!

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
It is not the position of the Federal Government to feed children. That's the parents job, to sustain sustenance, and to provide finances whether it be pay for school lunches or take one with.

What part of that common sense don't you people get? Where in the Constitution does it say that the USG is empowered to provide meals for ANY group of children? There is none. This bill should be voted down..PERIOD!

Then we should remove all food dispensers from schools and provide only the cafeteria tables where the children can eat the meals their parents have prepared for them.

Meals are for purchase, or for free, none the less provided by the public schools, supported by my tax dollars, whether or not I even have children. So since I am indirectly paying for it, I should have a say, and insist that food served meet and exceed minimum nutritional standards.

What don't you get?
Where is this too much to ask?
You want to take my school tax money and pay me in sawdust not fit for pigs?

What can I expect from your avatar.
Easy to pick the good ol boys out of a crowd. Y'all have already cashed in your chips. Ready, aim...
All you have left is to "fire." Most good ol boys couldn't think their way out of a paper bag - I'm guessing their head would literally explode from the effort of trying. Go ahead...shoot your way out.
Try not to hurt yourself in the process.
And try not to harm little children.
The bill should be passed.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Do you honestly believe that the Board of Education would allow for non-nutrional food to be permitted to be served to children? Surely you can't be that naive?

Since you didn't take the time, nor the initiative to research, here's some sources that would " counter " your estranged comments. i highly recommend you walk away from the re-runs of the Electric company and actually inform your self, at the very least anyways?

source: www.iom.edu...

source: www.faqs.org...


And as for my avatar? Are you seriously going to belittle yourself and turn to labeling just because you got educated? Your going to make assumptions of my decent based on a picture? You have proven yourself in front of many ATS readers, that not only are you judgmental, but a complete idiot! Walk away from Sesame street, and actually attempt to conjure up a thought of your own~

source: www.schoolnutrition.org...

What other spoon fed, liberal propaganda do you wish to poison us with?

reply to post by Whereweheaded


You feed yourself. We do not eat the same things.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Thats ok, to save face, feel free to walk away...nice try though child~

This is Michelle's multiBILLION healthy free lunch progam for public school. It is way too expensive. Like we have that kind of money to spend on a first lady's little BILLION dollar pet project. Sick.

reply to post by buni11687


the 'food' the kids could chose from would be generic copies of MacDonalds happy meals....get real !

the 'food' would be processed crud that has allowable limits of chicken bones, feet and tongues,
all blended together with the dark & white meats of those same steroid crammed,
growth hormone laden fowls.

the same with pork (if it is even politically correct to blindly serve pork in the face of religious dietary rules) for a few of the children enrolled in this next stage of a give-away

the same with beef meats, adulterated, pumped up, and essentially abnormal to consume... unless
one wants the onset of obesity or diabetes from the food that is deliberately 'junked up' by the
corporate food processors.


the program is mostly designed for the food lobbysts... the 'poor' kids are the hook.... its all scam

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Thats ok, to save face, feel free to walk away...nice try though child~

Far from a child, though you might have better luck convincing one of your argument.

Wouldn't knowingly feed our children what again...? These are "typical" school lunches.



A picture is worth 1000 words.

Walk away?
I wish. Some of us have to work.
We are not compensated bloggers challenged with the enormous feat of getting Bristol to the finals or making sure mega-corporations selling garbage have an accessible path into our food chain

Or other wise convincing an unassuming public a great deception that every sound, common sense and long overdue idea that comes from the Obama administration - is some sort of conspiratorial government plot designed to strip them of their rights.

It isn't any talent you should pat yourself on the back for.
After Bush.... it is easy to push the "FEAR YOUR GOVERNMENT.. GOV' T IS YOUR ENEMY" button and get people to jump. Easy now, to get them to believe, almost everything is some sort of conspiratorial government plot designed to strip them of their rights.

However this time information is more available. People are investigating, people are learning to follow the money and learning the truth. The whole game has changed. Can't say I'll miss you.

Originally posted by The_Gypsy
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.

Actually, the bill in question is a huge expansion in cost to the school lunch program per student as ordered by the First Lady's pet project. It increases spending by BILLIONS of dollars. We have to get the Federal budget under control or at least stop busting the budget with more and more added spending/debt. I would like to give the kiddos steak and salad for their school lunches, too but we can't afford it!

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
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??????////????????.

I have always said that the government makes for beastly parents and care takers.

Originally posted by NWOnoworldorder
they seem to be passing a hell of a lot of bills this year huh?....do 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

Democrats are still the majority in both Houses of Congress until the new Congress is seated in January.

reply to post by buni11687


In California they were spending their food stamps on gamboling. Food stamps are generous enough to cover a kid's samish. The parents are too lazy and stupid to make that lunch each day for the kid.

reply to post by SankeySugar


The parents of their kids already qualify for food stands out of "humanity." Why can't they get off their lazy fannies and make their kid a sandwich like all the other parents do? We have to engage our brains when dealing with emotional topics like "feeding the childrun." We already feed the children of the poor. We had to add school lunches because some of these parents are too incompenent to fix a sandwich for their own kids. Everyone would be better off is we had insisted these parents be responsible and use their food stamps responsibly - to pack their kids a sandwich for school!

"It takes a village to raise a child*"; because you can then separate them from their parents influences.Which might deviate from the States.You know religious and moral principles passed down from parent to child over 200 years of a rather successful republic.Things like "America is not the evil empire the left would have you believe." The state can't wait to get its fingers farther into the divide between parent and child.Until they can bring up the perfect Modern human (socialist).

* Hilary ( Rodham) Clinton...

According to an AP article there are somethings in the bill worth stopping.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Don't touch my brownies! A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom. . . .

Public health groups pushed for the language on fundraisers, which encourages the secretary of Agriculture to allow them only if they are infrequent. The language is broad enough that a president's administration could even ban bake sales

Yeah well that is just great. During the hardest economic times in decades schools are slashing budgets. There are places in NC looking at 30% cuts in their school budget. Now we're going to limit their ways to raise money. It is okay though because the secretary of agriculture wrote a letter saying they won't abuse the law.

Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says the bill is aimed at curbing daily or weekly bake sales or pizza fundraisers that become a regular part of kids' lunchtime routines. She says selling junk food can easily be substituted with nonfood fundraisers

So now the Center for Science in the Public Interest is involved in telling our schools how to raise money. Don't forget these are the same people that were pushing the most recent food safety bill. These are people that want the FDA and the agriculture department to regulate your garden and the local farmer's market.

Wooton goes on to say,

This is really about supporting parental choice. Most parents don't want their kids to use their lunch money to buy junk food. They expect they'll use their lunch money to buy a balanced school meal."

I love how they are supporting parent's choice. They are supporting choice by taking away options. They tell parents they can't sell brownies to raise money for school. Tell me where anybody is supporting the parent's right to choose.

Several school districts and state education departments already have policies suggesting or enforcing limits on bake sales, both for nutritional reasons and to keep the events from competing for dollars against school cafeterias.

So, the states and cities are allready adressing this hen it becomes a problem. Yet we need Michelle Obama and special interest groups to legislate it for the rest of us.

Wootan says she hopes the rules will prompt schools to try different options for fundraising.

Why is it up to people like Wootan to decide how a school raises money?

This bill has high aspirations, but it over reaches. It effects students and schools financially. It also attacks one of the staples of American communities across the country. Bake sales have always been a gathering place for parents, children, and families. They bring people and communities to help support the children and applaud achievements. I guess attacking middle American culture is okay when it comes with hand outs and big government baby sitting.

reply to post by rusethorcain


What part of the Constitution authorizes this expenditure?

This should be easy for you.

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

While...the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.

Spending for the General Welfare

You should read more in general and not limit yourself or your scope of understanding.

Originally posted by links234


You should read more in general and not limit yourself or your scope of understanding.

You should rely on the words of the people who actually wrote the document and not an interpretation of their words.

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but
an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison,

"This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." - Alexander Hamilton

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison

Incidentally, even if you were correct (which you are not), you seem to confuse the the terms general and individual. Providing a meal may alleviate the individual suffering, but it does nothing for the general, as in the entire nation.