It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


To argue that the nation, the people, that the species itself shouldn't progress into our own greater ideals beyond the scope of the agrarian culture that the decleration was born in is stupid at best and pigheaded at worst.

You don't occupy a home without walls and only supports. The constitution is a framework for governance and law. It does not encompass the be all, end all of our society.

It helps to study history beyond 1789, we're not the same country and we never will be. The government is the people and the people are the government. There are moral and ethical avenues we could and should take that the constitution and the bill of rights doesn't address.

If you want to argue we've strayed too far from the constitution take it up with George Washington and the first congress.




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Serves those children right for wanting nutritious food!

Look... Freedom isn't free folks. Those kids should be lucky to get thrown in a FEMA camp to do HARD LABOR, and fed a diet of aspartame, HFCS, and hydrogenated oils!

They're lucky to get that! HOORAH!



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


What if those children come from homes where both parents have to work ungodly hours for what amounts to pennies to the wealthy manipulators that run this country?

See how quick we are to judge and the lack of empathy in some of these comments? That's going to doom this country more than any government could.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


To argue that the nation, the people, that the species itself shouldn't progress into our own greater ideals beyond the scope of the agrarian culture that the decleration was born in is stupid at best and pigheaded at worst.

You don't occupy a home without walls and only supports. The constitution is a framework for governance and law. It does not encompass the be all, end all of our society.

It helps to study history beyond 1789, we're not the same country and we never will be. The government is the people and the people are the government. There are moral and ethical avenues we could and should take that the constitution and the bill of rights doesn't address.

If you want to argue we've strayed too far from the constitution take it up with George Washington and the first congress.


Translation: "The Constitution doesnt authorize something I support, so we should just disregard it in the name of "progress".

Income redistribution is not progress.

Morals and ethics are subjective, and are best kept to yourself.



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
 


Do you think the reason why there is nothing about free school lunches in the constitution is because they didn't exist back then? Don't you think that a group of people that was pushing for a more perfect union would do something to help feed kids at school?



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Actually I believe the founding fathers wouldve rightly expected the kids parents to take care of feeding them.

Just like responsible adults do.

Also, note the lack of any Constitutional authorization for federal involvement in public education.
edit on 5-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
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.


IMO-

There is not much point sending kids to school if they are hungry... You line in the sand should might as well be publicly funded education mate - F%$#% em, their parents are too lazy and they should have all had abortions in the first place! I reckon the real lesson is their is no point in a flag or name for the sticking hell pit as we are all private islands


No problem fighting to the intestines - on the tax cuts for Billionaires front



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by buster2010
 



Also, note the lack of any Constitutional authorization for federal involvement in public education.
edit on 5-12-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)


Please cite this Constitutional restriction upon educational involvement -

More than a few Founding Fathers believed in the public funding of libraries and the merits of education.
I did not see any explicit restriction...
edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
How much do we spend on war each year?
But no no...god forbid our tax dollars go towards feeding children.
Priorities are so F***** in this country.
edit on 6-12-2010 by xEphon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Please cite this Constitutional restriction upon educational involvement -

More than a few Founding Fathers believed in the public funding of libraries and the merits of education.
I did not see any explicit restriction...
edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


Huh?

I believe you are under the impression the Constitution is an affirmative grant of powers with a few exceptions.

That is 100% wrong. Try reading Article 1 Section 8.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater

Originally posted by Janky Red

Please cite this Constitutional restriction upon educational involvement -

More than a few Founding Fathers believed in the public funding of libraries and the merits of education.
I did not see any explicit restriction...
edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)


Huh?

I believe you are under the impression the Constitution is an affirmative grant of powers with a few exceptions.

That is 100% wrong. Try reading Article 1 Section 8.


Your assertion that the constitution is a static article of dictation is a far more ridiculous premise.

I am under the impression that the founding fathers created a framework listing the restrictions and bounds
of Authority. I am also aware that you are trying to assert that anything unspoken in the constitution is for the benefit of your specific political opinion.

As far as I am concerned Education for children IS and does serve the GENERAL WELFARE of America -
"providing for" does equate; finance and infrastructure (as it applies with the military)



Are you saying that the founding fathers included the defining phrase "GENERAL WELFARE" for fun?
One of the two things the FEDS are to provide -

Do you think education does not benefit society or are you saying this phrase is placed in there to make you frustrated?

Please define your argument



edit on 6-12-2010 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


How about I let the founding fathers define my argument for me:




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




"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




"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson


Pay particular attention to that last quote by Jefferson.

Do you see education specifically enumerated?

It isn't.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I just read threw the bill I liked the 4.5 b for children meals . Which is a noble cause .

What I didnt like was the slew of governmental layers to it . Reports need to be filed with the secretary of education this agency and that agency .Rules and more regulations read it your self its more about rules than money for food . We have enough governmental strings as it is already . The banning of junk food sales for fund raisers .Feeding the kids who are at a economic disadvantage is great just give the money to the states or the school districts and LEAVE all the extra rules out !

For goodness sake I went to school in the 60s and there were bake sales then for the band athletics choir ect . Mom or Dad use to give me a quarter extra for the fund raisers on the days it was going .

So if you start with 4.5 b for food you need to subtract from that amount a list of things . New rules require to pay people to over see the rules more administrators , reports to be filed , someone has to fill it out and someone needs to receive them which will require more personnel to administer the reports . For every rule or report needed to be filed there will be a person who will be paid to do it again deducted from the main grant . I would be surprised if 3.5 b actually went to the disadvantaged youth .

Notice something here the shift is you CANT do any thing with out governmental approval Kids getting in trouble for selling Lemon aid on the street corners bake sales at school next . Uncle Sam quit trying to be every ones NANNY !

If I was voting on this it would have been a no !

But if it was 4.5 b to school lunch programs with simple rules no new regulations no new administration costs it would have been a yes .



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by Janky Red
 


How about I let the founding fathers define my argument for me:



"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson


Pay particular attention to that last quote by Jefferson.

Do you see education specifically enumerated?

It isn't.


Lord help me...Jefferson was near the father of Public Education...perhaps you should "educate" yourself before recruiting him to your cause...



"The object [of my education bill was] to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double or treble of what it is in most countries." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Correa de Serra, 1817. ME 15:156

etext.virginia.edu...



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Perfectly aware of his stance on public education.

The point is that there is no authorization in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in it.

States are free to do as they wish in regards to education. The federal government does not share that same power, nor do they have any authorization to spend a dime on it.



posted on Dec, 6 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Perfectly aware of his stance on public education.

The point is that there is no authorization in the Constitution for the feds to be involved in it.

States are free to do as they wish in regards to education. The federal government does not share that same power, nor do they have any authorization to spend a dime on it.


This is your point - but a great many of your fellow countrymen disagree with you.

You and proponents of whatever it is you are FOR can be against everything under the sun and dictate with your perpetual disapproval, but such a stance doe stop the slog of modernity. Fact of the matter is education is in the state it is in, the Feds are involved, it is "free" via governance and taxation. Remember, you are free to levy this democratic process to end the current state of affairs.


I have my own opinions and feeling upon this all - but I don't have my way either, I doubt a single soul has the world set up as they please mate. This constant disenfranchised old lady moan routine is tiresome really, apparently the entire lot of us have to regress, meet your standards. When I read the constitution I do not see what you see, but hopefully your position will find a wordy dictator and impose your will upon the rest of us.


"To be for the benefit of fire arms and Billionaires is the ultimate evidence of glorious wonder being the cornerstones of freedom incarnate!" T.R Vandy



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I wasn't going to comment because of the lack of common sense on a lot of these posts. 30 years ago, schools served healthy meals. Schools had reduced and free lunches. Schools served breakfast and they did all this with half the tax rate Americans are faced with today.

Of course 30 years ago, children didn't have parents that had to make a decision of whether to buy a hit of crack or feed their kids.

EDIT: The American people don't need any laws for what should be common sense to start with. Where's the health education at? Where's the physical education at?


edit on 7/12/10 by Intelearthling because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

This is your point - but a great many of your fellow countrymen disagree with you.




A great many of Americans also voted for Bush and Obama, which I disagreed with.

Either way, it doesn't mean that I am wrong.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


What part of the Constitution authorizes this expenditure?

This should be easy for you.


Maybe the same part responsible for giving us the "seat belt and guard rails?"



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join