Everytime the republicans try to stop a spending bill the left comes out and say, the right is against children! or veterans! or the old! In reality they are just against tacking more onto an allready massive deficit.
Except in this case they actually are against children.
At one time, people actually tried and did take care of others, including children. The say 'it takes a village to raise a child' just doesn't stand in the USA anymore, and is rather sad.
Spending 4.5b to help these kids might actually be a positive thing, might help curb childhood obesity and increase their brainpower in your intelligence-starved nation.
Healthier kids is an investment in the future. For one thing, better nutrition during childhood makes a person much more likely to be healthy in adulthood, which means less spent on medical care.
For another thing, better nutrition makes people more intelligent by providing the nutrients for brain development. A higher average IQ does a lot more for our economy than a couple billion dollars.
BTW, go to any wealthy suburban school. Almost all kids are buying their lunch at school, not bringing coolers full of nutritious meals preserved by ice packs. You think ALL those parents are bad because they let their kids do what is considered normal in American culture, eating the unhealthy school lunch?
Which is why school lunches are among the least healthy....
Health is a personal choice. Giving children a lunch has no affect on their behaviors outside of school.
So true.... give them the best food they could have and if the home life is not present nothing will change.
Healthier kids is an investment in the future. For one thing, better nutrition during childhood makes a person much more likely to be healthy in adulthood, which means less spent on medical care.
For another thing, better nutrition makes people more intelligent by providing the nutrients for brain development. A higher average IQ does a lot more for our economy than a couple billion dollars.
It is the federal government's responsibility to make sure school kids aren't fat morons, because we NEED to be competitive with the rest of the world, whether it's in labor, research, or war.
We didn't become a superpower and we won't stay a superpower by not investing in our children.
Oh, BS and F'in bullshit. Don't be spewing that crap. There is no correlation between eating healthy as a kid and eating healthy as an adult, otherwise the reverse would hold true and that's BS as well.
NO...IT...IS...NOT. It is the local school board's and the state's responsibility, unless you know of a constitutional amendment I'm unaware of that says it's the Fed's responsibility.
Hell, I'd even support government paid for vasectomies and hysterectomies so long as the patient agreed not to sue the government if something goes wrong.
It's not the federal government's job to feed children. Sorry. I would support funding sterilization for people that can't feed their existing children though.
Ever heard of the General Welfare and Defense clause? Education and school nutrition directly affects the competitiveness and therefore welfare and national security of the entire country.
So do you think the federal government shouldn't be involved in education? Just let schools in Kansas teach bullshit instead of science, even though it screws all of us as a nation?
From the link, the bill would do little or nothing for most school children as they don't meet the free lunch requirement.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
This thread is exhibit #6,621 this year in how Democrats can govern - getting good results for society - and Republicans cannot, excusing it with flawed logic and ideology.
And it's the government's responsibility to steal from others to provide that for people too stupid to feed their children?
From the link, the bill would do little or nothing for most school children as they don't meet the free lunch requirement.
YES!!!! And they were not raised right or they would not be eating that crap. Heck the government around here is talking about wanting the kids to get dinner at the end of the school day.
I, as a parent say enough is enough... I want to raise my kid and feed him/her what I want and what I think is good for them not the darn government. And if I take that much time in raising my kids why should I pay to have it done for the parents that wont?
So, Republicans hid their obstructionism by picking an amendment that 'sounds good' but has the effect of likely killing the bill, it seems Democrats are saying.
You can always find an amendment that 'sounds good' - but the effect is often to kill a bill, as with this one, where the Senate has already passed it.
If the House passes it, it goes to Obama to sign; if the amendment passes, it goes back to the Senate which has pledge to pass NOTHING until the tax rates are done.