Republican now hate hungry children

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
Propensity for obesity is linked to many things, genetics and the weight of the mother during pregnancy included.

Your post is a pretty amazing combination of breathtaking ignorance and absolute certainty.

And yet, obesity is on the rise. Why do you suppose that is? I'll grant that some dietary changes have occurred (specifically, the inclusion of HFCS in nearly everything), but I can tell you, kids nowadays just don't get out of the house and play like we did as kids.

Seriously, when I was 12 or 13, I could wolf down a couple Big Macs at lunch and I was never obese.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,414
54,108
136
And yet, obesity is on the rise. Why do you suppose that is? I'll grant that some dietary changes have occurred (specifically, the inclusion of HFC in nearly everything), but I can tell you, kids nowadays just don't get out of the house and play like we did as kids.

Seriously, when I was 12 or 13, I could wolf down a couple Big Macs at lunch and I was never obese.

I absolutely agree. I wasn't saying exercise doesn't play a part, just that there's a lot more to the picture than that. I mean lots of people have spent lots of time researching obesity and they've found that in society wide settings there is a lot more going on than the fact that we need to stop taking the elevator.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
I'm not the one who played the race card. It was the conservatives trying to make this another Us vs Them issue by characterizing kids eating school lunch as poor children with a bad home life and shitty parents. You know damn well that's a dog whistle. I call it like I see it so stop crying about the "race card".

BS. YOU were the one who played the race card and equated what they said as being against poor black families.

Would it make you happy if instead of Little J'quon I made it Little Billy Bob? It's the same thing whether it's black kids or white trash kids or immigrant kids or whatever-- "They're not us so fuck them."

And guess what, those black kids, white trash kids, and immigrant kids really are the ones who get the worst nutrition at home. So while better school nutrition helps almost every kid, it helps them the most. Let me guess, I'm playing the race card against myself now because I'm pointing out a racial difference?

How do you know who is getting bad nutrition at home? You guys are also making a ton of assumptions. There are a lot of middle class kids who get poor nutrition at home. What about those kids? As Fern pointed out, this is apparently aimed at after-school meals for which they would not qualify.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,078
18,543
146
Propensity for obesity is linked to many things, genetics and the weight of the mother during pregnancy included.

Your post is a pretty amazing combination of breathtaking ignorance and absolute certainty.

And yours is an amazing combination of foolhardy feelgood nonsense and near religious faith.

One thing is for sure: you won't solve obesity by throwing more food at people.

Another thing is for sure: you wont get parents to be responsible for their children by taking that responsibility from them and doing everything for them.
 

*kjm

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 1999
2,222
6
81
What are you going to pack for them that's going to be as nutritious as a freshly cooked meal? As someone mentioned earlier PB&J, lunch meat, or processed junk like Lunchables are about as unhealthy as it gets.

And this would benefit not just the kids who get free or reduced lunches, but those who actually pay full price (which should make our resident libertarians happy).

I'm 44 and I pack my dam lunch everyday and I eat heathy..... So what is your question? No refigerator just an ice pack... Hot luch have the parents put it in tupperware and have the kids heat it up! One cold meal a day will not kill them and for heathy meals may be the best!

Stop BSing us all that we HAVE to do it for the kids!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
BS. YOU were the one who played the race card and equated what they said as being against poor black families.



How do you know who is getting bad nutrition at home? You guys are also making a ton of assumptions. There are a lot of middle class kids who get poor nutrition at home. What about those kids? As Fern pointed out, this is apparently aimed at after-school meals for which they would not qualify.

This reminds me of when I accused my liberal friend of cheering for Julian Assange because she doesn't give a shit about brown people on the other side of the world. Of course I'm somehow the racist for pointing out when other people don't care about people who are different from them. Give me a break. You can deny the dog whistles all you want, but I'm not going to stop calling out liberals for not giving a damn about brown people in Afghanistan or conservatives for painting the school lunch issue as us-vs-them and using specific rhetoric to conjure up images of fat black children that you aren't supposed to care about.

It's not just after school food, it's all school lunches.

The legislation would give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods could be sold and what ingredients may be limited in school lunch lines and vending machines.
The Agriculture Department would create the standards, which would likely keep popular foods like hamburgers and pizza in school cafeterias but make them healthier, using leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks.
The bill would provide money to serve more than 20 million additional after-school meals annually to children in all 50 states. Many of those children now only receive after-school snacks. It would also increase the number of children eligible for school meals programs by at least 115,000, using Medicaid and census data to identify them.
The legislation would increase the amount of money schools are reimbursed by 6 cents a meal, a priority for schools that say they don't have the dollars to feed needy kids.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,414
54,108
136
And yours is an amazing combination of foolhardy feelgood nonsense and near religious faith.

One thing is for sure: you won't solve obesity by throwing more food at people.

Another thing is for sure: you wont get parents to be responsible for their children by taking that responsibility from them and doing everything for them.

There there Amused. Don't worry, I won't let actual facts intrude on the reality you've built for yourself.
 

thegimp03

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2004
7,420
2
81
Really? I am a small government common sense guy. I personally think that our spending is way the hell out of control and I know for a fact that it is completely unsustainable.

With that said, you really want to draw a line in the sand with "feeding children"? Who gives a fuck if the parents suck, at the end of the day do YOU really want to be that asshole who has to tell a hungry kid to go sit down and watch everyone else eat?

Our Catholic schools are actually doing that here to a certain degree (they give the kid an apple). Are you fucking shitting me? What would Jesus do huh? He would tell that kid he better go tell his parents to get a better damned job so they can feed your ass! That is exactly what I read in the bible....

Tell yall what, lets make a deal. I am sure we can ALL agree that there is plenty of spending that can be cut, right? Lets leave "feeding children" to last, after all the other bullshit spending has been cut then we can bring this back up. Until that time, I simply don't have the heart to look a child in the eyes and tell him he ain't eating today cuz his POS parents didn't send him to school with a check.

Wanna starve the POS parents then that is still a really bad idea but whatever. The innocent children???? Are you really that cruel? The wealthiest country in the world, trillions a year spent in overseas military bullshit, military jets that a single one would cover the cost of this bill, trillion dollar bailout to the banks, trillion dollar stimulus, automaker bailout, Medicare (including part D you Republicans) but fuck giving kids one decent meal a day?!?! Really?

Not sure if serious? My sarcasm meter is off today.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
The legislation would give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods could be sold and what ingredients may be limited in school lunch lines and vending machines.
The Agriculture Department would create the standards, which would likely keep popular foods like hamburgers and pizza in school cafeterias but make them healthier, using leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks.


I read that. Did you read this?

The bill would provide money to serve more than 20 million additional after-school meals annually to children in all 50 states. Many of those children now only receive after-school snacks. It would also increase the number of children eligible for school meals programs by at least 115,000, using Medicaid and census data to identify them.
The legislation would increase the amount of money schools are reimbursed by 6 cents a meal, a priority for schools that say they don't have the dollars to feed needy kids.

So effectively, if you meet the requirements, you get a healthier lunch and vending machine selection AND an after-school meal whereas the middle-class kids would not get the last meal and instead, could potentially unhealthy stuff at home.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,078
18,543
146
And yet, obesity is on the rise. Why do you suppose that is? I'll grant that some dietary changes have occurred (specifically, the inclusion of HFC in nearly everything), but I can tell you, kids nowadays just don't get out of the house and play like we did as kids.

Seriously, when I was 12 or 13, I could wolf down a couple Big Macs at lunch and I was never obese.

HFCS has no more to do with obesity than sugar.

We are seeing the result of two things, both related to our massive success at shaping our environment.

1. An abundance of food, at historically cheap prices. So cheap, that the poorest among us are no longer starving, but are obese. Mixed with the lowest demand for day-day physical activity in history.

2. Decades of telling pregnant women to gain weight, and the whole "eating for two" bullshit. Women who are fat DURING pregnancy will have children who grow up to be fat. A child's fat-setpoint is set during gestation. The fatter the mother during pregnancy, the higher the setpoint for fat will be in the child. The fatter the mother gets, the fatter the child will be.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
[/I]

I read that. Did you read this?



So effectively, if you meet the requirements, you get a healthier lunch and vending machine selection AND an after-school meal whereas the middle-class kids would not get the last meal and instead, could potentially unhealthy stuff at home.


But the legislation doesn't just affect those after school kids. It affects everybody who doesn't bring their own shitty PBJ lunch. So what's the problem?

Why characterize it as only benefiting those worthless evil poor kids, J'quon and Jim Bob?
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
This reminds me of when I accused my liberal friend of cheering for Julian Assange because she doesn't give a shit about brown people on the other side of the world. Of course I'm somehow the racist for pointing out when other people don't care about people who are different from them. Give me a break. You can deny the dog whistles all you want, but I'm not going to stop calling out liberals for not giving a damn about brown people in Afghanistan or conservatives for painting the school lunch issue as us-vs-them and using specific rhetoric to conjure up images of fat black children that you aren't supposed to care about.

I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were playing the race card, which you were. When I look at this issue, I don't care if the kid is black, white, yellow, red, purple, or polka dotted. What I see is the government spending more money and I want to see cuts elsewhere to offset the spending and even more so, I want these people to take responsibility for their own kids.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
But the legislation doesn't just affect those after school kids. It affects everybody who doesn't bring their own shitty PBJ lunch. So what's the problem?

I acknowledged that. What I'm saying is that this concern for kid's health seems to eliminate a large chunk of them from taking advantage of the after-school meal. You guys need to understand that good nutrition starts at home and I don't know about you, but I see a lot of obese kids and I am not in a poor area. What about those kids?

Why characterize it as only benefiting those worthless evil poor kids, J'quon and Jim Bob?

Those kids are effectively getting a free, nutritious dinner whereas suburban Sally or Steve may be subjected to whatever stuff their parents serve. The horror!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were playing the race card, which you were. When I look at this issue, I don't care if the kid is black, white, yellow, red, purple, or polka dotted. What I see is the government spending more money and I want to see cuts elsewhere to offset the spending and even more so, I want these people to take responsibility for their own kids.

If kids aren't getting the nutrition they should be, whether it's because their parents are bad cooks, or because they can't afford healthy food, or because the local school system doesn't serve healthy stuff to children who are its wards for 7 hours a day, the federal government should step in--- not only because kids are citizens too, but because it's in our national interest to have a healthy smart population.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
HFCS has no more to do with obesity than sugar.

I will have to disagree on this point, as there is research to suggest otherwise. Here is one such statement:

According to Ferder, Ferder & Inserra, fructose consumption and obesity are linked because fructose consumption does not cause an insulin response. This is important because, without an insulin response after consumption of a high-fructose food, there is no suppression of appetite which is normally induced by hyperinsulinemia after a meal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup with the quoted source as:

L. Ferder, M.D. Ferder, & F. Inserra (2010). The role of high-fructose corn syrup in metabolic syndrome and hypertension. 12. pp. 105-112.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So..... instead of blaming it on the House Republicans why not pass the amendment and make the Senate Republicans block it and then you actually have someone to blame?

Right now I don't see how you can blame the Republicans, unless you disagree with the amendment, if the Senate Republicans block its passage I will stand right next to you in blaming them for this bill not getting passed.

Until then, balls in the D's court.

For a couple reasons.

For one, it's not a question what's being done, to kill the bill, and how the Senate is behaving. Your suggestion is like saying 'give Al Queda nuclear weapons and then IF they use them, I'll stand side by side with you in condemning them, but otherwise you shouldn't block it.' There are facts - the bill is ready to pass. Leading to point two.

The House Republicans are to blame because a perfectly good bill that is past the Senate - somehow - is ready for a House vote, and they can vote yes or no.

They are responsible for voting yes or no and if they vote no, they deserve blame for voting no.

You may not be aware how this game is played with amendments, but that just makes you a defender of bad things out of ignorance.

Your suggestion results in the bill failing and the Democrats supposedly getting to 'blame Republicans in the Senate'. Add that drop to their ocean of blame they already have for Republicans being obstructionist - it's useless, what matters is passing the bill, not participating in the Republican plan to kill it with a consolation prize of blame.

Sometimes, they don't have a better choice, but here, they do - why not blame the House Republicans for their dishonest game, which they deserve?

Ball is in the *Republican's* court, to vote for the bill, or refuse to. This isn't some real amendment with any critical need to be passed, it's a maneuver.

Watch this clip, from yesterday's Rachel Maddow show, for a sense of the game you don't seem to get from your post, if you are going to reply.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were playing the race card, which you were. When I look at this issue, I don't care if the kid is black, white, yellow, red, purple, or polka dotted. What I see is the government spending more money and I want to see cuts elsewhere to offset the spending and even more so, I want these people to take responsibility for their own kids.

The way Republicans get the public to oppose school lunch funding, like a lot of things, is with us-vs-them.

Why do you want to see cuts elsewhere in order to make investments that will have long term benefits? If every kid gets 5 extra IQ points from better nutrition, I guarantee that will have a much bigger effect on the national debt in 20 years than the few billion it costs.

I acknowledged that. What I'm saying is that this concern for kid's health seems to eliminate a large chunk of them from taking advantage of the after-school meal. You guys need to understand that good nutrition starts at home and I don't know about you, but I see a lot of obese kids and I am not in a poor area. What about those kids?



Those kids are effectively getting a free, nutritious dinner whereas suburban Sally or Steve may be subjected to whatever stuff their parents serve. The horror!

Sally and Steve are probably getting a good dinner at home, whereas at lunchtime they currently all get a bad lunch whether it's PBJ or chicken fingers.

But sure, let's have make school dinners the norm also, and charge the same as we do for lunches.
 
Last edited:

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
If kids aren't getting the nutrition they should be, whether it's because their parents are bad cooks, or because they can't afford healthy food, or because the local school system doesn't serve healthy stuff to children who are its wards for 7 hours a day, the federal government should step in--- not only because kids are citizens too, but because it's in our national interest to have a healthy smart population.

So you'd be OK with Uncle Sam feeding every kid in the nation 3 meals per day? Because that's the only way to ensure that EVERY kid eats healthier stuff.

EDIT: Nevermind, you answered in a later post.
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
If kids aren't getting the nutrition they should be, whether it's because their parents are bad cooks, or because they can't afford healthy food, or because the local school system doesn't serve healthy stuff to children who are its wards for 7 hours a day, the federal government should step in--- not only because kids are citizens too, but because it's in our national interest to have a healthy smart population.

I don't know where you're located but Texas schools already have to serve healthy foods. Milk or juice is available with lunch. The vending machines at the school where my children go have water only in them........no soft drinks. The students can only bring water or juice in their packed lunch to school.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
1. This is for mostly AFTER school meals.

2. The article is kind of crappy.

You've got to read down quite a bit to see that it is mostly for after school meals.

3. Liberals should be outraged at this. It is simply corporate welfare.

It is big corporations who sell this processed crap food to the school systems. The $4.5 billion will be received by them.

Fern
Very good points. We have similar programs here in Chattanooga, and of course on the news when they started the summer feeding program they had a near-three hundred pound welfare mom saying "I think it's a good idea, sometimes I forget to make they lunch." If parents are truly unable to feed their children, society needs to provide assistance. If instead the parents already receive hundreds of dollars in food stamps every month and are just too damned trifling to feed their kids, society needs to end the assistance and remove the children. Parents who can't even be bothered to feed their own children deserve nothing from anyone.

Of course, when school is in session I think the school should feed everyone regardless of income. Far too much time and money is spent verifying need via useless paperwork simply because the simple act of feeding children has grown from a local issue to a state issue to a federal issue, and the further from the parents the control goes, the further our education system falls behind. Abolish the Department of Education and hopefully we'll improve again. And don't even have a "free lunch" program; every "free lunch" is a lunch paid for by taxpayers, and dividing people up into groups who deserve or don't deserve "free lunches" just obscures that fact. I say treat every kid the same when they are in school, abolish after-school and summer babysitting programs, and either help or punish those parents who can't or won't feed their children outside of school hours. A parent who does not feed her child is certainly not doing the rest of her job of parenting; she isn't even a parent, she's a child rancher paid by the head by the taxpayers via our federal and state governments.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
The way Republicans get the public to oppose school lunch funding, like a lot of things, is with us-vs-them.

Why do you want to see cuts elsewhere in order to make investments that will have long term benefits? If every kid gets 5 extra IQ points from better nutrition, I guarantee that will have a much bigger effect on the national debt in 20 years than the few billion it costs.

Because we simply can't afford it. As I mentioned earlier, I keep seeing "Well, $x billion isn't much." You know what? It adds up, and adds up quickly. There is PLENTY of spending that can be cut to accommodate other programs like this one. Let's start with defense, for example.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
werepossum, we can't take away every kid who needs the after school meals... it's just not practical. Feeding them after school is cheap and easy and it benefits all of us.

Yes, I get it, you hate J'quon's fat mother. But in 10 years hopefully he'll be going to college or into the work force, and most likely the better we treated him at age 8, the better he'll be doing in 2020, and the better off the entire country will be
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
We can't take away every kid who needs the after school meals... it's just not practical. Feeding them after school is cheap and easy and it benefits all of us.

Yes, I get it, you hate J'quon's fat mother. But in 10 years hopefully he'll be going to college or into the work force, and most likely the better we treated him at age 8, the better he'll be doing in 2020.

Look around you. Stop acting like kids are starving. We're not in Dickens' London. We're in 21st Century America where even poor people are overfeeding to the point of getting diabetes.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Because we simply can't afford it. As I mentioned earlier, I keep seeing "Well, $x billion isn't much." You know what? It adds up, and adds up quickly. There is PLENTY of spending that can be cut to accommodate other programs like this one. Let's start with defense, for example.

We can't afford to stop investing in the future, whether it's infrastructure or kids.

This is a hell of a place for Republicans to penny pinch, while at the same time they want to extend the $700 billion tax cuts for over $250k.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Look around you. Stop acting like kids are starving. We're not in Dickens' London. We're in 21st Century America where even poor people are overfeeding to the point of getting diabetes.

It's not about starving, it's about nutrition. The diabetes you're talking about is because of poor nutrition, but even more important is the lower IQ that results from not feeding a growing brain properly.

You don't hear that publicly debated because it's politically incorrect to talk about IQ.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |