Child Nutrition Legislation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

KenDckey -> Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:23:48 AM)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition

The legislation was temp blocked because Republicans want to have background checks on child workers.     So to me, it appears that the democrats are in favor of hiring pervs.  I think this is a part of, lets stop govt if it is a Republican idea policy of Pelosi



pahunkboy -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:37:35 AM)

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:50:40 AM)

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/background_checks_%28act_114%29/7493/federal_criminal_history_background_checks/601327

http://reentry.mplp.org/reentry/index.php/Know_Your_Rights:_Criminal_Background_Checks_for_Michigan%27s_School_Employees

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lgb/edu/2088675041.html

http://www.newsandsentinel.com/page/content.detail/id/541543/BOE-to-settle-background-check-policy.html?nav=5061

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."

So lets allow the children to go hungry and give the millionaires the tax cuts they so richly deserve.




LaTigresse -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:52:36 AM)

Tazzy, that is one of the biggest reasons I do not understand how anyone middle class or, of lesser income can, with informed intelligent intent, support the Republican party. It just baffles me.



KenDckey -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:52:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.



Termyn8or -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:54:33 AM)

Maybe it's partisan.

Maybe six cents per head only adds up to $18 million if everyone in the US is eligible.

Maybe they're thinking the People don't want another $4.5 billion down the tubes.

Maybe they know the official food pyramid is a total joke.

Maybe I like the situation just because nothing happened. Everything they do costs 1,000 times what it should and is usually inneffective. I would love to see the government in total gridlock, because they are so proficient in screwing things up we would all be better off if they did less.

War on drugs=more drugs. War on poverty=more poverty. War on malnutrition= ? You do the math.

Background checks ? ROFL. On this much we can agree - that is NOT the real reason.

T



tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 6:56:45 AM)

Those with no control over the decisions related to our government, or its roll in our lives, sometimes pay the biggest price.

Palin is simply sickening.

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.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has also taken a swipe at the first lady's campaign, bringing cookies to a speech at a Pennsylvania school last month and calling the campaign a "school cookie ban debate" and "nanny state run amok" on her Twitter feed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition

Im sorry, as a soccer mom, and a woman insisting she is all about family values, she is making a joke out of herself.



Hillwilliam -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 7:13:01 AM)

Republicans are pro life untill they are born. After that....FUKUM.

Seriously, most every state already requires background checks on those who work with kids. For some reason, churches are exempt here. THAT makes a lot of sense neh?



tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 7:16:23 AM)

Funny they cry less government interference, and here is an issue they are filibustering that the states have already taken care of. Makes ya wonder what our elected officials really know about what is going on with the laws.



KenDckey -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 7:43:19 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.



pahunkboy -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:11:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.



In the group homes I needed an act 33, and act 34 check.   I do not recall if it was the same for cleaning the schools- but there was some sort of checks.

What do the feds think the states are stupid?



tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:24:38 AM)

Not all of them think the states are stupid, pa.

This was an excuse for the party of no to say no yet again.

But, gotta tell ya, when Elizabeth Hasselbeck comes out against Palin, you know this is a bad turn.



pahunkboy -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:25:50 AM)

Tazz,  I am in no hurry for austerity.  



tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:27:28 AM)

Then take this figure into account. Giving the tax cuts to those who earn over a million dollars a year means 104,000 dollars out of the treasury, per person.



rulemylife -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:28:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.



A reasonable objection?

This is just the same obstructionism that Republicans have been using to try and block any legislation sponsored by Democrats.

Whether it is worthy or not Republicans don't seem to care, as long as it scores them political points.






tazzygirl -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:28:54 AM)

I think, on this, it will end up being a loss in points



pahunkboy -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:33:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Then take this figure into account. Giving the tax cuts to those who earn over a million dollars a year means 104,000 dollars out of the treasury, per person.



I would rather use the million $ number then the 200k- 250k.



KenDckey -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:35:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

Ken,  try not to take it the wrong way- but my state already requires a background check for working in the schools.

Been there. --



me too   Cali requires it of all mandated reporters.



In the group homes I needed an act 33, and act 34 check.   I do not recall if it was the same for cleaning the schools- but there was some sort of checks.

What do the feds think the states are stupid?



Yes



Moonhead -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:36:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Republicans are pro life untill they are born. After that....FUKUM.

Seriously, most every state already requires background checks on those who work with kids. For some reason, churches are exempt here. THAT makes a lot of sense neh?

It's a lot worse than just trying to stop parents feeding the kids crap, to be fair. If you do a venn diagram of politicians who are opposed to birth control and/or abortion on demand, and politicians who are opposed to welfare spending on the permanent underclass, it's pretty close to an exact match, isn't it?

If the cunts want people who can't afford to raise kids to have them, they can fucking well pay for them to be fed, housed and educated as well. Otherwise, they can stick their fundamentalist moralising up their arses.



KenDckey -> RE: Child Nutrition Legislation (12/2/2010 8:38:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEgh88ueqsQ

Or just not let them talk or submit what appears to be a reasonable objection even if no one is listening.



A reasonable objection?

This is just the same obstructionism that Republicans have been using to try and block any legislation sponsored by Democrats.

Whether it is worthy or not Republicans don't seem to care, as long as it scores them political points.






If it didn't go thru the process then the objection is reasonable.  If someone wants to speak on it they should be allowed.   The purpose of a chair is not to dictate but to rule on parlimentary procedure (whichever one is being used).   The parlimentarian isn't the one to rule but he advises the chair. 



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125