Republicans block child nutrition bill
By djbtol
@djbtol (5493)
United States
December 1, 2010 9:35pm CST
There are certainly indications that the Republicans are willing to listen to the people and do what is best for the country. The Republicans were able to temporarily stop a $4.5 billion dollar bill to provide more children with more free lunches and after school meals.
Republicans say the nutrition bill is too costly and an example of government overreach. GOVERNMENT OVERREACH for sure!
Sarah Palin referred to the bill as 'nanny state run amok' on tweeter, and she is absolutely right. It is not the job of the Federal government to follow children around and make sure they are getting enough good food to eat. The government also wants control of what kinds of food can be sold in schools and what can be in the vending machines. Once again, we do not need to pay the Federal government to do everything for us.
Shall we pass a $10 billion dollar 'runny nose' bill so that children always have assistance with their noses? For those in our country that see government as the best solution for everything, the answer is yes!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipMR9rraxrLM8yilBsAIUalduo-Q?docId=24147872199b46e8ae88520bd24792e6
3 people like this
6 responses
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Dec 10
School lunches..soda...heck food is NOT making kids fat. YOu want to know what it is? The fact that they sit in classes all day, then go home and sit in front of video games or a computer. They don't get enough exercise. That is what is making them fat. How about bring back gym class? How about mom and dad (not the government) making the kids go OUTSIDE to play?
We don't need to spend 4.5 billion to fix this problem. We need kids to get off their butts and run around.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Dec 10
Schools are required to make whole milk available to the students. It took years to get low fat milk into schools. the reason was the government was encouraging farmers to increase the fat count in the milk. Farmers received a premium if their fat count was above a certain level.
WIC (Women, Infants and Children) a program passed to provide nutritional food for Women, Infants and Children. It provides the basic food for a family with small children. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgallowances.HTM Without proper exercise this diet will cause a child to become obese. As with any program the government offers it is political pay back.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
2 Dec 10
that is the problem. Kids used to play outside for hours each day. They don't anymore. I did not watch much TV as a kid. I wanted to be outside playing and running around with my friends. Today kids watch tons of TV and sit in front of video games instead of playing outside.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
2 Dec 10
The government does need to do everything. If there is a part of the government who is in charge of health, they can send out pamphlets with suggestions for nutrition,and that is what our government does up here. But it seems as if Obama is going way too far. WE do have lunches in our school, but most of the time, when my sons were going, there was a charge even for the poor kids although not much and for those living near by, unless the parents were working and the house or apartment was locked, they had to eat at home.
I can see a few nutritious items on menus in fast food joints, but the fast food joints have done that already. There is such a thing as being too invasive.
No need for more government interference.
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
2 Dec 10
Thanks for the comments. There may have been a time when the pamphlets were necessary. But now, for anyone who can read, there is abundant information available in the public library on nutrition. Not only the written materials, but free online access at the library as well.
Why in the world should I spend another dime to teach someone good diet and nutrition? Everything they need is available, they just need to grab it.
Fast food places are not a good option for healthy food. If you can afford a $4 dollar salad at McDonalds or Wendy's, then you should not be on government care. Is fast food convenience a right of every American, or do people need to make an effort ahead of time to provide their meals?
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
3 Dec 10
I would rather eat in a restaurant then a fast food place. And people who can go to either on a regular basis instead of cooking at home should not be on government assistance. I do not mind them going once a week or once a month to get a break, more so the latter, but every day is too much. Why even when my husband was alive and working we only went on special occasions and that was to treat the one who had the birthday or it was a fight between my husband and his brothers as to who gets out the wallet first.
And with me, I will go to a restaurant when I accomplish something outstanding like finally saving for something, etc. or doing something that I find impossible or getting something done that I am afraid of doing. That does not count when someone treats me and then we just go to Tim Hortons because it is cheap. I never liked it when up here those on welfare could afford to go in a taxi and since I am now on a pension, albeit a very good one, I resent when someone asks or suggests that I could go in a taxi and return to do my weekly grocery shopping.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
2 Dec 10
Most people who receive free or reduced lunch also receive food stamps. A single mother and one child receive in the neighborhood of $270 a month for food. Now if the child gets breakfast and lunch (almost every school has these two programs) and then gets an evening meal why do they need food stamps? My sister fed a family of 5 on $200 (not food stamps) per month for years.
Lets go back to bulk commodities to the poor and let them make their meals and not just buy prepared foods.
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
2 Dec 10
You raise a good point about the other aid programs. As a matter of fact, those who qualify for school meals often automatically qualify for other aid programs.
It could be that this whole thing about providing food to these kids is just nonsense to cover parents who do not get their kids off to a good start, and kids who don't bother with good food.
@sarahruthbeth22 (43143)
• United States
13 Feb 11
I agree. The U.s. government has more things to do than be Food Nazis, That is what I call anyone who tells others what they can and can not eat. They can suggest What you Should eat but in no way can they tell you what to eat! leave it up to them and Everyone would be vegetarians! I do not trust these food Nazis. I'm so glad I am not a schoolgirl. I was a picky eater then and with these laws I wouldn't eat Period!
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
2 Dec 10
Well now you did it. Your opposition to the federal government being mom for all these kids is going to make people call you heartless and "anti-children". I know everyone wants to end childhood obesity, but food really isn't the problem. When I was a kid we were eating all that greasy crap too. The difference is that we had gym early in the day and recess after lunch. We actually had EXERCISE so we weren't sitting in a classroom watching our a$$es grow.
Want to end childhood obesity? Start demanding more time devoted to athletic activity in your schools. Oh, and don't demand it from the federal government, demand it from your local schoolboard. I'm sick of the federal government trying to act like education is a "one size fits all" kind of deal. It's not.
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
2 Dec 10
Anytime someone suggests we do not spend the money, there will be opportunity for someone else to say they do not care. If the government says do not spend the desired 4.5 billion, someone will immediately picture the young child dragging themselves into school, having not had a meal in days.
It is two totally different issues, and we have to stop combining them as an excuse to build the nanny state.
I like your idea about challenging the school board to improve the local school. That could start a new, and very healthy trend in U.S. Education.
@Latrivia (2878)
• United States
2 Dec 10
The ingredients to supply a kid with lunch for a week, while still being relatively healthy, probably doesn't exceed $5-$10, depending on where you live. That's PB&J sandwiches, fruit and veggies, plus a bottle of water or juice. It's really not that expensive.
As for combating childhood obesity - how about parents do their job and teach kids to eat right? Your child isn't going to keel over and die if you rip them away from their stupid video games and make them go outside and run around for a few hours. My mom used to do that to us when we were kids, and guess what - her children were never fat.
In short, be a competent parent, and quit expecting the government to fill in for your shortcomings.
