Media Claims Republicans Want to Starve Poor Children

• believer

  

  The leftist media is already looking for ways to demonstrate to the American electorate that we made a huge mistake in putting the Repubs back in control of the House: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition
  
  " 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."
  
  Am I understanding this correctly? By TEMPORARILY blocking this $4.5 BILLION bill that would allegedly feed thousands (not tens of thousands but just thousands), the Republicans are therefore heartless and proving once again that they want to starve our kids, euthanize the elderly, jail homosexuals, imprison blacks, and force woman into slavery.
  
  Total bullshit. If we are serious about wanting our Federal leaders to curb spending and to limit the growth of Big Government then - hell yes - even Michelle Obama's "feed the poor kids healthy meals" program is subject to scrutiny.
  
  The article gives a token "Republican response" but the message is quite clear.
  
  This is the kind of obvious bullshit liberal bias in the media that drives me nuts.
• BGFalcons82

  

  They are just warmin up their pipes, believer. The whining, wailing, and victimization of America will be turned up full throttle once Boehner gets the gavel. The liberal media is salivating at the chance to show R's as the party that is racist, wants to starve poor children, have granma eat cat food, take granpa's social security away, and force women into servitude. It will be a daily parade and there will be some R's that immediately cave, like Collins, Lyndsey Graham and Snowe in the Senate.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;583845 wrote:The leftist media is already looking for ways to demonstrate to the American electorate that we made a huge mistake in putting the Repubs back in control of the House: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition
  
  " 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."
  
  Am I understanding this correctly? By TEMPORARILY blocking this $4.5 BILLION bill that would allegedly feed thousands (not tens of thousands but just thousands), the Republicans are therefore heartless and proving once again that they want to starve our kids, euthanize the elderly, jail homosexuals, imprison blacks, and force woman into slavery.
  
  Total bullshit. If we are serious about wanting our Federal leaders to curb spending and to limit the growth of Big Government then - hell yes - even Michelle Obama's "feed the poor kids healthy meals" program is subject to scrutiny.
  
  The article gives a token "Republican response" but the message is quite clear.
  
  This is the kind of obvious bullshit liberal bias in the media that drives me nuts.

  I'm not defending the tone of the article but you clearly didn't read it well.
  
  "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."
  
  I don't know anything about this bill so I can't judge it from one article. I would like to hear the actual reasons why Republicans don't like it. (The type where they expose some ridiculous section of the bill that spends a ton of money on something barely/not related to this bill).
• CenterBHSFan

  

  We've had this discussion, school lunch programs and the expansion for after school dinner.
  
  I don't like it. I wonder how many of those kids have a cell phone in their house? Or the parents have long distance through their landlines? It's incidentals like that that can make a difference (budgeting) on how much money is left over for other things. Like food.
  
  Are those parents only supposed to feed their kids on weekends now?
• I Wear Pants

  Good points.
• BoatShoes

  believer;583845 wrote:The leftist media is already looking for ways to demonstrate to the American electorate that we made a huge mistake in putting the Repubs back in control of the House: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition
  
  " 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."
  
  Am I understanding this correctly? By TEMPORARILY blocking this $4.5 BILLION bill that would allegedly feed thousands (not tens of thousands but just thousands), the Republicans are therefore heartless and proving once again that they want to starve our kids, euthanize the elderly, jail homosexuals, imprison blacks, and force woman into slavery.
  
  Total bullshit. If we are serious about wanting our Federal leaders to curb spending and to limit the growth of Big Government then - hell yes - even Michelle Obama's "feed the poor kids healthy meals" program is subject to scrutiny.
  
  The article gives a token "Republican response" but the message is quite clear.
  
  This is the kind of obvious bullshit liberal bias in the media that drives me nuts.

  
  The article did not have the editorial tone you suggest and made no claims about republicans being heartless. YOU were the one who made those inferences. The article simply reported the news...that the Republicans blocked the bill.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;584086 wrote:They are just warmin up their pipes, believer. The whining, wailing, and victimization of America will be turned up full throttle once Boehner gets the gavel. The liberal media is salivating at the chance to show R's as the party that is racist, wants to starve poor children, have granma eat cat food, take granpa's social security away, and force women into servitude. It will be a daily parade and there will be some R's that immediately cave, like Collins, Lyndsey Graham and Snowe in the Senate.

  
  DON'T TREAD ON ME! Merica'!
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI
• majorspark

  

  Where in the constitution does it give the federal government the power to decide what a healthy lunch is for our children? Where in any of the 50 states do we have malnourished children? Where are the pictures of skeletal American school children or pot bellied kindergartners?
  
  4.5 billion for hungry children? My children are hungry several times a day. How much of that 4.5 billion makes it into the mouths of these hungry children? How much of it feeds the the greedy hands of the federal bureaucracy?
  
  I thought our kids were over fed and fat.
  
  I'll tell who is hungry, it is those in the federal government hungry for power. What state or local school district in this nation is not able to provide nutritional sustenance for the few hours the kids are under their care?
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;584524 wrote:The article did not have the editorial tone you suggest and made no claims about republicans being heartless. YOU were the one who made those inferences. The article simply reported the news...that the Republicans blocked the bill.

  Really? What part of "House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children" doesn't sound like the media thinks the Repubs are heartless?
  
  Hungry children? How the hell does AP know these children are hungry? Did they take a poll? Did they stand in the lunch line at the schools and see the poor, poor wretched lower-class kids eating crumbs of bread while the middle and upper class kids were dining on caviar or something?
  
  Despite what the media wants you to believe, there are NO STARVING CHILDREN in the United States and if these kids are hungry, then their parents have a moral and legal obligation to feed them.
  
  And if these parents are having financial difficulties there are ALREADY public assistance options available to them. We simply do not need MORE Big Government to feed our alleged starving kids.
  
  All I'm saying is this is the kind of typical BULLSHIT tactic conducted all the time in the media to manipulate public opinion and it is almost exclusively anti-conservative. YES the Republicans did in fact temporarily block the bill but was it really necessary to claim the unsubstantiated "hungry children" argument?
  
  Don't you see the clear, underlying "you idiots screwed up by putting the Repubs in charge" message in that? Americans are demanding that the Feds get their fiscal act in order and in my world if the Repubs DO NOT scrutinize even Michelle Obama's pet projects, they are not doing their jobs. I resent the media's implication that Americans are now going to pay the consequences for voting in the heartless Republicans. If the media were truly doing its job, it would be acknowledging that the Repubs are already doing what the American voters sent them to Washington to do.
  
  So why is this one article getting my panties in a bunch? Because it's already beginning. And as BG stated above the wussified rhino Repubs will bend to the media pressure. The pussy Repubs caved to this crap the last time they had political power in DC and we all know what eventually happened to them. Geez...it's already started. Yes this pisses me off.
• gut

  Hold on.....$4.5B to provide 20M additional meals - what is that, like $225 per meal?!? Where does all the money go? What, does each kid get their own personal chef? Hell yes that bill should be blocked.
  
  How is this being funded? I would assume if these kids are fed at school then some of that money should come from food subsidies provided to needy families (since that family wouldn't be feeding that kid dinner 5 times a week).
• believer

  

  gut;584658 wrote:Hold on.....$4.5B to provide 20M additional meals - what is that, like $225 per meal?!? Where does all the money go? What, does each kid get their own personal chef? Hell yes that bill should be blocked.

  Don't try to figure out government math or the media might label you a heartless Republican.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;584524 wrote:The article did not have the editorial tone you suggest and made no claims about republicans being heartless. YOU were the one who made those inferences. The article simply reported the news...that the Republicans blocked the bill.

  
  Morning chuckle achieved...thanks, Amigo!
• revgat

  gut;584658 wrote:Hold on.....$4.5B to provide 20M additional meals - what is that, like $225 per meal?!? Where does all the money go? What, does each kid get their own personal chef? Hell yes that bill should be blocked.
  
  How is this being funded? I would assume if these kids are fed at school then some of that money should come from food subsidies provided to needy families (since that family wouldn't be feeding that kid dinner 5 times a week).

  
  I think the money is for more than one year, and it would provide 20 million annually.
• QuakerOats

  It is the agenda and the policies of the radicals in charge to tear down capitalism and create an entire dependency state ruled by administrative edict. The liberals in charge are well on their way to achieving this, either legislatively or, if they don't get their way going that route, administratively through the many radical marxists who now run our bureaucracies.
  
  We now live in an administrative dictatorship, and unless the new congress DEFUNDS these radicals the final mortal wounds shall be inflicted.
  
  Change we can believe in ..............
• FatHobbit

  

  revgat;584689 wrote:I think the money is for more than one year, and it would provide 20 million annually.

  
  Do you (or anyone) know for how many years? I am curious as to how much one meal costs.
• queencitybuckeye

  ccrunner609;584762 wrote:Like most bills, this is unfunded. How can the government keep passing legislation costing this much money without any money to spend?
  

  
  Although they were selling the bill yesterday saying it was funded as the money for it has already been borrowed for other purposes (you can't make shit like this up).
  
  The problem with this legislation to me lies in the word "additional". People are going to need to get used to the idea that even if a spending bill makes perfect sense, we simply can't afford it.
• gut

  revgat;584689 wrote:I think the money is for more than one year, and it would provide 20 million annually.

  
  Ok....So if it provided meals for the next TEN years it would still cost over $20 per meal. Do you not see a problem here? Anyway you slice it the cost of this bill is outrageous, and it's because of all th eadditional bureaucracy created by the federal govt stepping in to do the job of state and local govts.
  
  There are other programs to feed these children and there simply has to be more cost effective methods. As mentioned, good intentions or not some shit this country just can't afford. I think it would be great to give every American a 10,000 foot home and free food. Doesn't mean it would be a good policy.
  
  Washington has to stop writing blank checks for problems that don't exist.
• jhay78

  

  gut;584924 wrote:Ok....So if it provided meals for the next TEN years it would still cost over $20 per meal. Do you not see a problem here? Anyway you slice it the cost of this bill is outrageous, and it's because of all th eadditional bureaucracy created by the federal govt stepping in to do the job of state and local govts.
  
  There are other programs to feed these children and there simply has to be more cost effective methods. As mentioned, good intentions or not some shit this country just can't afford. I think it would be great to give every American a 10,000 foot home and free food. Doesn't mean it would be a good policy.
  
  Washington has to stop writing blank checks for problems that don't exist.

  
  A+++++
  
  Post of the week
• I Wear Pants

  believer;584655 wrote:Really? What part of "House Republicans have temporarily blocked legislation to feed school meals to thousands more hungry children" doesn't sound like the media thinks the Repubs are heartless?
  
  Hungry children? How the hell does AP know these children are hungry? Did they take a poll? Did they stand in the lunch line at the schools and see the poor, poor wretched lower-class kids eating crumbs of bread while the middle and upper class kids were dining on caviar or something?
  
  Despite what the media wants you to believe, there are NO STARVING CHILDREN in the United States and if these kids are hungry, then their parents have a moral and legal obligation to feed them.
  
  And if these parents are having financial difficulties there are ALREADY public assistance options available to them. We simply do not need MORE Big Government to feed our alleged starving kids.
  
  All I'm saying is this is the kind of typical BULLSHIT tactic conducted all the time in the media to manipulate public opinion and it is almost exclusively anti-conservative. YES the Republicans did in fact temporarily block the bill but was it really necessary to claim the unsubstantiated "hungry children" argument?
  
  Don't you see the clear, underlying "you idiots screwed up by putting the Repubs in charge" message in that? Americans are demanding that the Feds get their fiscal act in order and in my world if the Repubs DO NOT scrutinize even Michelle Obama's pet projects, they are not doing their jobs. I resent the media's implication that Americans are now going to pay the consequences for voting in the heartless Republicans. If the media were truly doing its job, it would be acknowledging that the Repubs are already doing what the American voters sent them to Washington to do.
  
  So why is this one article getting my panties in a bunch? Because it's already beginning. And as BG stated above the wussified rhino Repubs will bend to the media pressure. The pussy Repubs caved to this crap the last time they had political power in DC and we all know what eventually happened to them. Geez...it's already started. Yes this pisses me off.

  You are severely misinformed if you think there are no starving kids in the US. There aren't a lot but they are there. And there are plenty of underfed kids as well.
  
  It ddn't have a tone. The facts are that the Republicans did block a bill that was supposed to feed school meals to thousands of hungry children. That's what the bill was supposed to do. Now, that doesn't mean it's a good bill or that everyone who would get the meals would be underfed but the idea was certainly not to feed kids who are already nourished. Someone below pointed out that it was $20 or something a meal. Far too much.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I don't usually say too much about the way the media presents things; but BS/Pants, I sincerely think two things.
  - Either you're in total denial
  - You're just arguing for a good argument, perhaps to keep your skills sharp(?)
  
  But there definitely IS a certain tone in that article.
• BoatShoes

  CenterBHSFan;584994 wrote:I don't usually say too much about the way the media presents things; but BS/Pants, I sincerely think two things.
  - Either you're in total denial
  - You're just arguing for a good argument, perhaps to keep your skills sharp(?)
  
  But there definitely IS a certain tone in that article.

  
  No I don't think that's the case. I think Believer is overly sensitive to works like "needy" and "hungry" and the reporter is probably just taking the language from the preamble or cosponsors of the bill. I'm not saying Republicans weren't wrong to block the bill. In fact, they were probably right to do so But, as is usually the case, just another knee-jerk, dramatic, overreaction by people. Believer is making the unjustified inference that article implies republicans are "heartless." A reasonable person who doesn't think the media is out to get them and their worldview doesn't come to that conclusion. Nothing to see here.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Yeah, there is a tone. The same tone of victimization and demonizing conservatives that has ALWAYS existed in the media, but has gotten exponentially worse since Obama became the media's choice for president.
  
  Those who say they can't see this bias make me believe their own biases are the reason.
• revgat

  gut;584924 wrote:Ok....So if it provided meals for the next TEN years it would still cost over $20 per meal. Do you not see a problem here? Anyway you slice it the cost of this bill is outrageous, and it's because of all th eadditional bureaucracy created by the federal govt stepping in to do the job of state and local govts.
  
  There are other programs to feed these children and there simply has to be more cost effective methods. As mentioned, good intentions or not some shit this country just can't afford. I think it would be great to give every American a 10,000 foot home and free food. Doesn't mean it would be a good policy.
  
  Washington has to stop writing blank checks for problems that don't exist.

  
  I do see an issue with $20 meals or anything outrageous like that. I just think when someone says they will cost over $200 per meal, they should be corrected. I really don't know anything about the bill, but it is for more than one year.
• gut

  revgat;585205 wrote:I do see an issue with $20 meals or anything outrageous like that. I just think when someone says they will cost over $200 per meal, they should be corrected. I really don't know anything about the bill, but it is for more than one year.

  
  It was done for effect. 4 years or 10 years doesn't change the point being made. If you want to correct, then correct with facts regarding the actual cost.
  
  This program smells suspiciously to me like free childcare. I would guess a substantial amount of that cost is for supervision before, after and during these dinners.
• QuakerOats

  Imagine if government was half the size it is ........... THE PEOPLE would have thousands of dollars they are otherwise having to send to the government in taxes and they could afford all the food necessary to feed their own kids. Imagine if government was 1/3 the size it is, THE PEOPLE would probably not even need two spouses working and one could stay home and take care of the kids and feed them all they want.
  
  Government gets bigger, and THE PEOPLE lose their rights and their abilities to take care of themselves.
  
  Change we can believe in ........