HomeTVAll My ChildrenElisabeth Hasselbeck Blasts Republicans Over Child Nutrition Bill Jamey Giddens December 3, 2010 All My Children, General Hospital, One Life to Live, Talk Shows, The View 37 Comments I may need to have my eyes and ears checked. The View‘s Elisabeth Hasselbeck called out Rebublicans for blocking the Child Nutrition Bill. Her BFF Sarah Palin is of course against "Big Government" making decisions abut what kids eat at school, however La Hasselbeck proved she’s capable of thinking for herself by accusing her party of playing dirty pool on the issue. Watch the clip after the jump! It never ceases to amaze me how people like Palin want the government to stay out of citizens’ lives, except for when used to prevent certain citizens from getting married. It’s wrong for Uncle Sam to replace that Twinkie Lil’ Susie is about to scarf down with a pear, but it’s okie dokey smokey for him to deny his gay and lesbian nieces and nephews the right to get married? Oh yeah, that’s a "state’s rights" issue, you know, like slavery and stuff. Photo by PR Photos 37 Responses Ryan-Scott December 3, 2010 Amen Jamey. Log in to Reply TV Gord December 3, 2010 I really enjoy you, Jamey, so I hope you don’t take this the wrong way (and you’re not the only one I see doing this), but I’ve seen stories like this a handful of times that express shock when Elisabeth says something in support of gay marriage, or when Elisabeth slams Christine O’Donnell as a wingnut or–in this case–where she sees the Republicans padding a bill with a lot of garbage. In every case, it means you (and others) are showing that you have preconceived notions about how she’s going to react to something. Prejudices. What I see is Elisabeth Hasselbeck being stereotyped. When she doesn’t fit the mold of what people think a narrow-minded right-winger is supposed to believe, there’s shock among the masses. It’s something to think about. Log in to Reply Scooter Smith December 3, 2010 My only question is how does this bill get paid for? God knows we are in debt up to our eyeballs, how exactly do we pay for this? My guess More taxes. Same with the Food Safety bill that just passed, and obamacare, and the 45 other programs we have started up this year. When a country is in such dire straits that we owe TRILLIONS of dollars to a COMMUNIST nation, should we really start up a bunch of intrusive programs that will only cost us more money? Log in to Reply Jamey Giddens December 3, 2010 How exactly do we pay for this? *** I reckon the same way we managed to pay for all of Bush’s "faith-based" initiatives. Log in to Reply ktuc December 3, 2010 Do you believe in everything that the Liberals say and try to get passed? Somehow, I doubt it! While I’m no fan of Elisabeth but just because one is of a certain political party doesn’t mean we believe 100% in their policies! Perhaps you should judge someone within your own party for a change to show some diversity!! Log in to Reply Jamey Giddens December 3, 2010 Perhaps you should judge someone within your own party for a change to show some diversity!! *** Um, yeah, google "Daytime Confidential" and "Rosie O’Donnell" and you will readily see that I have, on many occasion "judged someone from my own party". I have also publicly ripped Rosie over attacking Tom Selleck about the NRA, which I support. I may be a Liberal, but I am also a Texan, so I definitely believe in the right to bear arms. I found it appalling how O’Donnell attacked him when he came on her show to talk about an entertainment project and I found it hypocritical when it was revealed she had an armed detail to guard her children, all of which I have said on the podcasts, so..yeah, I do take "my party" to task when they don’t act right. Log in to Reply TV Gord December 3, 2010 I didn’t realize you’re a Texan, Jamey. I have two other good friends who are Texans, and they both Liberal. There y’go…another unfair stereotype. Log in to Reply Cyberologist December 4, 2010 [quote=ktuc]Do you believe in everything that the Liberals say and try to get passed? Somehow, I doubt it! While I’m no fan of Elisabeth but just because one is of a certain political party doesn’t mean we believe 100% in their policies! Perhaps you should judge someone within your own party for a change to show some diversity!![/quote] I agree and applaud her for stating her beliefs within her party; I’ve never cared for her much but give her kudos for standing up for kids, as a teacher I’ve seen kids come to school hungry…I don’t ask why their or am interested in their socio economic status. I just feed them. As for where they will get the money they should find it somewhere somehow like they do everything else. Log in to Reply Liasonfan4ever December 4, 2010 I dont really care for Elisabeth but I do agree on this bill i am a lunch lady and let me just say some of the stuff we have to prepare is plain junk the kids get breakfast pizza today for lunch we served Frito pie which consists of mostly fritos and cheese,something needs to be done on the schools part to make sure children are eating healthy when they are in our care and what ever the parents decide to feed their kids on their own time is their decison,i dont think we should be worrying about where the money is going to come from when children are involved healthier eating choices need to be taught to them and what better place for them to learn that then at school. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 4, 2010 TV Gord – LOVE your post After watching the clip I have a couple of thoughts First – EH is absolutely right, part of what the next Congress should do is amend the rules so that bills are debated without allowing them to be amended to include non-germane items. When I worked for the Senate, the had a number of appropriations bills that were rolled up in one “Omnibus” bill that then most members felt they couldnt turn down. My boss was one of the few that voted no because there was so much crap in the bill in addition to the good stuff that he felt he couldnt support it. After that vote we had student group after student group with kids coming in saying how could the Senator not support this or not support that and 99% of the time it was programs and items that he actually did support just not as part of an Omnibus bill – and a bill I might add that (much like the health care legislation) the bulk of the Senators never read before voting on it. I remember too another bill for aid to midwest flood victims. the Dems added all sorts of pork/pet projects to the bill because they WANTED the Rs to have to cast a difficult vote – either vote against the flood aid and get attacked for not helping victims of a natural disaster or vote for it and get attacked for supporting wasteful spending. Both sides need to cut the bull puckey and just hold clean votes. Second – one of the big problems that I see is that this is money coming from the fed instead of allowing states and localities to control their own schools. Having watched the Jamie Oliver Food Revolution I was shocked that school districts allowed some of that junk in the schools. I was more shocked that the parents didnt know what their kids were eating during the day. third – EH is right, there HAS to be some monitoring. fourth – and this is sort of where the Palin issue comes in – I agree that all bills should be paid for…and folks should understand that the dems have paid for this program by taking more than 2 billion from FOOD STAMPS. So lets say in a family of four (the Smith family)…mom was a stay at home mom, dad was a police officer but he got laid off, the family is now living on food stamps and unemployment. What this bill in essence does is it takes the money from that mom and that dad and gives it to the schools to feed their children. To me that seems counterintuitive. Are we actually saying that we trust schools to make better decisions for those kids than Mr. and Mrs. Smith?? ***** From CNN Some Democrats had objected to the fact that the bill is funded in part by stripping $2.2 billion from the federal food stamp program. Congress also voted over the summer to take money from the program to fund legislation sending money to cash-strapped states to avoid teacher layoffs. ******* Log in to Reply twb6yz December 4, 2010 I’m surprised there is such controversy simply about providing healthy school lunches. This bill doesn’t usurp a parent’s choice on what to feed their children. It is providing healthy foods through existing school lunch programs. If parents such as Sarah Palin don’t want the government involved in what their child is eating, all they need to do is pack their own child’s lunch. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 4, 2010 TWB how do you pack you kids own lunch if you are on food stamps and they cut the money from your benefits to pay for these lunches? And what about the Senior citizen thats so poor that he qualifies for food stamps – he will get his rates reduced but he doesnt get access to that lunch program. What does he do? Its like the gov. is saying we know you need help but we are going to control what form that help takes. If thats going to be our approach why not control how people spend their social security or their tax rebates or their unemployment benefits. Hey one of the Congressman just got busted in MI letting his son drive his gov. car. The press is all over it but what I was shocked about is that his gov. car is a Cadillac ESCALADE. How about paying for this by getting rid of those kinds of luxuries for gov. employees. Or how about bringing salaries for government employees back in line with the salaries paid for similiar jobs in the private sector instead of just freezing the pay for a year or two. +++ From USA Today Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available. These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Log in to Reply craigcp December 4, 2010 We are becoming a nanny state, do you want the government to tell you how to eat, fuck and shit or what to set your temperature of your house, that is coming. Government needs to stay the hell out of our lives, that is why DNC lost so bad in the mid-term. Log in to Reply ktuc December 4, 2010 I stand corrected and I remember now that you did have a thing or two to say about Rosie! I didn’t mean to offend you, Jamey, I apologize! I was merely trying to point out that we all don’t agree with everything that our own political parties and their agendas stand for! Log in to Reply josser December 4, 2010 Scooter, China is not a Communist country. It is an authoritarian, oligarchy with strong capitalist under pinnings. The Chinese economy IS capitalistic without having a democratic government. Yes, the state does manage the economy but it does so for capitalist advantage, ensuring the success of Chinese owned businesses. Log in to Reply soapster December 4, 2010 the simple solution to this is make this bill work, yes their needs to be more moderating of healthy choice in school lunches, no we do not need to take away from food stamps for the truly needy. Besides I do know for a fact the the food stamp program needs a giant overhaual so maybe their will be that extra money that can be taken away and given to a more worthy cause because their is much abuse in the system. I am still trying to figure out how the government is becoming intrusive when they are the ones providing the free public ran education system and looking out for the health of children by providing them more of a healthy meal. If you don’t want the gov’t telling you what you child will eat during school hours then like someone else said bag their lunch and they can eat whatever you wish. I sorry craigcp but when has the government not dictated how people can live their lives going way back to slavery and beyond, Log in to Reply Smitty December 4, 2010 I love how no one cared about the budget deficit when we had a Republican President, but now that we have a Democrat in office the budget deficit seems to be a big deal now…. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 4, 2010 Soapster I have no problem with the gov. providing better school lunches, I just think the money should be controlled by the states and municipalities not the fed, that the additional monies should be paid for from the budget (which I felt when there was a Rep. president as well) and that the money shouldnt come by cutting services for the poorest of families/individuals (and yes they do need an overhaul of a lot of programs and food benefits are one of the many, but until you know where the cuts will come from you cant spend money that you havent yet saved). I truly feel that one of the ways they can help is to start on all levels of government to cut staff, control waste, unnecessary perks and program duplication, and bring salaries in line with salaries in the private sector. Smitty one of the problems with Bush is that deficit hawks/balanced budget Republicans were loathe to challenge a sitting president of their own party. They havent changed their position, they have just been freed. Dem Congressman too are loathe to challenge a sitting president of their own party as well. Its why some of them voted for a health care bill they didnt really agree with. Log in to Reply Smitty December 5, 2010 So they haven’t changed their position but they sat and let George W. Bush run wild and watched HIM TAKE US into the worst financial crisis this country has seen since the Great Depression. How can you say that they didn’t change positions when they didn’t say anything about ex President Bush when he was running this country into financial ruins? So they sat back on their “principles” because they didn’t want to challenge a President from their party. Huh? What kind of sense does that make? If you are a deficit hawk or for a balanced budget it shouldn’t matter who’s in office. I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat if you stand for something then you do no matter who is President. Republicans are fooling the American people into thinking they are concerned about the budget deficit. I’m smart enough to recognize when I’m being played. I saw the Republicans in action and I haven’t forgot what they did. That’s why these Republicans have yet to tell us what we can do to cut the budget deficit but they still want to give tax cuts to millionaires which is going to do nothing but ADD to the deficit. WAKE UP PEOPLE AND DON’T TRY THE SPIN WITH ME! Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 5, 2010 BOTH parties have difficulty challenging a sitting president. Its a sad fact of how politics works but there you have it. Should there have been less spending – absolutely. I have long been disappointed that Republicans havent done away with earmarks or offered up a Line Item Veto. I never expected those things from Dems because it doesnt seem to be a priority, but def. from Rep. That said, Bush did NOT lead us in to this crisis. In large part this crisis was kicked off by problems in the housing market. Both Bush and McCain warned REPEATEDLY that there were enormous issues looming with both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but those warnings were completely ignored by Congress, most specifically Democratic Congressman Barney Frank. As for the tax cuts, they arent trying to CUT taxes they are fighting an INCREASE in taxes for families that make over 200K many of whom are actually small business owners that drive the economy by creating JOBS. Leading economists on BOTH sides of the aisle have said that the Bush tax cuts kept us from sliding into an even worse economic climate. We MUST reign in wasteful spending and to a certain extent BOTH parties share the guilt of it. It has to be done in a serious way, but without harming the basic safety net for the must vulnerable members of our society and in a way that doesnt undermine national security. Obama’s decision to freeze public sector pay was a start. Getting rid of earmarks and returning the unused TARP funds back to the Treasury would be the next steps. A gradual increase in the age of Social Security – which reflects the increase in the number of years and the health in those years the vast majority of Americans now enjoy – should also be on the table. Those are just a few of the specificas that Rep. actually HAVE talked up to reduce the deficit so I am not sure why you say they havent told anyone how to cut the deficit. Log in to Reply Smitty December 5, 2010 So if President Bush didn’t lead us into this recession who did? Who’s to blame? Was it the Republican Congress from 94-2006 who ran our country? It obviously wasn’t President Obama because he didn’t came into office during the middle of this crisis. The crisis didn’t just come out of nowhere. Come on now. Let’s be honest. I am a tax accountant. Work with taxes each and every day. Many people that make over 250K dollars a year don’t pay nearly enough in taxes. The more money that you make just gives you more ways to avoid paying taxes. The tax system is set up for the wealthy to avoid paying taxes through different tax incentives. A raise in capital gains taxes will not hurt anyone who’s making over 250K. Most people that have capital gains are wealthy. You don’t find many average joes out there getting capital gains. Most poor people don’t have investments that they are selling to receive these capital gain benefits. So I ask if you think we should avoid increasing the capital gains tax rate then how do we pay for this? If you all are “concerned” about the deficit as you say then you would have to agree that it is fiscally irresponsible to offer a tax cut when it’s only going to add to the federal deficit. My question is what is ‘wasteful” spending. I find that term being used but no one is really defining what “wasteful” spending is? Spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan can’t be good. That’s only adding to deficit. Should we stop funding those efforts because that’s fiscally irresponsible too. Also Republicans think gradually raising the retirement age to obtain Social Security benefits will help. Ok so I guess I will get to retire when I’m 75 and collect my social security benefits. Good thing I’m investing in my 401k because lord knows I don’t plan on working until I’m 75. If Republicans are serious about lowering the debt then tax increases should be on the table because no one is willing to make the tough cuts that are necessary to help our federal deficit. It’s all about getting a talking point across. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 5, 2010 Actually I told you who I thought was most to blame. I blame every leader of BOTH parties, but if I had to point to one individual over all others it would be Barney Frank No, I dont think their should be a gains increase, but you are talking to a flat tax supporter. Gains taxes discourage investment and penalize investors. And as you know, most companies dont offer pensions anymore, people have 401Ks and everyone with a 401K is an investor. Wasteful spending – I gave you a bunch of examples. The vast majority of money spent via earmarks is a waste – think studies on cow gas emissions and the activities of fire ants etc. etc. I think salaries above private sector levels are a waste. I think Congressman having “company cars” so to speak, esp when those “company cars” are cadillacs is WASTE with a capital W. Look at all the roads Senator Byrd had constructed in WVA – I think I read it was something like 3x the average per person than any other state in the nation – all because he chaired the approps committee. THAT is waste. I supported the war, but yes there was a lot of waste in how it was conducted, specifically I had a huge issue with any contracts awarded as no bit – on principle I think the government should refrain from non bid contracts in all but the rarest of cases. Since we are now winding down we already will see savings there, but as I said before we cant make cuts that are so severe as to jeapordize national security. RE: Social Security the discussion is about raising the age one to two months each year until it reaches 70. Its not feasible for the government to finance social security for 20 years or more for every worker in America. If people are living healthy lives and they can work, 70 is not unreasonable and is in line with what 65 use to be when you look at the average life span. I might point out too that while some Republicans have been talking about raising the age for a while, a BIPARTISAN committee headed by former Clinton WH COS Erksine Bowles and former Rep. Senator Alan Simpson just recommended the same thing. Log in to Reply Smitty December 5, 2010 Can you explain how you blame Rep. Barney Frank? I know he is the outgoing head of the Home Financial Services Committee, a post that he has only had since January 2007. There were several people asleep at the wheel that caused this financial crisis, I’m sure we can agree on that I just would like to know how you single this man out, who’s a Democrat, but you don’t single any Republicans out? I’m gonna be honest with you…As far as social security is concerned I personally don’t care what a BIPARTISAN commission says. I’ve, personally, planned not to have to rely on social security when I retire, but I recognize that some individuals don’t have the luxury that I do. I just don’t think it’s fair to raise the age to eventually get to 70. I just don’t think it’s fair. Capital gains tax increases doesn’t discourage investing. If folks are going to invest they are going to invest. It didn’t discourage folks from investing before the rates were decreased so I highly doubt that it will now. The fact of the matter is if you have money to invest then capital gains taxes are the least of your worries. Also with investing, as I’m sure you know, you are taking a risk. With risk doesn’t mean you are going to always receive a gain. You could possibly loose money which is offset on your tax return. Log in to Reply TV Gord December 5, 2010 Franks clearly broke the law, Smitty. If you can point out anyone else who did…by name…I’m sure folks in Washington would be happy to hear who. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 5, 2010 Franks was warned time and time again about the looming crisis with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Congress is responsible for oversight and that oversight didnt happen. The collapse of the housing market is what took the economy into the crapper. As for capital gains – you realize that Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut. 70 – guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. People who were 70 in 1950 did not enjoy the health and vitality that people do now in their 70s. How is it fair for someone who is 18 to inherit a country this far in debt? At some point the budget has to be balanced. We are going to have to adjust things to get their and if people cant work due to physical infermity then they can apply for and receive disability. If they can work, shouldnt that want to in order to save their grandchildren and great grandchildren from inheriting a mess?? Finally can I just say that you keep making points in a very partisan manner. I may consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and I may vote Republican far more often than not, but I dont look at things from a partisan perspective. I think both parties have issues with ethics. I think both parties have eschewed any efforts at bipartisanship when they have power. I think both parties spend too much of the taxpayers money on pet projects to satify their donors instead of working toward the public good. I dont blame ONLY Barney Frank, I blame all of the leadership in both parties with few exceptions. You asked me who I hold MOST responsible and I have to go with the guy who was specifically responsible for oversight over the first domino that fell, but i dont JUST blame “a democrat”. IMHO we need to get past that kind of partisan think if we are going to solve our nations problems. Log in to Reply soapster December 5, 2010 gov’t is gov’t state or fed, and if I am not mistaken the fed give states money for education which they in turn roll the way it is spent, well at least in my state of New York that is how it is done. As far as cuts it has always been the poor and most needful that gets hit the hardest with budget cuts nothing new and it will never end. As far as extending the tax cuts for the wealthy a whole other debate but I didn’t see that stopping us from heading into a recession or reaching the unemployment rate that we are in and it won’t be this miracle job creation device that everyone is claiming either. Cutting taxes for rich people keeps them in their luxuries as for small business I never understood what consitutes a small business the corner bodega or or the business that employes over 150+. Plus doesn’t these small business have separate business tax cuts why would additional tax cuts to their personal wealth encourage them to hire more people. Log in to Reply Dyllan December 5, 2010 Alright I am going to add my comments to random things I noticed… 1. George Bush’s faith based initiatives didn’t cost the government anything I believe. I thought it just allowed religious organization to be bidders for grants that helped the poor and needy. 2. Many Republicans did not like George Bush’s spending habits (P.S. I don’t believe Bush led us to a “second Great Depression”. If anything he prevented it with TARP…which most conservatives hate. Booms and busts are natural and no one is really to blame for a recession because it is cyclical). That is partially why they got rid of the Republican in 2006 and 2008. I also can’t see this bill costing that much when you compare it to the entire US budget. If people want to cut the budget, than they should look at defense or an entitlement program. 3. Raising the age for Social Security to 70 is not that bad. People live longer and more productive lives when compared to over 20 years ago. Plus, I believe they are proposing raising the FICA rate, too. 4. Bush tax cuts-Only a small portion of the Bush tax cuts went to the “wealthy”. They don’t cost that much when you compare it to the entire budget. If you really want to lower the deficit that is not the way. And in some states $250k a year is not as large as it may appear. Log in to Reply Smitty December 5, 2010 EET, if I haven’t stated before I am a liberal person. I don’t hide that fact at all. I tend to side with Democrats on most issues, but I’m not afraid to disagree with them when I think they are wrong. (i.e. you said a BIPARTISAN group thinks we need to raise the retirement age. I stated I don’t agree with this.) Just because someone has a D behind there name doesn’t mean I’m going to necessarily agree with them. I have my own mind and I don’t let a party decide it, but I know who I agree with and that’s Democrats most of the time. Yes there are issues with both parties. You won’t get an argument with me there. I’m sorry but I still don’t see how you can single out Rep. Barney Franks but I see he’s a Democrat and I’m sure you don’t want to single out a Republican for leading us into the financial crisis even though it’s more than obvious. Whether you want to admit it or not the facts stand behind my point. The Republicans ran this country into the biggest financial crisis we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. Dyllan you are right about your point number 4. The wealthy only make up a small percentage but also you need to remember that during President Bush’s presidency a study came out that said the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. The wealth distribution is unfavorably scaled toward the wealthy. Come on let’s be serious now. Making $250k is different from state to state but I can say this with certainty. No matter where you are making it you will be fine. You can live anywhere in the US comfortably on $250K salary. Folks it’s been great debating you all. Clearly we won’t agree but I’m always open for a debate! Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 5, 2010 Smitty — here is a video of Barney Frank defending fannie and freddie and a clip of Bush Treasury Secretary Snow asking Congress to reign in the two giants. Theres also some material on McCain’s bill to regulate fannie and freddie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo It was the subprime loans that took the housing market into crisis which dragged the rest of the economy down with it. That isnt to say that the banks making so many risky investments wasnt part of it and in hindsight its debatable whether they should have had more oversight in the bi-partisan legislation that repealed the Glass-Steagall act (which is why I said there was plenty of blame to go around both in Government and on Wall Street) but if you ask me to name one person as the biggest culprit it has to be Franks for basically turning a blind eye to Fannie and Freddie who I might add were major backers of Franks campaign. I guess I am not understanding your point – do you think that it wasnt the housing market that precipitated the economic crisis and if not then what do you point to?? If it was the housing market, then what is it you think Bush could have done without the ability to legislate (which falls to Congress) Dyllan my biggest problem with TARP is that there wasnt enough control and oversight with respect to the money. If the taxpayers spend 20 million to shore up a financial institution and then said institution turns around and gives bonuses to the management thats a problem. If the money is suppose to shore up the financial institution so that it can refinance homes so that homeowners dont go under or to make credit easier to obtain but the bank instead sits on the money thats a problem. I especially am concerned with where the money went given the revolving door that occurs under every President’s Treasury department and Wall Street. Rolling Stone did an major piece on Goldman Sach and to see how they pepper Treasury with their people admin after admin raises a red flag. When a bank gets 50 Billion dollars of taxpayer money there should be accountability. The same problem exists with the Stimulus package – not enough common sense and not enough oversight. If we use tax monies to create a good number of jobs by investing in wind farms or upgrading electrical grids then that makes a lot of sense. When you spend tax monies to put windows in buildings that arent in use or to study the effect of cocaine on monkeys, I have to question that. You dont buy new drapes and a flat screen for your home when the mortgage isnt paid and the roof is caving in – in essence thats kind of what we did with a lot of this money. Soapster – accountability is part of why I would like to see a lot more things done at the state and local level. When I have a concern and I call the Mayor’s office I get a call back from at best a staffer with some authority or the Mayor himself (city of about 11 thousand). The further removed the funding source the more difficult it is to speak to a decision maker and the harder it is to make sure that the money is used for the purpose intended. I’ll give you an example which I just read a week ago – I hope I get this right – but Fed money was allocated to Michigan for Medicaid services, but the state was facing a financial crisis so lawmakers played a few games with the accounting and boom the money went into the general treasury. If instead a school district goes back to its community and says we need an extra 1% to improve the nutritional quality of our school lunches, the community can decide whether its necessary (because I am sure some school districts do this well already) and if the money is supplied you can be sure people will notice if there isnt some improvement. Plus think about the absurdity of sending tax dollars to the Fed – which then has to be processed and returned to the state – when the state could have collected the revenue in the first place. I am also wholeheartedly opposed to this money being spent without it being paid for or with the money coming from the Food benefits budget. That makes about as much sense as funding Obamacare through cuts in Medicaid and Medicare. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 5, 2010 Sorry that was so long…and now I am going to add something else before I get jumped on about states rights – I support gay marriage and whether its a state issue or a federal issue the ban goes against basic human rights as spelled out in I have to assume every state constitution as well as the federal constitution. I also believe that the Full Faith and Credit article of the US Constitution should apply so once one state recognizes a marriage all others have to as well. Wanting state government and local government to take the lead on projects funded by tax dollars is about prioritizing where money and the oversight of that spending, it wasnt meant to reflect my opinion on anything outside of that aspect. Log in to Reply TV Gord December 5, 2010 What a great thread! The Huffington Post owes us one big discussion about soaps to balance out the universe! Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 6, 2010 I was just talking about this with a friend and wanted to get some more information, which led me to this article. http://www.grist.org/article/2010-12-02-congress-approves-child-nutrition-reauthorization I thought this line was most interesting… On the plus side, the IOM standards would lower the number of calories schools must offer kids in subsidized meals, which could mean fewer sugary options in the cafeteria. Up to now, schools have been using sugar to jack up the calories in their meals in order to comply with outdated USDA requirements. Given that the schools would have to adopt new standards that would well exceed the six cents gain it seems the best change them made – changing the calories required – was something they achieved at NO COST. I also find it disingenuous that Obama is going to find the money to put back into SNAP when that is going to be far more difficult in the next session of Congress, so what they have really done here is exactly what I said in my first post only one better…using the fictional smiths again…they take money from the unemployed Smith family so that they have it available to OFFER to the Smith’s SCHOOL (government) if the school has the money to make up the difference between the additional cost it will require to meet the new standards less the six cents allocated. If the school DOESNT have that money, the Smiths get doubly penalized – the money they would have gotten now isnt there, but there two kids also wont get the improved lunch at school. I am also baffled that school districts need to be ordered not to have pop and chips at the schools. Dont parents know what goes on at their schools and if there is a huge obesity issue why would they allow such a thing? Where are the parents in all of this?? Like I said, I was really surprised when Jamie Oliver would show parents what their kids were eating and the parents were SHOCKED about the menu. I dont have kids, but my mother def. knew what I was eating. In fact, at a certain point she insisted that I take my lunch because I would come home starving and she quickly figured out I was throwing away the garbage they were serving. We also got a take home menu at the beginning of each month so parents could work around things that they knew their kids wouldnt eat. Log in to Reply sassysdreams December 6, 2010 [quote=EET]At some point the budget has to be balanced.[/quote] I just have to point out that when Bush took over as president there was a balanced budget and a SURPLUS! Very interesting discussion by the way. Log in to Reply Smitty December 6, 2010 EET I don’t think you can blame just Rep. Barney Franks. No video that you show me is going to change my mind. Like a poster said, We had a balanced budget when President Bush came into office with a surplus and I know by the time he left we were in one of the biggest financial disasters this country has seen in decades. My point is this and follow me. The financial crisis was the responsibility of many. The President, Congress, and the banks all are responsible for this happening. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Rep. Barney Franks came into the head of the committee in January 2007. The recession began in December 2007 so are we really to believe that this one man could have stopped this from happening in a matter of less than a year as a head of a committee in Congress? Come on EET…you are looking for an easy scapegoat. You are being irresponsible stating that it’s this man’s fault. Come on if you believe this than I have some things I want to sale to you. I was on twitter this morning and Donna Brazile tweeted something I really hadn’t thought about. Here it is… donnabrazile Pres Obama should call a mtg and say to the obstructionist to “show me the jobs!” Taxes are at the lowest in 60 years. Where r the jobs! Just something to think about for all of you. Log in to Reply Smitty December 6, 2010 Might I add… These subprime mortgages weren’t all handed out in 2007…they happened before this. I am willing to say that all the mortgages had been put into place by the time that Rep. Barney Franks become head of the Financial Services Committee in the House. So are you saying that this one man was supposed to stop the banks from doing something they had already done? The mortgage crisis wasn’t from loans given out in 2007. We all know this. It was from bad practices for years. Many conservatives say that we need less government. Ok so you all run around screaming less government but want the government to step in to help banks. Umm yeah so I guess conservatives determine when it’s best for the government to step in. You all can’t have it both ways and that’s one reason why I find myself frustrated with the Republican party. You all felt the government should step in and “help” prevent the financial crisis, but you all don’t think it’s okay to keep unemployment benefits going for millions of America who have been without a job because of this crappy economy. What about the government stepping in to help the American people Log in to Reply Scooter Smith December 6, 2010 Jamey, I never liked Bush’s unfunded bills either. I am a conservative, but I voted for Gore and Kerry, because I believed that Bush was going to be bad for our country. Its the same reason I voted for McCain, because I thought, and it looks like I was right, that Obama would be as bad if not worse than Bush. Sassy, the “Surpluses” that Bush came in with was nothing more than Clinton playing three card monty with different accounting funds. Smitty, you are right the subprime thing started before Franks. It came when Clinton wanted to make owning a home a “right” instead of a privilege. So they forced banks to make loans to people that couldn’t afford it, so they could become a homeowner. All through Bush’s terms, there was constant warnings from Economists and smart senators like Ron Paul and John McCain that said this was getting out of control, and would eventually lead to a collapse, but no one listened. Josstheguy, Calling China an authoritarian oligarchy, is like calling a rape victim “an unwilling sexual partner”. It takes what something is and covers it in sparkles so that you can’t see what’s actually there. The USSR had an authoritarian oligarchy. You know what it was called at the time? Communism. Whether they do it for profit (Capitalist Underpinnings) or power (rule of a single party) its still communism. In General, this country needs to stop trying to be my nanny. One thing every parent eventually learns is that your kid won’t learn unless they make the mistakes. You stop them from making the really bad ones, but let them experience the rest. Government is good for not letting us murder or steal, but do they really need to make us buy curly light bulbs, so that I don’t use too much energy and kill the African Swamp Beetle. Take the foot off my neck, and let me live my life the way I want to live. Log in to Reply EricasEvilTwin December 7, 2010 Heres a quote from Franks in 2003 “I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.” —Representative Barney Frank, September 25, 2003 The WSJ’s take on Franks role is here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527440083580698.html I want to respond to some of the other stuff later…just got home from PT and am a little tired to think and I dont want to misspeak. Log in to Reply Leave a Reply Cancel Reply You must be logged in to post a comment.