Topic: Senator Sanders and Rep. Omar introduce Universal School meals bill - page 2. (Read 564 times)

That's right... Don't even attempt to refute but instead continue with personal attacks cause that's all you have. If the founding fathers couldn't even agree on the extent of the spending power of the congress then there's no way you can state your opinion as "fact". Lets also just ignore that the supreme court has ruled that it's constitutional. I sometimes wonder what fantasy world you live in.

By the way. The court ruled that the WH and your arguments in the other matter were bullshit. And yes, I'm well aware it will probably be appealed but I doubt the end result will be different, assuming the arguments don't change in some way that creates a "loophole" that so many of the other court cases end up getting dismissed on.

Save the faux pontification. We both know you don't have any idea what you are rambling about as usual. Maybe you can tell me The Constitution is not a legal document and save yourself the trouble and just get right to making yourself look like an ass with your ignorance of the legal system.

Hamilton and Madison could not even agree on the general welfare part of... "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

The supreme court has ruled that the government is within their constitutional right to pay for "social" type programs. Justice Owen Roberts (republican) reaffirmed that and simplified it by saying "Put simply, Congress may tax and spend."

So once again, you have some fantasy of the country you think you live in that is not held up by reality. Continue talking out your ass if you like though.

You provided your opinions and interpretations of what you think The Constitution means. I referenced the tenth amendment to The Constitution. I am very sorry your reading comprehension and general understanding of basic legal concepts is so poor, but your ignorance doesn't change the facts. Just because The Constitution is being violated is not proof The Constitution does not restrict those things.

Once again you make a statement that means nothing. I provided things straight from the constitution. You provided a bunch of crap from your ass. If it was so "explicit", the government wouldn't be able to do what they already do. So once again, you're talking out your ass. You have a viewpoint of how you want to interpret things. How you think things should be run. Maybe you should go to a different country that closer fits what you want cause you're not going to get it in the US. If all you're going to do is continue to argue opinions then you're not worth having any sort of discussion with.

By the way. On the particular topic of this thread, I said no to it. Because it's not solving the underlying problem but instead is just slapping a bandaid on something in order to get votes.

Not opinion, fact. The Constitution states any authorities not EXPLICITLY granted to it in The Constitution are restricted. Given your past demonstrations of your legal prowess I am not about to get into a debate with you about constitutional law. If you want these programs so bad make it happen privately and voluntarily through charity programs, nothing is stopping you. You have no right to take the resources of others by force and redistribute them let alone put the government in a position of creating dependence on it for survival. Under The Constitution the people are the masters and the government it's servant. Under your system the government is the master and the people are it's servants. That is the exact opposite of what The Constitution says.

Many good discussion here. But the first think government should make free to make a social equality is education and health itself.
If education and health are free, people can afford the meal they want. It has been seen that opportunities to education and health is what shapes the future of a kid.
They would be able to enjoy equal opportunity hence shape their mind on the field they prefer.

My hypothesis is that what you eat has an impact on brain function.  Basically if you are eating a lot of meat it implies that your group are hunters.  For hunting one needs a nimble mind (and body for that matter.)  That will naturally develop to help the group operate effectively in their environment.

On the other hand, if you eat a lot of fruits and roots and what-not, your group are probably a gatherers or at least that is the most effective food source at the present time.  Not much brain is necessary for that, and excess brain wastes energy.

If you eat a lot of grain your group are probably farmers.  It's much better to be a mindless dolt who is content to work the fields dawn to dust.  A well working brain not only wastes energy but interferes with the life's work.  Double-negative.

I'd say that the 'leadership' understands this.  The food pyramid and diet offered by the powers that be favor grains and more recently high fructose corn surup.  This is mainly because they plan to avoid any more revolutions going forward and diet is one of the tools that they use to keep the peeps in a state of perpetual dopiness.  The 'war on beef' which is a thing among the eco-crowd is another face of the same basic coin.

Again, the socialists have a fascination with the concept of getting the kids early and keeping them as much as possible.  Mostly is that they understand that this is key to 'revolutionary change', and to enduring rule once revolution is accomplished.

That's nothing more than an "every man for himself" attitude. Nothing more than your opinion. The constitution sets out things like "to form a more perfect union", "to insure domestic tranquility", "to promote the general welfare", "to secure the blessings of liberty". The argument can easily be made that to ensure the government achieves those goals, they needs to do some of the things you outlined to some degree. This is another case where you state something as a fact when it's nothing more than an opinion.

The government's role is to protect its citizen's constitutional rights. That is it. Not to feed, house, educate, medically treat, employ, etc. When the people become the dependent of the government, the government is no longer the servant of the people but the master. If people really want this program, create it under private charitable organizations. Stop demanding that you get to be generous with other people's money. You want to be generous, YOU FUND IT. Giving away the sweat equity of others is not generosity or charity, it is theft.

Dont breed them if you cant feed them.  Feeding a child is the parent's responsibility. I can get behind some discounted meals for low-income families, but strongly disagree with the govt (tax payers) assuming the feeding cost of literally every child in America.

>provide three free meals per day

there isn't any such thing as a 'free lunch'.

School aged children are not at school at times that all three meals are consumed, they are usually out of school around 2 in the afternoon, well before dinner time. Anything provided to a child, at no cost to the child, or his parent needs to be paid for by someone, and in the case of the subject bill, it would be paid for by the taxpayers, but with additional costs added because government almost always will do things less efficiently than the private sector. This means the tax payer is actually paying for these meals, but at a higher cost than if they paid for the meals directly.

You are talking about the brain. The brain is part of the body. The body gets hungry, not the mind. The mind simply acts according to the amount of the eaten nutrition that reaches the brain.



EDIT: Besides, it works just the opposite of what you are thinking. A hungry mind is a mind that wants to learn. If the body is starved, the mind gradually loses its hunger for knowledge. Feed the body the right amount, and the mind's hunger increases.

Hm.

I know that as of right now, local schools handle the logistics on a large amount of this. The governments kick in the funds, but its up to the state and the local school boards to handle a good amount of the implementation of things.

I know as of right now this is something that only certain states have implemented, and I would like to see it done on a federal level though I do think the federal government is going to use this as leverage to force certain states into giving them what they want.

Don't think this is only 'for the good of the children' this is something where the fed government is just going to take more control.

This is a noble idea and it’ll help many children who’re unable to afford food, even though this bill is being introduced for political gains we all should support it because so many children’s will get free food if the bill is passed. However there’s one question on my mind, can the US government actually afford free food considering the huge debt it already has on it’s hands?.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/real-us-debt-levels-could-be-a-shocking-2000percent-of-gdp-report-suggests.html

https://www.eater.com/2019/10/16/20917241/bernie-sanders-ilhan-omar-universal-school-meals-program-act-bill

No. Just no. Implement policies that make it so that the children's parents can bloody well feed their children properly. This is typical. Don't bother solving the underlying real problems but instead stick a bandaid on something purely so you can manipulate people to cry for the children and get votes.

Again:

  “Diet, injections and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the
   sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the...authorities consider desirable,
   and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

 – Bertrand Russel – The Impact of Science on Society - 1953

I repeat it on this board and here because this thread really brings all three together ('injunction' meaning truancy laws and legally mandated injections.)

Also:

  https://www.aier.org/article/the-socialists-always-come-for-the-kids-eventually/

I didn't yet read the article.  I just know enough history that the saying "The Socialists always come for the kids, eventually" resonates.

An adult brain consumes roughly 20% of the energy that an adult consumes based on resting metabolic rate studies. Look it up.
If you don't consume enough calories your brain starts running on ketones instead of sugar and will see decreases in cognitive ability. Again, look it up.

Thinking and learning requires a lot of sugar.

It's a no brainer that you are completely misrepresenting the facts in pursuit of your agenda of the moment. Here is the current state of free food for schoolchildren.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

Program Fact Sheet...

https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/free-school-lunch-breakfast-every-state

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which is administered by the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), served nearly 30 million lunches to students every day on average in 2018, and almost three-quarters of those were provided either at no charge or at a reduced price. In the same year over 14 million meals — 85 percent of which were free or reduced — were served daily through the related School Breakfast Program, which advocates say can have an equally powerful effect on students’ health and academic success.

How in the world off base are you going to get? Everybody knows that nobody, children included, eats food with their mind. Eating food is a body thing, not a mind thing.