DUmmies support hiring child molesters to work in schools.

[Doc]

usregimechange   (1000+ posts)             Wed Dec-01-10 07:45 PM
Original message
Republicans block child nutrition bill   
   

First lady Michelle Obama hugs White House Executive Chef Cristeta Comerford after she visited Christmas arts and crafts workstations, Wednesday, Dec. 1, 2010, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington.


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.

House Democrats said the GOP amendment, which would have required background checks for child care workers, was an effort to kill the bill and delayed a final vote on the legislation rather than vote on the amendment.

Because the nutrition bill is identical to legislation passed by the Senate in August, passage would send it to the White House for President Barack Obama's signature. If the bill were amended, it would be sent back to the Senate with little time left in the legislative session.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_cong...


"Get a job! Oh, wait, you're a child."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9668508

One simple amendment to help protect children from possible predators, but the DemonRats and DUmmies don't want to do it.

usregimechange   (1000+ posts)             Wed Dec-01-10 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is disgusting, simply disgusting

I agree. Not wanting to protect children by doing a simple background check is  disgusting. Dems don't care about that as long as they pay union dues.

bliss_eternal   (1000+ posts)             Wed Dec-01-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
7. While a fetus, they are sacred...
   
...but once here, and in those nasty habit of breathing, growing and eating, they could give a shit about them.

Sad that some women falls for their, "...there's help for you and your child, if you carry to term" bullshit. They don't mean it, obviously. It's bullying out of a desire to control women, hasn't got a damn thing to do with "love of life, children or anything else."

Hey DUmmie.  The amendment would have been an added layer to protect children from predators.


Moderator's note:  Edited to fix quote tag 

[true_blood]

It's the mental disorder in them that's showing through. As usual.
They don't care about the background checks as long as their kid eats for free. Never mind that the teacher tried to put his hands down your kids pants. Move along now. Nothing to see here.

[formerlurker]

If the bill were amended, it would be sent back to the Senate with little time left in the legislative session.

In all fairness, this is the issue with the amendment. 

[formerlurker]

Note however that while I have not read the bill, it does seem to be a nonsense bill with back door mandates which will increase the cost of school lunches for students who don't get free and reduced lunch, and choose to purchase the school lunch.   I pay $2.50/day for my son's school lunch.   That will increase significantly I am sure if this bill passes.

[thundley4]

In all fairness, this is the issue with the amendment. 

Yet there are a bunch of other crap that the lame ducks are trying to ram through.  It's a valid amendment, so it shouldn't take the HOR any time at all.

[Doc]

Yet there are a bunch of other crap that the lame ducks are trying to ram through.  It's a valid amendment, so it shouldn't take the HOR any time at all.

I was listening to a discussion about this today on radio, and the amendment is meant to be a "poison pill" which will force the bill back to reconciliation (which there is no time for, so it dies).  The rationale is that the whole bill projects a cost of 37 BILLION, that just doesn't need to be spent right now.....or ever for that matter.

I have to be a hardass on this, but why should the taxpayers pony up for parents without the common decency to make a sandwitch, and throw an apple and a bag of chips in a brown paper bag for their children's lunch?  This is just more "nanny state" garbage, with strings attached to exert more federal control over the schools.

doc

[BlueStateSaint]

. . . but why should the taxpayers pony up for parents without the common decency to make a sandwitch, and throw an apple and a bag of chips in a brown paper bag for their children's lunch?

Dead on.  While I'm making my lunch, it takes me maybe one or two minutes to make my wife's lunch.  Adding my daughter's lunch wouldn't take more than another minute or two more.

Oh--H5 for the observation, doc . . .

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What's wrong with voting on the amendment?

What's wrong with the amendment, period?

Methinks I smell teachers union.

[jukin]

Let me get this right.  Students that would receive the free lunches are probably already getting food stamps or WIC. So this is just a double dip at the public trough.