Bill O'Reilly vs. Laura Ingraham

[Modbert]

We should absolutely end any Federal involvement in the school lunch program. The states and local communities and school boards should have that responsibility.

And Laura is quite correct that parents feed their kids after school, on weekends, on holiday breaks, over the summer etc. The parents are perfectly capable of throwing a banana or apple and a peanut butter sandwich into a paper bag for the kid's lunch if they don't like what the kids are getting at school. And I'm guessing that school lunches would improve a whole lot as the responsibility of local folks than they will ever improve via the Federal government.

And for those parents who don't? What are you going to do? Fine them? This is a solution that isn't violating anyone's rights, it's giving kids healthier choices. It turns out eating greasy french fries everyday along with greasy pizza is not good for you in the long run.

Also, how do you know the state or local communities would have any school lunch program at all? What if they don't? What if they can't afford it? What if kids who were getting it before and were relying on it no longer can get it? After all, using your same logic, it's not worth the money of the people.

 

[Luissa]

I think we should change our school lunch program. We need to stop feeding our kids hormones, and antibiotics.

I see what the schools feed the kids. Heck, if anyone on here would know it'd be me.

Schools rarely have healthy choices in any form anymore. It's all about precooked and food that is pretty much heated up. The closest thing you get to freshly made food is pizza from a local pizza place that isn't looking too good by 3rd or 4th lunch.

This is all done because it's cheaper.

I remember what they fed us, but when I went to basketball camp at private school, the food wasn't too much better. lol .
I think we should start by putting restrictions on the amount of antibiotics farmers can use on their animals. And I don't want to hear about this hurts the small farmer, the bigger corporate farms seem to be the ones who mostly do this. I also know the guy my brother works for makes quite a bit of money raising free range beef using no hormones.

 

[Luissa]

If you watched the Factor more often, you would know when Bill is playing devil's advocate in a debate in which he actually sides with his opponent. Laura, by the way, is his #1 choice for a replacement when he is away from the program.

She is NOT saying that she wants kids to be obese. She IS saying that we should stop throwing billions of dollars of the people's money at a program that has already been legislated to death with no appreciable positive results and then pretend like we're doing something noble. There are much better uses and much greater needs for the people's money at this time.

See the history of the school lunch program here, and you'll see why she holds the position that she does:

National School Lunch Program

I never said she wants kids to be obese. That was the title of the article. So you think we should end the school lunch program, yes or no?

We should absolutely end any Federal involvement in the school lunch program. The states and local communities and school boards should have that responsibility.

And Laura is quite correct that parents feed their kids after school, on weekends, on holiday breaks, over the summer etc. The parents are perfectly capable of throwing a banana or apple and a peanut butter sandwich into a paper bag for the kid's lunch if they don't like what the kids are getting at school. And I'm guessing that school lunches would improve a whole lot as the responsibility of local folks than they will ever improve via the Federal government.

I worked at a school where lunch was pretty much the only real food some of the kids received all day.

 

[judyd]

If you watched the Factor more often, you would know when Bill is playing devil's advocate in a debate in which he actually sides with his opponent. Laura, by the way, is his #1 choice for a replacement when he is away from the program.

She is NOT saying that she wants kids to be obese. She IS saying that we should stop throwing billions of dollars of the people's money at a program that has already been legislated to death with no appreciable positive results and then pretend like we're doing something noble. There are much better uses and much greater needs for the people's money at this time.

See the history of the school lunch program here, and you'll see why she holds the position that she does:

National School Lunch Program

I never said she wants kids to be obese. That was the title of the article. So you think we should end the school lunch program, yes or no?

We should absolutely end any Federal involvement in the school lunch program. The states and local communities and school boards should have that responsibility.

And Laura is quite correct that parents feed their kids after school, on weekends, on holiday breaks, over the summer etc. The parents are perfectly capable of throwing a banana or apple and a peanut butter sandwich into a paper bag for the kid's lunch if they don't like what the kids are getting at school. And I'm guessing that school lunches would improve a whole lot as the responsibility of local folks than they will ever improve via the Federal government.

I took nutrition and good eating habits a lot more seriously when I had a child. Unfortunately, the majority of parents in this country don't. They seem to think as long as they don't starve the child, they're doing ok. It doesn't seem to occur to them to actually learn nutritional values of foods and what they should be eating and feeding their children. It's ridiculous that diabetes is rampant in a country like the US. Diabetes type 2 can be wiped out simply by eating well.

 

[Political Junky]

Bill and Shepard are the only people I can stand at Fox.

The other folks.. meh.. a bunch of idiots.

I like Shepard, he should leave Fox.

Agreed, he do well elsewhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said she wants kids to be obese. That was the title of the article. So you think we should end the school lunch program, yes or no?

We should absolutely end any Federal involvement in the school lunch program. The states and local communities and school boards should have that responsibility.

And Laura is quite correct that parents feed their kids after school, on weekends, on holiday breaks, over the summer etc. The parents are perfectly capable of throwing a banana or apple and a peanut butter sandwich into a paper bag for the kid's lunch if they don't like what the kids are getting at school. And I'm guessing that school lunches would improve a whole lot as the responsibility of local folks than they will ever improve via the Federal government.

I worked at a school where lunch was pretty much the only real food some of the kids received all day.

Yes, I have seen that too. And it tears your heart out.

But what do the kids eat when school isn't in session? And why should parents assume resposibility for their kids when the government is willing to do it for them? I am old enough to remember when taking your lunch to school was the norm though there was a cafeteria too where you could buy lunch for a quarter. And the teachers dug into their own pockets when a kid forgot his lunch and/or lunch money and saw to it that the kid didn't go without lunch.

But send your kid to school without a sack lunch or lunch money, and you could expect a visit from the school and/or social services. No child should be subjected to parental neglect. And the government should not be in the business of encouraging it.

 

[Modbert]

Yes, I have seen that too. And it tears your heart out.

But what do the kids eat when school isn't in session? And why should parents assume resposibility for their kids when the government is willing to do it for them? I am old enough to remember when taking your lunch to school was the norm though there was a cafeteria too where you could buy lunch for a quarter. And the teachers dug into their own pockets when a kid forgot his lunch and/or lunch money and saw to it that the kid didn't go without lunch.

But send your kid to school without a sack lunch or lunch money, and you could expect a visit from the school and/or social services. No child should be subjected to parental neglect. And the government should not be in the business of encouraging it.

If you're assuming that these parents who can't or won't feed their kids more than once a day or at all are doing so because the government gives them a small lunch 5 days out of a 7 day week then you are out of your fucking mind. And yes, I'm swearing because that is so ignorant that I can't even believe it was even said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I have seen that too. And it tears your heart out.

But what do the kids eat when school isn't in session? And why should parents assume resposibility for their kids when the government is willing to do it for them? I am old enough to remember when taking your lunch to school was the norm though there was a cafeteria too where you could buy lunch for a quarter. And the teachers dug into their own pockets when a kid forgot his lunch and/or lunch money and saw to it that the kid didn't go without lunch.

But send your kid to school without a sack lunch or lunch money, and you could expect a visit from the school and/or social services. No child should be subjected to parental neglect. And the government should not be in the business of encouraging it.

If you're assuming that these parents who can't or won't feed their kids more than once a day or at all are doing so because the government gives them a small lunch 5 days out of a 7 day week then you are out of your fucking mind. And yes, I'm swearing because that is so ignorant that I can't even believe it was even said.

Maybe you can't believe it because it wasn't said at all?

Maybe if you tried real hard you could see what is actually being said.

 

[Modbert]

Maybe you can't believe it because it wasn't said at all?

Maybe if you tried real hard you could see what is actually being said.

I saw what you said. You said and I quote:

No child should be subjected to parental neglect. And the government should not be in the business of encouraging it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe you can't believe it because it wasn't said at all?

Maybe if you tried real hard you could see what is actually being said.

I saw what you said. You said and I quote:

No child should be subjected to parental neglect. And the government should not be in the business of encouraging it.

Yup. And I stand by that. Have helped enforce it in real life even.

But you aren't quite able to see how you extrapolated something quite different out of what I said, are you?

 

[Modbert]

Yup. And I stand by that. Have helped enforce it in real life even.

But you aren't quite able to see how you extrapolated something quite different out of what I said, are you?

Why don't you tell me how the government encourages and enforces parental neglect. Here's the thing Fox, the states are all currently broke. Do you think that these states that can barely stay above water are going to give money to a lunch program? I doubt it, or that they're going to be able to fulfill the need that was being fulfilled before.

I think it's a horrible idea to end this program because kids are going to starve because of it. Luissa is right that for many kids, this is their only meal of the day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yup. And I stand by that. Have helped enforce it in real life even.

But you aren't quite able to see how you extrapolated something quite different out of what I said, are you?

Why don't you tell me how the government encourages and enforces parental neglect. Here's the thing Fox, the states are all currently broke. Do you think that these states that can barely stay above water are going to give money to a lunch program? I doubt it, or that they're going to be able to fulfill the need that was being fulfilled before.

I think it's a horrible idea to end this program because kids are going to starve because of it. Luissa is right that for many kids, this is their only meal of the day.

A LOT of tax dollars designated for school lunches goes to Washington where a LOT of those dollars are siphoned off by the Executive and Legislative branches and several layers of bureaucracy. The much reduced amount that is left over is redistributed back to the states where more is siphoned of by the government and layers of bureaucracy until the pittance that is left is finally allocated to the school cafeteria where it furnishes a crappy lunch for the kids.

Don't you think it might be more efficient just to leave the money at the local level where most of it might do some good instead of siphoning off most of it in layer after layer of bureaucracy?

However, since the money isn't left at the local level, the schools WANT what funding they can get, so they scrounge like crazy trying to assign as many kids to Title 1 as they can possibly justify so they can qualify for more federal dollars.

Meanwhile, the most parents manage to feed their kids when school isn't in session, but why bother if the school will do it for them when school is in session? Or some are even discouraged from sending a sack lunch because it screws up the Title 1 funding. I kid you not. I've seen that happen too.

Any parent who is sending his/her kid to school without breakfast or isn't feeding the kid when the kid isn't in school should be receiving a stern visit from school authorities or social services, and if the parent cannot or will not feed their kids over the course of a school year, the kids should not remain with that parent. However harsh that sounds, that is absolutely in the best interest of the kids.

And the Government should not be aiding, abetting, encouraging, or making it easier for parents to not take responsibility for their kids.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You don't get it about hunger in America, Foxfyre.


On Thursday, August 5th, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act which will provide an additional $4.5 billion over 10 years to federal child nutrition programs. This will be the first time that such programs have had increased funding in 30 years. The bill will allocate $1.2 billion to increase the number of children receiving food, with the remaining $3.2 billion being used to improve the quality of meals served in schools.

In afterschool programs, child care providers covered under the Child and Adult Care Program will be required to serve only low-fat or fat-free milk to children aged two and up, among other nutrition standards, and will be asked to encourage physical activity and limit sedentary activity. Perhaps most importantly in the new regulations, are requirements for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance for states, sponsors, and providers so that they are best equipped to teach the children they care for about healthy nutrition and wellness habits. A study by the University of Maryland Medical Center found that having mentors that exhibit healthy habits prevented schoolchildren from becoming overweight for at least 2 years after the intervention.


The House of Representatives will have to pass its version of the Healthy Hunger-free Kids act in time for the President to sign it before September 30th when it is set to expire, without risking the loss of any of the newly appointed funding.

http://www.examiner.com/x-55054-Bal...es-to-decrease-hunger-and-obesity-in-children

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe I don't Sky, but I've seen it first hand, up close and personal, and I know of what I speak. You can sugar coat anything and make it look like the Federal government is doing something noble and wonderful and necessary and all that, but you can make it look like that only by not looking at 90% of the unintended consequences and legacy of it.

Laura Ingraham got it right.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Maybe I don't Sky, but I've seen it first hand, up close and personal, and I know of what I speak. You can sugar coat anything and make it look like the Federal government is doing something noble and wonderful and necessary and all that, but you can make it look like that only by not looking at 90% of the unintended consequences and legacy of it.

Laura Ingraham got it right.

Bull.


Scientists found that children who went hungry at least once in their lives were 2½ times more likely to have poor overall health 10 to 15 years later, compared with those who never had to go without food. "Our research shows that hunger and food insecurity are really damaging in terms of children's life chances," says lead author Sharon Kirkpatrick, a visiting fellow at NCI.

The study supports earlier findings that multiple episodes of hunger are more likely to cause ill health than an isolated experience of starvation: children in Kirkpatrick's analysis who experienced two or more periods of hunger were more than four times as likely to report poor health than those who never went hungry. The relationship, she says, remained strong even after the team accounted for other factors that could influence health, such as age, sex and household characteristics like income.

Even one experience of hunger can have lasting effects on a child's health, a fact that is especially troubling in light of the sobering rise in U.S. households that were forced to do without food in 2008: 15% of American families reported some compromise in the amount or quality of food they consumed, up from 11% the previous year.

Pediatricians propose enhancing and expanding existing child-nutrition programs made possible through legislation like the Child Nutrition Program Act, which provides funding for food and nutrition efforts, including the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, to ensure that more children get the food they need. "The research really pushes us to look at the impact that various policy interventions on food insecurity can have on health," says Kirkpatrick. "It's unacceptable that in countries like the U.S. and Canada, we're talking about millions of children living in households with uncertain food access."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2008240,00.html#ixzz0vrcp7wtb

 

[Foxfyre]

That ain't no bull.

But unless they've experienced it first hand, some folks don't know the difference.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That ain't no bull.

But unless they've experienced it first hand, some folks don't know the difference.

Aren't you the same gal who wants to eliminate all government hunger programs?

 

[Foxfyre]

That ain't no bull.

But unless they've experienced it first hand, some folks don't know the difference.

Aren't you the same gal who wants to eliminate all government hunger programs?

Don't believe I've ever discussed it.

I am opposed to any of that done at the Federal level though. Far more efficient, effective, economical, and of real benefit when done locally.

 

[Sky Dancer]

That ain't no bull.

But unless they've experienced it first hand, some folks don't know the difference.

Aren't you the same gal who wants to eliminate all government hunger programs?

Don't believe I've ever discussed it.

I am opposed to any of that done at the Federal level though. Far more efficient, effective, economical, and of real benefit when done locally.

So it were up to you, no more food stamps, school lunch. women infants children' program etc.? Federal programs are already administered by states and counties.

In lieu of what? Faith based charities only?

 

[Foxfyre]

Aren't you the same gal who wants to eliminate all government hunger programs?

Don't believe I've ever discussed it.

I am opposed to any of that done at the Federal level though. Far more efficient, effective, economical, and of real benefit when done locally.

So it were up to you, no more food stamps, school lunch. women infants children' program etc.? Federal programs are already administered by states and counties.

In lieu of what? Faith based charities only?

In lieu of anything that is efficient, effective, economical and of real benefit. And that lets the Federal government pretty much out of anythng like that.