Is There Anything The Feds Don't Want to Control?

[Kathianne]

They can't get a budget passed, but they can decide what fundraisers and calorie counts should be in lunches? Give me a break! Parents have many options here, now the government should supplant them?

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2010-12-03-US-Bake-Sales/id-5321294162324cd7b0928fbd842f85c2


Dec. 3, 2010 4:44 PM ET
Hold the brownies! Bill could limit bake sales
MARY CLARE JALONICKMARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press


WASHINGTON (AP) — Don't touch my brownies!

A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.

"This could be a real train wreck for school districts," Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. "The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level."

...

[Mr. P]

They can't get a budget passed, but they can decide what fundraisers and calorie counts should be in lunches? Give me a break! Parents have many options here, now the government should supplant them?

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2010-12-03-US-Bake-Sales/id-5321294162324cd7b0928fbd842f85c2
Does this mean they'll stop serving Hamburgers and Pizza in the cafeteria for lunch? I doubt it.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Moochille is just upset that she's such a fat Hog and if she can't have goodies then nobody should

[logroller]

I must admit, I don't like the government telling my kids what they can or can't eat, but many parents don't teach their kids about healthy eating habits. With diabetes at an all-time high and gov't sponsored healthcare costs rising astronomically, the outlook for the next generation is grim.
My wife teaches at a low income school and they have 90%+ free and reduced lunches. They don't allow pizza parties or bake sales during school hours because it reduces their funding. Not to mention, some kids might get their only healthy meals from school; it's sad , but it's reality. So when I read this story, I don't think of the impact upon myself, but that of a child whose best care comes during school hours. Respecting this, I hope they receive the best treatment available. I think school fundraising could find some other product or service.

[BoogyMan]

Is there any portion of the existence of the modern American that the Obamas don't want to have control of?


A child nutrition bill on its way to President Barack Obama — and championed by the first lady — gives the government power to limit school bake sales and other fundraisers that health advocates say sometimes replace wholesome meals in the lunchroom.

Republicans, notably Sarah Palin, and public school organizations decry the bill as an unnecessary intrusion on a common practice often used to raise money.

“This could be a real train wreck for school districts,” Lucy Gettman of the National School Boards Association said Friday, a day after the House cleared the bill. “The federal government should not be in the business of regulating this kind of activity at the local level.”

The legislation, part of first lady Michelle Obama’s campaign to stem childhood obesity, provides more meals at school for needy kids, including dinner, and directs the Agriculture Department to write guidelines to make those meals healthier. The legislation would apply to all foods sold in schools during regular class hours, including in the cafeteria line, vending machines and at fundraisers.

It wouldn’t apply to after-hours events or concession stands at sports events.

.: Read the rest of this article :. (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/hold-the-brownies-obama-set-to-sign-bill-limiting-school-bake-sales/)

[Kathianne]

I must admit, I don't like the government telling my kids what they can or can't eat, but many parents don't teach their kids about healthy eating habits. With diabetes at an all-time high and gov't sponsored healthcare costs rising astronomically, the outlook for the next generation is grim.
My wife teaches at a low income school and they have 90%+ free and reduced lunches. They don't allow pizza parties or bake sales during school hours because it reduces their funding. Not to mention, some kids might get their only healthy meals from school; it's sad , but it's reality. So when I read this story, I don't think of the impact upon myself, but that of a child whose best care comes during school hours. Respecting this, I hope they receive the best treatment available. I think school fundraising could find some other product or service.

Schools have every right to make their own decisions, parents have the right to voice their concerns, students have a right to eat the lunch or not. None of them need Uncle Sammy and his minions making decisions on this level.

[BoogyMan]

LOL, I see that another astute conservative was on this before I got it posted.

Thanks for the merge. :thumb:

What level of ridiculousness would the cradle to grave control crowd consider to be too much control?

[red states rule]

I must admit, I don't like the government telling my kids what they can or can't eat, but many parents don't teach their kids about healthy eating habits. With diabetes at an all-time high and gov't sponsored healthcare costs rising astronomically, the outlook for the next generation is grim.
My wife teaches at a low income school and they have 90%+ free and reduced lunches. They don't allow pizza parties or bake sales during school hours because it reduces their funding. Not to mention, some kids might get their only healthy meals from school; it's sad , but it's reality. So when I read this story, I don't think of the impact upon myself, but that of a child whose best care comes during school hours. Respecting this, I hope they receive the best treatment available. I think school fundraising could find some other product or service.

So the government must step in since the government knows better then the parents? I am so fed up with the nanny state liberals constantly telling us what is for our own good - and then demanding I pay for their do gooder programs

One of the major reason the cst of healthcare is going up is because of Obamacare

and with all due respct, there is no such thing as "free or reduced" lunches" Someone is paying for the full cost of the food and chances are it is the much attacked upper 1% of the earners

[logroller]

Schools have every right to make their own decisions, parents have the right to voice their concerns, students have a right to eat the lunch or not. None of them need Uncle Sammy and his minions making decisions on this level.

I share your displeasure with current conditions, but the issue is more complicated than partisen politics. The more pertinent issue is that of federal funding being used to circumvent local legislation. A similar tactic was used to force states' adoption .08 BAC as a dui or face cuts in federal highway funds. Currently, if a school accepts federal funding, they must behave according to federal guidelines. Federal funding is necessary for many schools, especially those in poor areas. Is this fair to the rich, of course not; but the government actions regarding education are bounded by judicial rulings which promote equality. Specifically, how separate but equal standards failed to provide equal conditions. The Fed's realized schools were more easily conformed when funding was utilized as means of enforcing equality. Attribution of this issue to one president's actions is short-sighted, these conditions have existed for decades.



What level of ridiculousness would the cradle to grave control crowd consider to be too much control?

I believe you have confused control with protection, as it makes a stronger statement-- just not a valid one. Policy initiatives are implemented by government agencies according to cost/ benefit analysis; instigated by Reagan's Exec. Order 12291. Such analysis aren't inconsiderate of public scrutiny, but economic considerations being justified, they are observed nonetheless.

To answer the question as to the extent gov't protection is warranted:
I believe the food provided at schools should prescribe to a federal health standard, but I don't believe the schools have any right to control what I send in my own child's lunch.

Bake sales, if on campus and during school hours, are school sponsored and should prescribe to the same standards as cafeteria lunches. I am not saying force feed kids healthy food, but I've raised my kids to eat healthy foods, and given the alternative between an apple and a brownie, they would likely choose the brownie. (Now I want brownies, mmmmm :laugh:)
In my own home, my choice; at public school, public government's choice. If I don't like it, I am free to send my kids to a private school free from gov't funding and protections; but without such funding, it would be at my expense. I'm still free to choose, only with a financial coersion towards gov't subsidized education. So I don't see how freedom has fell prey to government control, we remain free to choose otherwise. (checkout Wisconsin v Yoder )

The question, as I see it, is should we profit from kids who develop bad eating habits because their parents are too lazy or uninformed to teach them otherwise? Based on libertarian principles of freedom, yes; but who bears the responsibility for the costs of such decisions: the individual, community or society as a whole? I'm not defending obama's solution, but there is a problem with kids not being raised right by their parents. I find it hard, with good conscience, to say let 'em die, it was their decision to eat poorly -- does this make me a bleeding-heart liberal? I don't mean this sarcastically, I believe in liberty and freedom from gov't interference, but with it come pretty grave consequences that government is ultimately responsible to address.


So the government must step in since the government knows better then the parents? I am so fed up with the nanny state liberals constantly telling us what is for our own good - and then demanding I pay for their do gooder programs

The belief in freedom is for "responsible" units, among whom we include neither children nor insane people. - milton friedman

In some cases, yes; the government does know better than the parents. But the government must apply their standards equally, not just upon the few. *see my previous post*



One of the major reason the cst of healthcare is going up is because of Obamacare

I'm no fan of socialized healthcare, but programs, like medicare/medicaid etc, existed before 2008. Healthcare costs have been rising long before Obama came into politics. Health insurance is the cause of the problem; inflating the costs and making those 1%ers that much richer. I can't help but hope the funding of universal gov't insurance would take the wind out of the sails of the insurance special interest and turn the tide on increasing costs. I pay for my own healthcare and I don't want to pay for other peoples' medical, but when 50% of bankruptcies result from medical debt, we're paying for it already.


and with all due respct, there is no such thing as "free or reduced" lunches" Someone is paying for the full cost of the food and chances are it is the much attacked upper 1% of the earners

How much respect do you really have if you believe I don't know "Free or reduced" means someone else foots the bill. Not to mention the intimate relations between the Dept. of Agriculture farm subsidies and government food programs. But I digress...

[Kathianne]

I share your displeasure with current conditions, but the issue is more complicated than partisen politics. The more pertinent issue is that of federal funding being used to circumvent local legislation. A similar tactic was used to force states' adoption .08 BAC as a dui or face cuts in federal highway funds. Currently, if a school accepts federal funding, they must behave according to federal guidelines. Federal funding is necessary for many schools, especially those in poor areas. Is this fair to the rich, of course not; but the government actions regarding education are bounded by judicial rulings which promote equality. Specifically, how separate but equal standards failed to provide equal conditions. The Fed's realized schools were more easily conformed when funding was utilized as means of enforcing equality. Attribution of this issue to one president's actions is short-sighted, these conditions have existed for decades.



I believe you have confused control with protection, as it makes a stronger statement-- just not a valid one. Policy initiatives are implemented by government agencies according to cost/ benefit analysis; instigated by Reagan's Exec. Order 12291. Such analysis aren't inconsiderate of public scrutiny, but economic considerations being justified, they are observed nonetheless.

To answer the question as to the extent gov't protection is warranted:
I believe the food provided at schools should prescribe to a federal health standard, but I don't believe the schools have any right to control what I send in my own child's lunch.

Bake sales, if on campus and during school hours, are school sponsored and should prescribe to the same standards as cafeteria lunches. I am not saying force feed kids healthy food, but I've raised my kids to eat healthy foods, and given the alternative between an apple and a brownie, they would likely choose the brownie. (Now I want brownies, mmmmm :laugh:)
In my own home, my choice; at public school, public government's choice. If I don't like it, I am free to send my kids to a private school free from gov't funding and protections; but without such funding, it would be at my expense. I'm still free to choose, only with a financial coersion towards gov't subsidized education. So I don't see how freedom has fell prey to government control, we remain free to choose otherwise. (checkout Wisconsin v Yoder )

The question, as I see it, is should we profit from kids who develop bad eating habits because their parents are too lazy or uninformed to teach them otherwise? Based on libertarian principles of freedom, yes; but who bears the responsibility for the costs of such decisions: the individual, community or society as a whole? I'm not defending obama's solution, but there is a problem with kids not being raised right by their parents. I find it hard, with good conscience, to say let 'em die, it was their decision to eat poorly -- does this make me a bleeding-heart liberal? I don't mean this sarcastically, I believe in liberty and freedom from gov't interference, but with it come pretty grave consequences that government is ultimately responsible to address.

Sorry, this argument that it's 'for the kids' is the same logic as NAZI Youth Camps for building future soldiers and bearers of the stronger Aryan children for the fatherland. The state should raise the children? I think not.

Later you move onto government 'keeping kids alive' through calorie counts. Well that may be my hyperbole on top of yours, but it really was your point.

The government cannot follow the kids home, yet. Nor can it be there when they wake up, yet. So if they or their parents are determined to make them into fat little folks, there is no justification for the state to assume such powers.

[red states rule]

The belief in freedom is for "responsible" units, among whom we include neither children nor insane people. - milton friedman

In some cases, yes; the government does know better than the parents. But the government must apply their standards equally, not just upon the few. *see my previous post*




I'm no fan of socialized healthcare, but programs, like medicare/medicaid etc, existed before 2008. Healthcare costs have been rising long before Obama came into politics. Health insurance is the cause of the problem; inflating the costs and making those 1%ers that much richer. I can't help but hope the funding of universal gov't insurance would take the wind out of the sails of the insurance special interest and turn the tide on increasing costs. I pay for my own healthcare and I don't want to pay for other peoples' medical, but when 50% of bankruptcies result from medical debt, we're paying for it already.



How much respect do you really have if you believe I don't know "Free or reduced" means someone else foots the bill. Not to mention the intimate relations between the Dept. of Agriculture farm subsidies and government food programs. But I digress...

We have all seen the resultsof government knowing better

The Dept of Energy was created 40 years ago to wean America off foreign oil. How many trillions of taxpayer dollars has been wasted on this?

The Dept of Education was set up to improve the learning of our kids.How many trillions of taxpayer dollars has been wasted on this?

We are seeing the reults of Obamacare across the nation. The cost of insurance is going up, insurance companies are cencelling coverage (as well as employers and unions) and the deficit is soaring

I am always amazed when someone says the government knows better

[logroller]

Sorry, this argument that it's 'for the kids' is the same logic as NAZI Youth Camps for building future soldiers and bearers of the stronger Aryan children for the fatherland. The state should raise the children? I think not.

Later you move onto government 'keeping kids alive' through calorie counts. Well that may be my hyperbole on top of yours, but it really was your point.

The government cannot follow the kids home, yet. Nor can it be there when they wake up, yet. So if they or their parents are determined to make them into fat little folks, there is no justification for the state to assume such powers.

Yeah, I'm a NAZI. I can't dispute your evidence. :rolleyes:

What I really meant to say is it's time to round up all these terrible parents and put them to work in prison camps. I'll give the kids extra rations for outing their parents and others who are against the government cause. It's time for everyone to move beyond the 'nannystate' BS and do their part to support the fatherland!

NOW THAT'S HYPERBOLE!!!

"Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat." Hermann Goering


***check out Godwin's Law*** Kathianne made it happen in 11 posts--Way to go!:clap: When in doubt, call 'em a NAZI!

[SassyLady]

Using Nazi and Hitler are reference points .... and who cares what Goodwin's law is. If someone references either it's not to call you a Nazi or Hitler ... just as people are beginning to compare America to the Roman civilization that collapsed....a reference point if you know your history.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, I'm a NAZI. I can't dispute your evidence. :rolleyes:

What I really meant to say is it's time to round up all these terrible parents and put them to work in prison camps. I'll give the kids extra rations for outing their parents and others who are against the government cause. It's time for everyone to move beyond the 'nannystate' BS and do their part to support the fatherland!

NOW THAT'S HYPERBOLE!!!

"Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat." Hermann Goering


***check out Godwin's Law*** Kathianne made it happen in 11 posts--Way to go!:clap: When in doubt, call 'em a NAZI!

Hmm, if you think the comparison is false, explain how. More hyperbole doesn't.

Ahh, if the state can make the trains run on time and get thinner children, then it's ok for the state to make the rules? You do know that many thought that Mussolini in particular and Hitler to a lesser extent really were good leaders, for just these types of successes. That there's humor now found in the comparisons, doesn't make the observation false.

[logroller]

Hmm, if you think the comparison is false, explain how. More hyperbole doesn't.

Ahh, if the state can make the trains run on time and get thinner children, then it's ok for the state to make the rules? You do know that many thought that Mussolini in particular and Hitler to a lesser extent really were good leaders, for just these types of successes. That there's humor now found in the comparisons, doesn't make the observation false.
Nazis aren't funny.(image search nazi germany and see how many laughs you get!)


You marginalized my justification for federal health standards for school lunches by hyperbole first. So far as your comparison, it does hold some water. However, given the broader context of such reference, respective of statewide administered genocide, it better serves to incite fear and defensive posturing to avoid the appearance of being sympathetic to the atrocities which are forever linked to NAZI Germany. Don't marginalize genocide to prove a minor point, that's what Godwin's Law was meant to evoke: remembrance of the atrocities.

Anybody like family feud? 100 people are asked what Hitler and Mussolini are known for-- How many respondants say great leadership, ontime trains and thinner children? You see my point...

[logroller]

Nazis aren't funny.(image search nazi germany and see how many laughs you get!)

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/n/nazi_germany.asp

ok, maybe some of these cartoons are funny; I stand corrected!

[Kathianne]

Nazis aren't funny.(image search nazi germany and see how many laughs you get!)


You marginalized my justification for federal health standards for school lunches by hyperbole first. So far as your comparison, it does hold some water. However, given the broader context of such reference, respective of statewide administered genocide, it better serves to incite fear and defensive posturing to avoid the appearance of being sympathetic to the atrocities which are forever linked to NAZI Germany. Don't marginalize genocide to prove a minor point, that's what Godwin's Law was meant to evoke: remembrance of the atrocities.

Anybody like family feud? 100 people are asked what Hitler and Mussolini are known for-- How many respondants say great leadership, ontime trains and thinner children? You see my point...

Actually your justification for government intervening in the minutia of everyday life, is very much on target for early fascist regimes. To deny the similarities, which you already admitted, is to act as if the genocidal regime of the last 3 years of the war, sprung out of nothing. It didn't. I took the acquiescence, of first the people, then the state, and then other countries acknowledging its legitimacy. See the point?

[Palin Rider]

Sorry, this argument that it's 'for the kids' is the same logic as NAZI Youth Camps for building future soldiers and bearers of the stronger Aryan children for the fatherland. The state should raise the children? I think not.

How the hell did you get from nutrition requirements in schools to state-run paramilitary youth camps?!?
:slap:

[Kathianne]

How the hell did you get from nutrition requirements in schools to state-run paramilitary youth camps?!?
:slap:

It's the principles, read the thread. Even logroller agreed.

[Palin Rider]

It's the principles, read the thread. Even logroller agreed.

Logroller agreed to being a Nazi? :laugh2:

If you actually stuck by this so-called principle of yours, you would be totally opposed to any form of public education. Which you're obviously not.

You're trying to construct some kind of "slippery slope" argument here, but we all know that's just a rhetorical fallacy.

[Kathianne]

Logroller agreed to being a Nazi? :laugh2:

If you actually stuck by this so-called principle of yours, you would be totally opposed to any form of public education. Which you're obviously not.

You're trying to construct some kind of "slippery slope" argument here, but we all know that's just a rhetorical fallacy.

Not at all. You are the one playing rhetorical games. BTW, I don't believe the Federal government has any business in education. Not even the state has the right to interfere on the level proposed on individual schools in this manner.

I wasn't calling him a NAZI, not at first and not later. That was his rhetoric which you were happy to play with. No slippery slope either, just recognize analogies when presented.

[Palin Rider]

I don't believe the Federal government has any business in education.
So you're okay with some states having no educational system at all?


Not even the state has the right to interfere on the level proposed on individual schools in this manner.
Then explain where the state DOES have business in education. What are the minimum and maximum thresholds for government involvement in state-run schools?


No slippery slope either, just recognize analogies when presented.
Still waiting to hear how nutrition is analogous to paramilitary training.

[Kathianne]

So you're okay with some states having no educational system at all?

Which state doesn't require compulsory education?

Then explain where the state DOES have business in education. What are the minimum and maximum thresholds for government involvement in state-run schools?

States have the right to set age requirements, teacher standards, state standards & objectives. They have the right to administer those requirements through an accreditation process that they devise.
Still waiting to hear how nutrition is analogous to paramilitary training.

I'm not rehashing the thread. Read or don't.

[Palin Rider]

Then explain where the state DOES have business in education. What are the minimum and maximum thresholds for government involvement in state-run schools?

States have the right to set age requirements, teacher standards, state standards & objectives. They have the right to administer those requirements through an accreditation process that they devise.
What about seeing to the student's and staff's well-being while on campus? To their safety?



Still waiting to hear how nutrition is analogous to paramilitary training.I'm not rehashing the thread. Read or don't.

You made the point. That makes you responsible for defending it or conceding it. Want everyone to see you duck out on your responsibility yet again? Okay, no loss for me.

[logroller]

[QUOTE=Kathianne;453494]Actually your justification for government intervening in the minutia of everyday life, is very much on target for early fascist regimes. [\QUOTE]

The above explanation is sound and valid, without hyperbole. Of course I see your point Kathianne. I wish to preserve my rights as well and we may differ on the best path to do so; that is a defining role of government. Please understand, I may defend a position, in the interest of stimulating debate, that don't necessarily reflect my personal views but that of public policy; as personal and public interests, inevitably, aren't congruent.

[Palin Rider]

Actually your justification for government intervening in the minutia of everyday life, is very much on target for early fascist regimes.

The above explanation is sound and valid, without hyperbole.

Thanks for clearing that up, LR.

[logroller]

Not at all. You are the one playing rhetorical games. BTW, I don't believe the Federal government has any business in education. Not even the state has the right to interfere on the level proposed on individual schools in this manner.

I wasn't calling him a NAZI, not at first and not later. That was his rhetoric which you were happy to play with. No slippery slope either, just recognize analogies when presented.

I'm no nazi BTW, just to clear the air. I just wish people would consider the implication of making a, comparably, petty argument using such analogies. But Kath reworded herself accordinging to fascist regimes, to which I am obliged to concede her point.

The main reason the founders rebelled against the crown was taxation w/o representation. Which makes sense; if one is paying for it, they have a right to demand a say in how the funds are spent. I previously mentioned how Fed funds are used to express control over state-run operations, but received no commentary as to this being problematic, or more importantly how to change it. That is the problem, presidential agendas against bakesales is a condition. If one agrees we have this problem, what would they purpose we do, individually or collectively, to correct it?

[Palin Rider]

The main reason the founders rebelled against the crown was taxation w/o representation. Which makes sense; if one is paying for it, they have a right to demand a say in how the funds are spent. I previously mentioned how Fed funds are used to express control over state-run operations, but received no commentary as to this being problematic, or more importantly how to change it. That is the problem, presidential agendas against bakesales is a condition.

Running our public education system at a national level rather than a state level might be a lot more practical than it would have been a few generations ago...

[BoogyMan]

I believe you have confused control with protection, as it makes a stronger statement-- just not a valid one. Policy initiatives are implemented by government agencies according to cost/ benefit analysis; instigated by Reagan's Exec. Order 12291. Such analysis aren't inconsiderate of public scrutiny, but economic considerations being justified, they are observed nonetheless.

No, I know exactly what I meant and I posted EXACTLY what I was thinking. The feds seem to be determined to control every aspect of the lives of American citizens; from cradle to grave.


To answer the question as to the extent gov't protection is warranted:
I believe the food provided at schools should prescribe to a federal health standard, but I don't believe the schools have any right to control what I send in my own child's lunch.

Cafeteria lunches DO subscribe to governmental dietary standards, we are now discussing bake sales. This is a ridiculous level of control and intrusion by the government.


Bake sales, if on campus and during school hours, are school sponsored and should prescribe to the same standards as cafeteria lunches. I am not saying force feed kids healthy food, but I've raised my kids to eat healthy foods, and given the alternative between an apple and a brownie, they would likely choose the brownie. (Now I want brownies, mmmmm :laugh:)

I have to think our government has bigger problems than controlling the goodies sold at school bake sales. Does this now mean that the band boosters can no longer sell cookies, etc? The lengths to which this kind of ridiculous and intrusive thought will wind up going are mind boggling. You and I both know that it won't stop at bake sales.


In my own home, my choice; at public school, public government's choice. If I don't like it, I am free to send my kids to a private school free from gov't funding and protections; but without such funding, it would be at my expense. I'm still free to choose, only with a financial coersion towards gov't subsidized education. So I don't see how freedom has fell prey to government control, we remain free to choose otherwise. (checkout Wisconsin v Yoder )

This, once again, is a ridiculous level of control and intrusion.


The question, as I see it, is should we profit from kids who develop bad eating habits because their parents are too lazy or uninformed to teach them otherwise? Based on libertarian principles of freedom, yes; but who bears the responsibility for the costs of such decisions: the individual, community or society as a whole? I'm not defending obama's solution, but there is a problem with kids not being raised right by their parents. I find it hard, with good conscience, to say let 'em die, it was their decision to eat poorly -- does this make me a bleeding-heart liberal? I don't mean this sarcastically, I believe in liberty and freedom from gov't interference, but with it come pretty grave consequences that government is ultimately responsible to address.

The question is, should the government control our every action and thought? The answer is a resounding no. The government is responsible to deal with the things the constitution outlines, controlling the content of a school bake sale is not in any version that I have ever read.

[Kathianne]

What about seeing to the student's and staff's well-being while on campus? To their safety?



You made the point. That makes you responsible for defending it or conceding it. Want everyone to see you duck out on your responsibility yet again? Okay, no loss for me.

The student and staff safety regarding fire and building codes is the responsibility of the municipality. The well-being and safety on campus is the responsibility of the school and the municipality. What part of the federalist system do you fail to understand?

[Kathianne]

Thanks for clearing that up, LR.

He 'cleared that up' by using my quote. Really bothers you, no? PR. :coffee:

[Kathianne]

I'm no nazi BTW, just to clear the air. I just wish people would consider the implication of making a, comparably, petty argument using such analogies. But Kath reworded herself accordinging to fascist regimes, to which I am obliged to concede her point.

The main reason the founders rebelled against the crown was taxation w/o representation. Which makes sense; if one is paying for it, they have a right to demand a say in how the funds are spent. I previously mentioned how Fed funds are used to express control over state-run operations, but received no commentary as to this being problematic, or more importantly how to change it. That is the problem, presidential agendas against bakesales is a condition. If one agrees we have this problem, what would they purpose we do, individually or collectively, to correct it?

I don't think that bake sales are a societal problem-some schools might see a connection between them and nutrition goals that the school teaches. The school administration might choose another way to raise money or forgo fundraising altogether. Their choice. The parents or community might disagree, they can bring it to the school board or principal themselves. They may or not find satisfaction, but that is the way to address the issue, if the parents are not motivated on their own.

[Kathianne]

Running our public education system at a national level rather than a state level might be a lot more practical than it would have been a few generations ago...

But is it really in the best interests of the schools, the communities, and society in general? You might say, 'yes', if you figure it would expand your agenda; but what if instead you have a federal government implementing programs you strongly disagree with?

There are sound reasons for the system of federated government, distribution of power, and checks and balances.

[Palin Rider]

But is it really in the best interests of the schools, the communities, and society in general? You might say, 'yes', if you figure it would expand your agenda; but what if instead you have a federal government implementing programs you strongly disagree with?
I don't know. How is the federal government's implementing programs I disagree with somehow worse than my state government's doing the same thing?


There are sound reasons for the system of federated government, distribution of power, and checks and balances.And how do they impact public education?

[Palin Rider]

He 'cleared that up' by using my quote. Really bothers you, no? PR. :coffee:

What is it about the difference between "early fascist states" and the Nazis that you fail to understand? :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

What is it about the difference between "early fascist states" and the Nazis that you fail to understand? :rolleyes:

When did the Nazis come to power? When did they begin genocide? What don't you understand?

[Palin Rider]

When did the Nazis come to power? When did they begin genocide? What don't you understand?

You're losing, and you know it, but keep going. ;)

[Kathianne]

You're losing, and you know it, but keep going. ;)

:laugh2: I know you were hoping that Logroller would post something you could build upon. He still might, at least he's able to. The difference is he knows how to read and analyze, useful things those.

[Palin Rider]

:laugh2: I know you were hoping that Logroller would post something you could build upon.

Of course I was. God forbid you should ever answer a substantive question from me.

[Kathianne]

Of course I was. God forbid you should ever answer a substantive question from me.

:boohoo: When you actually pose a substantive question or comment, you will get a reply. Truth is, conversing with you is like looking for a bandaid from a thousand cuts. Not my style or patience level.

[SassyLady]

:boohoo: When you actually pose a substantive question or comment, you will get a reply. Truth is, conversing with you is like looking for a bandaid from a thousand cuts. Not my style or patience level.

I've also noticed this phenom, Kathi. PR likes the one-liner quips ... nothing substantial. Like a gnat buzzing around ... easily ignored....but a bumblebee!!!? Now, that needs to be addressed.

[Palin Rider]

:boohoo: When you actually pose a substantive question or comment, you will get a reply. Truth is, conversing with you is like looking for a bandaid from a thousand cuts. Not my style or patience level.

If you're as great a teacher as you say, it should be no trouble at all to explain your position(s) - whatever they may be - in a clear, persuasive way that any poor beknighted soul like me can understand. :laugh2:

[logroller]

No, I know exactly what I meant and I posted EXACTLY what I was thinking. The feds seem to be determined to control every aspect of the lives of American citizens; from cradle to grave..

"Every aspect ", really? Read my sig. Comments such as this reek of your frustration, which I can understand. However, in the interests of solving the problems which ail our country we must posture ourselves with reason, rather than anger and outrage.


Cafeteria lunches DO subscribe to governmental dietary standards, we are now discussing bake sales. This is a ridiculous level of control and intrusion by the government..

My comment qualified "food provided at school, during school hours." You can still have a bake sale on weekends, or after school or at your house or lots of places and times; just not during the hours where children are learning from authorities which should be held to a higher standard than the common citizen.


I have to think our government has bigger problems than controlling the goodies sold at school bake sales. Does this now mean that the band boosters can no longer sell cookies, etc? The lengths to which this kind of ridiculous and intrusive thought will wind up going are mind boggling. You and I both know that it won't stop at bake sales..

Superficially I agree with you about "better things to worry about". However, I deduce this is an attempt to curb childhood obesity, a well-known threat to our youths' well-being. Why peddling over-priced cookiedough is some highly-valued freedom, I can't understand, and I don't purpose this alone is the contributing factor. When at school, during the hours where educating our youths is the primary goal, children being catered junk food is detrimental to their well-being(feel free to argue junk food is good for kids)! The "this is just the start" "slippery slope" analogy is getting repetitive. Won't you even concede there exists an obesity problem in our society and the condition among our youths exemplifies a need for change. If gov't doesn't do something to try and stop it, will you? What do you purpose? Give me your solution since gov't intervention is so abhorrent!



The question is, should the government control our every action and thought? The answer is a resounding no. The government is responsible to deal with the things the constitution outlines, controlling the content of a school bake sale is not in any version that I have ever read.

How did you get from "no junk food provided at school" to "controlling our every thought" Is there something troubling you besides the issue we're discussing that caused you to jump to such a conclusion?

[Kathianne]

"Every aspect ", really? Read my sig. Comments such as this reek of your frustration, which I can understand. However, in the interests of solving the problems which ail our country we must posture ourselves with reason, rather than anger and outrage.



My comment qualified "food provided at school, during school hours." You can still have a bake sale on weekends, or after school or at your house or lots of places and times; just not during the hours where children are learning from authorities which should be held to a higher standard than the common citizen.



Superficially I agree with you about "better things to worry about". However, I deduce this is an attempt to curb childhood obesity, a well-known threat to our youths' well-being. Why peddling over-priced cookiedough is some highly-valued freedom, I can't understand, and I don't purpose this alone is the contributing factor. When at school, during the hours where educating our youths is the primary goal, children being catered junk food is detrimental to their well-being(feel free to argue junk food is good for kids)! The "this is just the start" "slippery slope" analogy is getting repetitive. Won't you even concede there exists an obesity problem in our society and the condition among our youths exemplifies a need for change. If gov't doesn't do something to try and stop it, will you? What do you purpose? Give me your solution since gov't intervention is so abhorrent!




How did you get from "no junk food provided at school" to "controlling our every thought" Is there something troubling you besides the issue we're discussing that caused you to jump to such a conclusion?

Logroller, why would you advocate the Federal Government be involved on this level regarding such an issue? You don't find the local school board or principal capable? Why not advocate that your school 'educate parents' regarding nutrition and obesity? Oh they are? How is the fed going to fix that problem, if people just are not listening?

[Kathianne]

If you're as great a teacher as you say, it should be no trouble at all to explain your position(s) - whatever they may be - in a clear, persuasive way that any poor beknighted soul like me can understand. :laugh2:

See above post, no use in your http://serve.mysmiley.net/sad/sad0068.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net).

[Palin Rider]

I've also noticed this phenom, Kathi. PR likes the one-liner quips ... nothing substantial. Like a gnat buzzing around ... easily ignored....but a bumblebee!!!? Now, that needs to be addressed.

You say I'm easily ignored, and yet you rarely ignore me!

I guess I must titillate you somehow... :lmao:

[SassyLady]

You say I'm easily ignored, and yet you rarely ignore me!

I guess I must titillate you somehow... :lmao:

Yep, can't resist petting the puppy when he keeps jumping around begging for attention.....guess I have a soft heart after all.

[Palin Rider]

Yep, can't resist petting the puppy when he keeps jumping around begging for attention.....guess I have a soft heart after all.

Oh great, now I've got an image of you performing lewd acts on a puppy. Thanks a lot. :laugh:

[logroller]

:laugh2: I know you were hoping that Logroller would post something you could build upon. He still might, at least he's able to. The difference is he knows how to read and analyze, useful things those.


Of course I was. God forbid you should ever answer a substantive question from me.


:boohoo: When you actually pose a substantive question or comment, you will get a reply. Truth is, conversing with you is like looking for a bandaid from a thousand cuts. Not my style or patience level.


If you're as great a teacher as you say, it should be no trouble at all to explain your position(s) - whatever they may be - in a clear, persuasive way that any poor beknighted soul like me can understand. :laugh2:


See above post, no use in your http://serve.mysmiley.net/sad/sad0068.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net).

I still value your insights, despite the bickering.

[Palin Rider]

I still value your insights, despite the bickering.

If only she'd defend them once in a while, it would be fun to have discussions with her.

[logroller]

I don't think that bake sales are a societal problem-some schools might see a connection between them and nutrition goals that the school teaches. The school administration might choose another way to raise money or forgo fundraising altogether. Their choice. The parents or community might disagree, they can bring it to the school board or principal themselves. They may or not find satisfaction, but that is the way to address the issue, if the parents are not motivated on their own.

Excellent point. I'm compelled to agree:)

[Kathianne]

If only she'd defend them once in a while, it would be fun to have discussions with her.

You might notice if you read other posters that I do defend and argue, sometimes vehemently, with those I think can do the same. Sorry PR, you just annoy for the most part, you throw out bits of insubstantial prattle.

[Palin Rider]

You might notice if you read other posters that I do defend and argue, sometimes vehemently, with those I think can do the same. Sorry PR, you just annoy for the most part, you throw out bits of insubstantial prattle.

With an attitude like that, it's hardly a surprise that you have so many problems in the real world.

[logroller]

I know how heated debates can get:poke:, I kind of get a thrill out of it and I'm not the only one:laugh:; but we must remind ourselves that love, the manifestation of respect and understanding, is the foundation of every greatness mankind is capable. Love defies reason, what else can you give away and never run out? Not to sound all hippie-dippy, but I never cease to be amazed how good it feels to sacrifice my passion!

Anybody on a hot topic thread?

[Palin Rider]

I know how heated debates can get:poke:, I kind of get a thrill out of it and I'm not the only one:laugh:; but we must remind ourselves that love, the manifestation of respect and understanding, is the foundation of every greatness mankind is capable. Love defies reason, what else can you give away and never run out? Not to sound all hippie-dippy, but I never cease to be amazed how good it feels to sacrifice my passion!

Sadly, you're going to find a disturbingly high number of people around here who would rather hate than do anything else.

[logroller]

How is the fed going to fix that problem, if people just are not listening?

How do we fix ignorance? Education I suppose, but its no fixall. I think the method of learning and challenging our paradigm is the key. Entropy prevails among most all things, take this debate forum for example; no sooner does one post an objection to a common belief than a barrage of attack likely ensues. Even when one side is right, the otherside is more inclined to reject their argument wholly based on previous beliefs, regardless of substiated cause; this is ignorance and we all commit such acts.

I surmise the methods used in response to a challenge, define the likelihood of positive results; 'means vs end'. I am relatively new to this forum, but I have already begun to adapt my methodology, not to change anyone's views but to challenge the methods used to contruct such opinions. I believe actively engaging in open debate both evokes and preserves our liberty. If we remain unwilling to challenge our own views, we can't effectively challenge another's.

[SassyLady]

With an attitude like that, it's hardly a surprise that you have so many problems in the real world.

This is a cheap shot and way over the line PR ... and you wonder why you are so disliked around here.

[SassyLady]

Sadly, you're going to find a disturbingly high number of people around here who would rather hate than do anything else.

Says the pot.

[Palin Rider]

Says the pot.

I don't "hate" anyone except a few public figures. I may dislike a lot of you, but that's not even in the same league. :cool:

[SassyLady]

I don't "hate" anyone except a few public figures. I may dislike a lot of you, but that's not even in the same league. :cool:

Really, then how to you talk to/about the people you hate? Some of the things you've said here to people seem hateful to me....in a passive/aggressive way.

[Kathianne]

This is a cheap shot and way over the line PR ... and you wonder why you are so disliked around here.

Well it was an attempt at a cheap shot, but again failed. He can't even snark right. I don't dislike him, just find him annoying and his propensity to fail, run, then come and claim 'victory' is just boring.

He was hoping that logroller would post something that backed up a fallacy that I called logroller a fascist, which I never did. I said the government insinuating itself into the everyday lives was one of their strategies-which worked. Logroller got that, PR seems incapable.

[Palin Rider]

Really, then how to you talk to/about the people you hate? Some of the things you've said here to people seem hateful to me....in a passive/aggressive way.

When I'm attacked, I counterstrike. Kathi knew that; I suspect you're just feigning ignorance about it at the moment.

Luckily for the people I truly hate, I don't get to talk to them, and in fact I don't really want to. Too much stress. As for what I say about them, think of the worst things anyone ever said about, for instance, GWB. I've undoubtedly said things at least that bad over the last 10 years.

[Kathianne]

When I'm attacked, I counterstrike. Kathi knew that; I suspect you're just feigning ignorance about it at the moment.

Luckily for the people I truly hate, I don't get to talk to them, and in fact I don't really want to. Too much stress. As for what I say about them, think of the worst things anyone ever said about, for instance, GWB. I've undoubtedly said things at least that bad over the last 10 years.

Oh goody, I'm responding. Well sort of. I never attacked you. I gave an explanation of why I choose not to respond to most of your posts. However, if you wish to keep flaming, you will lose.

[Palin Rider]

Oh goody, I'm responding. Well sort of. I never attacked you. I gave an explanation of why I choose not to respond to most of your posts.

Reminds me of when my grandmother said, "I didn't hoard. I just laid in a supply."

I think everyone knows that you attacked "my posts" with all insults and no substance. That's okay; as far as I'm concerned, we're now even. Should you wish to address and defend actual arguments about thread topics with me, I'm always game.

:beer:
(closest thing to a peace smiley around here)

[Kathianne]

Reminds me of when my grandmother said, "I didn't hoard. I just laid in a supply."

I think everyone knows that you attacked "my posts" with all insults and no substance. That's okay; as far as I'm concerned, we're now even. Should you wish to address and defend actual arguments about thread topics with me, I'm always game.

:beer:
(closest thing to a peace smiley around here)

Well if 'attacking your posts' means stating they are without substance? Guilty.

[Palin Rider]

Well if 'attacking your posts' means stating they are without substance? Guilty.

Any idiot can say that anyone's post is 'without substance.' Might try explaining how you reached that conclusion.

[Kathianne]

Any idiot can say that anyone's post is 'without substance.' Might try explaining how you reached that conclusion.

Last call! They speak for themselves.

[Palin Rider]

Last call! They speak for themselves.

Two can play that game. No they don't. :P

[BoogyMan]

"Every aspect ", really? Read my sig. Comments such as this reek of your frustration, which I can understand. However, in the interests of solving the problems which ail our country we must posture ourselves with reason, rather than anger and outrage.

Once again, I said exactly what I meant. Every aspect is exactly what I meant. Our government needs to step back and reconsider it's proper place in our lives.


My comment qualified "food provided at school, during school hours." You can still have a bake sale on weekends, or after school or at your house or lots of places and times; just not during the hours where children are learning from authorities which should be held to a higher standard than the common citizen.

Once again, this is nothing more than an unneeded and overzealous intrusion.


Superficially I agree with you about "better things to worry about". However, I deduce this is an attempt to curb childhood obesity, a well-known threat to our youths' well-being. Why peddling over-priced cookiedough is some highly-valued freedom, I can't understand, and I don't purpose this alone is the contributing factor. When at school, during the hours where educating our youths is the primary goal, children being catered junk food is detrimental to their well-being(feel free to argue junk food is good for kids)! The "this is just the start" "slippery slope" analogy is getting repetitive. Won't you even concede there exists an obesity problem in our society and the condition among our youths exemplifies a need for change. If gov't doesn't do something to try and stop it, will you? What do you purpose? Give me your solution since gov't intervention is so abhorrent!

Aw cmon, you don't want to be superficial! :)

How many bake sales do you think these schools involve themselves in? Honestly, how many? We are likely talking about once or twice a month and this is an evil that the nanny-staters just cannot allow to continue unchecked?

What do I propose? I propose the government leave school bake sales alone and deal with the rampant spending and deficit woes we face.


How did you get from "no junk food provided at school" to "controlling our every thought" Is there something troubling you besides the issue we're discussing that caused you to jump to such a conclusion?

I thought you wanted a serious discussion? Have you NOT been awake under the governance of the current administration?

[Pagan]

Once again, I said exactly what I meant. Every aspect is exactly what I meant. Our government needs to step back and reconsider it's proper place in our lives.

<snip>

Nope

What they need to do is abide by the rule of law along with staying the FUCK OUT of our lives.

[logroller]

Hey boogy,
Yes, I've been sleeping. The last thing I remember before the current administration was a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. I wish I'd been sleeping since 2000 and the previous administration was just a bad dream.

[logroller]

Nope

What they need to do is abide by the rule of law along with staying the FUCK OUT of our lives.

um, that's an oxymoron.

[Pagan]

um, that's an oxymoron.

Really?

Read the Constitution and you'll get it.

[fj1200]

Hey boogy,
Yes, I've been sleeping. The last thing I remember before the current administration was a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. I wish I'd been sleeping since 2000 and the previous administration was just a bad dream.

No, all that was after January of '07 (excepting the wars of course). You do remember what happened then don't you?

[LuvRPgrl]

They can't get a budget passed, but they can decide what fundraisers and calorie counts should be in lunches? Give me a break! Parents have many options here, now the government should supplant them?

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDefault/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2010-12-03-US-Bake-Sales/id-5321294162324cd7b0928fbd842f85c2

MY BLADDER,,,,,,,,,,,,,,although I'm not too sure about that one either

[logroller]

No, all that was after January of '07 (excepting the wars of course). You do remember what happened then don't you?

I'm guessing your not referring to President Ford being laid to rest, so I'll assume you meant a Democratic Congress.

Ignoring unemployment, as this is more of a condition of a flailing economy, the attention thus turns to the causes of the financial crisis, to which the new congress did indeed expedite by failing to lower interest rates. This condition manifested itself in a financial banking system which had a glut of sub-prime loans(3/27 ARM for example) contributing to an American mortgage debt increase of 2.5 times from 1997 to 2005. Though the influx of debted capital stimulates an economy, toxic assets developed. These debts were packaged and sold without restriction, in a market based system. Yea capitalism. To place blame where it is due, we should consider the actions which transcend individual congressional and presidential terms.

The Clinton Administration repealed the ; allowing commercial and industrial lenders to merge debt assets.

The Federal Reserves fervor for puppetry of the US Economy, led by master puppeteer Alan Greenspan, lowered institutional loan rates as low 1% in response to Sept.11. Subsequent rate decreases continued through 2003, creating an environment of cheap money to prop up the economy. Unfortunately sub-prime mortgages soon began to adjust. By January 2007, with rates exceeded 5%, 3 and 5yr ARM loans had already begun to default. A waterfall effect resulted from the lack of accurate information (I would argue intention misinformation), made possible from the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

You must understand, I don't disagree with most of you. I just want you to consider how the causes of the problems in our economy and society can't be attributed to one party, congress or administration. Talk about the issues, their causes and solutions, not how maligned one group is; as this is a generalization that polarizes one's opinion against the other, which is detrimental to the consensus required for any productive venture -- particularly political debate.

[fj1200]

I'm guessing your not referring to President Ford being laid to rest, so I'll assume you meant a Democratic Congress.

Ignoring unemployment, as this is more of a condition of a flailing economy, the attention thus turns to the causes of the financial crisis, to which the new congress did indeed expedite by failing to lower interest rates. This condition manifested itself in a financial banking system which had a glut of sub-prime loans(3/27 ARM for example) contributing to an American mortgage debt increase of 2.5 times from 1997 to 2005. Though the influx of debted capital stimulates an economy, toxic assets developed. These debts were packaged and sold without restriction, in a market based system. Yea capitalism. To place blame where it is due, we should consider the actions which transcend individual congressional and presidential terms.

The Clinton Administration repealed the ; allowing commercial and industrial lenders to merge debt assets.

The Federal Reserves fervor for puppetry of the US Economy, led by master puppeteer Alan Greenspan, lowered institutional loan rates as low 1% in response to Sept.11. Subsequent rate decreases continued through 2003, creating an environment of cheap money to prop up the economy. Unfortunately sub-prime mortgages soon began to adjust. By January 2007, with rates exceeded 5%, 3 and 5yr ARM loans had already begun to default. A waterfall effect resulted from the lack of accurate information (I would argue intention misinformation), made possible from the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

You must understand, I don't disagree with most of you. I just want you to consider how the causes of the problems in our economy and society can't be attributed to one party, congress or administration. Talk about the issues, their causes and solutions, not how maligned one group is; as this is a generalization that polarizes one's opinion against the other, which is detrimental to the consensus required for any productive venture -- particularly political debate.

Then you shouldn't lay it all at the feet of GWB as per your previous post. But as far as the issues you laid out I would put the blame squarely at the feet of the Fed. Looking at the price of gold as a barometer for their success they failed at managing the money supply for the most part in late '05 but then completely fell apart after Bernanke was appointed. Glass-Steagall is a distraction IMO because no regulation is going to be effective in an environment where the Fed is pumping money into the system. But for me the trigger that fired the bullet was the mark-to-market requirement; the effective date of the rule marked the market highs and the (hint of) suspending the rule marked the bottom.

[logroller]

Really?

Read the Constitution and you'll get it.

I needn't read the Constitution, I thought about it later, and I may have misinterpreted 'rule of law' as just application thereof. You meant government should be bounded by laws respecting Liberty and Freedom. I get it now, my bad.

[logroller]

Glass-Steagall is a distraction IMO because no regulation is going to be effective in an environment where the Fed is pumping money into the system. But for me the trigger that fired the bullet was the mark-to-market requirement; the effective date of the rule marked the market highs and the (hint of) suspending the rule marked the bottom.

Hmm, I gotta do some thinkin and research on mark2market(besides enron). until I do though, with respect to the fed, isn't it true that Andrew Jackson opposed the Fed's creation(central bank at the time) and yet he's on $20 bill--he must be rolling in his grave!

[BoogyMan]

Hey boogy,
Yes, I've been sleeping. The last thing I remember before the current administration was a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. I wish I'd been sleeping since 2000 and the previous administration was just a bad dream.

You won't get any argument from me that Mr. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. I hope you will see that Mr. Obama spends money like a whole drunken navy.

[Pagan]

I needn't read the Constitution, I thought about it later, and I may have misinterpreted 'rule of law' as just application thereof. You meant government should be bounded by laws respecting Liberty and Freedom. I get it now, my bad.

No

The Constitution lists the "ONLY" powers government has and they need to abide by the Constitution aka "rule of law" and STAY the fuck out of our lives.

[logroller]

You won't get any argument from me that Mr. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. I hope you will see that Mr. Obama spends money like a whole drunken navy. ---Word to your founding mother!

Bush never struck me as the shot-caller during his administration, so I can't honestly place any significant amount of blame on him personally, aside from his collusion with special interests. Sadly, it's the special interests which drive most policy decisions and I doubt Obama's administration is much different than GWB's, excepting which interests are fulfilled. Overcoming this powerful influence will require a supermajority of the general population discussing the logical evidence to the fact, which is in short supply among pundits with any significant media exposure--they're positions are most likely bought and paid for by special interests as well!

Information is power; it's no surprise there are those who want to withhold it from the people. Considering how low voter turnout is, I wonder how many citizens even consider their role in gov't as a responsibility. Compelling people to reject their own ignorance is far more difficult than preying upon it; I figure that's how the gov't became has screwed up as it is- most of the population are content with being drones.

[fj1200]

Hmm, I gotta do some thinkin and research on mark2market(besides enron). until I do though, with respect to the fed, isn't it true that Andrew Jackson opposed the Fed's creation(central bank at the time) and yet he's on $20 bill--he must be rolling in his grave!

Hmm, so he was...

By the early 1830s, President Jackson had come to thoroughly dislike the Second Bank of the United States because of its fraud and corruption. Jackson then had an investigation done on the Bank which he said established “beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money.” Although its charter was bound to run out in 1836, Jackson wanted to "kill" the Second Bank of the United States even earlier. Jackson is considered primarily responsible for its demise, seeing it as an instrument of political corruption and a threat to American liberties.[5]

I think M2M is a completely bad idea for the banking system. In some cases performing securities became toxic simply because the market for them had become unreliable. My view is not the conventional wisdom but when it's all rolled together, Fed, M2M, etc. I think it answers the most questions.

[LuvRPgrl]

I must admit, I don't like the government telling my kids what they can or can't eat, but many parents don't teach their kids about healthy eating habits. With diabetes at an all-time high and gov't sponsored healthcare costs rising astronomically, the outlook for the next generation is grim.
My wife teaches at a low income school and they have 90%+ free and reduced lunches. They don't allow pizza parties or bake sales during school hours because it reduces their funding. Not to mention, some kids might get their only healthy meals from school; it's sad , but it's reality. So when I read this story, I don't think of the impact upon myself, but that of a child whose best care comes during school hours. Respecting this, I hope they receive the best treatment available. I think school fundraising could find some other product or service.

Germany was doing very poorly too, but Hitler really had them rolling along good....

[LuvRPgrl]

How the hell did you get from nutrition requirements in schools to state-run paramilitary youth camps?!?
:slap:

If you cant figure it out, maybe its not worth trying to explain

[LuvRPgrl]

Sadly, you're going to find a disturbingly high number of people around here who would rather hate than do anything else.



self implication?

[logroller]

No

The Constitution lists the "ONLY" powers government has and they need to abide by the Constitution aka "rule of law" and STAY the fuck out of our lives.

As I had previously stated, the issue at hand is not rather the Feds can forbid a behavior outright, but the legality of coercing state behavior using funding, or reduction thereof; . Regarding the constitutionality, I shall provide points of law.

Pursuant to Article III, section 1: "The judicial authority shall be vested in one supreme court." section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." ---The supreme court, in hearing a case, has inferred federal jurisdiction and ,upon issuance of a ruling, has conveyed constitutional authority upon the issue which is accepted as final.

Article 1, Section 8 Taxing and spending, re: general welfare clause.

Evidenced in the Supreme court ruling US v Butler, the power to tax and spend was stated to be an independant power, which need not be attached to another enumerated power, where spending only on matters affecting the general welfare.
In South Dakota v Dole, the Supreme Court ruled Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds dispersed to the states accepting four covenants:

1) the condition must be unambiguous,
2) the condition must promote the general welfare,
3) the condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs",
4)other constitutional provisions may provide an independant bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.

[logroller]

Germany was doing very poorly too, but Hitler really had them rolling along good....

Ugh! Haven't I addressed this reference already?

[logroller]

As I had previously stated, the issue at hand is not rather the Feds can forbid a behavior outright, but the legality of coercing state behavior using funding, or reduction thereof; . Regarding the constitutionality, I shall provide points of law.

Pursuant to Article III, section 1: "The judicial authority shall be vested in one supreme court." section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." ---The supreme court, in hearing a case, has inferred federal jurisdiction and ,upon issuance of a ruling, has conveyed constitutional authority upon the issue which is accepted as final.

Article 1, Section 8 Taxing and spending, re: general welfare clause.

Evidenced in the Supreme court ruling US v Butler, the power to tax and spend was stated to be an independant power, which need not be attached to another enumerated power, where spending only on matters affecting the general welfare.
In South Dakota v Dole, the Supreme Court ruled Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds dispersed to the states accepting four covenants:

1) the condition must be unambiguous,
2) the condition must promote the general welfare,
3) the condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs",
4)other constitutional provisions may provide an independant bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.

I wish to omit the emboldened text. The Constitution is a living body, nothing is final.

[Kathianne]

Ugh! Haven't I addressed this reference already?

Other than bring up Godwin's Law and explaining why you think that really no analogies to fascism should be used against progressives, unsure. I did however. :laugh2:

In this latest case, LuvRPgrl's post seem a bit out of place.

For the record, calling people Nazi's is about as effective as calling people racists, just for their point of view on issues. However, when it's a policy or tactic for establishing policies that is being referred to and racism is the underlying reason or fascist tactics are being used purposefully or not, then calling it out is not only fair, but is the only logical way of addressing the post.

[logroller]

Other than bring up Godwin's Law and explaining why you think that really no analogies to fascism should be used against progressives, unsure. I did however. :laugh2:

In this latest case, LuvRPgrl's post seem a bit out of place.

For the record, calling people Nazi's is about as effective as calling people racists, just for their point of view on issues. However, when it's a policy or tactic for establishing policies that is being referred to and racism is the underlying reason or fascist tactics are being used purposefully or not, then calling it out is not only fair, but is the only logical way of addressing the post.

Kathianne, you and I hashed out an understanding. Fascism, racism, totalitarianism-- bring it! Just don't specify Hitler and National Socialism, except in cases where the true horrors of those regimes are substantially indicated.

[Kathianne]

Logroller, seems to me that your discussion is leading more along the lines of the importance of Supreme Court make-up than the General Welfare clause's elasticity. Unless of course your point is that the law of the land is whatever the Supreme say it is?

Butler was a case where the Supreme Court was attempting to rein in the Federal Government, which would eventually lead to FDR's court packing scheme, then a change in the Court.

Dole on the other hand was rendered with a very liberal court, soon to be altered in make-up also. While I can be persuaded for grad credit to argue about the actual legality of judicial review, I tend to avoid it in entertaining discussions. However, it is really one of the few areas of 'established law.' Unless our system of government is actually being undone, judicial review is not going to be overturned.

One of the fascinating features of our system of law is that the SCOTUS has ruled in these two cases, seemingly contradicting each other at first perusal, yet they both stand. The interpretation of any future cases heard might bring up both and the court may rule in the middle or towards one or the other, all depending on the players in court that particular day. Then again, they might come up with a whole new scenario, based on the Constitution or out of some mix of international law, the illuminati, or some other basis they find reasonable.

The Founder's purposefully, in my opinion, left the courts to the legislature, executive, and time to be fully developed. There is little doubt that they didn't want to lists the duties or limitations of the courts for reasons or they would have done so.

The way I look at it, the Constitution itself is not limiting of the rights of the people or the potential powers of the government, only the make up of the court at a particular point in time.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, you and I hashed out an understanding. Fascism, racism, totalitarianism-- bring it! Just don't specify Hitler and National Socialism, except in cases where the true horrors of those regimes are substantially indicated.

As you say, we did hash it out. And let's be clear, here is what I said in post #10, where the first analogy was made:


Sorry, this argument that it's 'for the kids' is the same logic as NAZI Youth Camps for building future soldiers and bearers of the stronger Aryan children for the fatherland. The state should raise the children? I think not.

Later you move onto government 'keeping kids alive' through calorie counts. Well that may be my hyperbole on top of yours, but it really was your point.

The government cannot follow the kids home, yet. Nor can it be there when they wake up, yet. So if they or their parents are determined to make them into fat little folks, there is no justification for the state to assume such powers.



I didn't call you a Nazi, nor did I make any analogies towards genocide.

[logroller]

Logroller, seems to me that your discussion is leading more along the lines of the importance of Supreme Court make-up than the General Welfare clause's elasticity. Unless of course your point is that the law of the land is whatever the Supreme say it is?

Butler was a case where the Supreme Court was attempting to rein in the Federal Government, which would eventually lead to FDR's court packing scheme, then a change in the Court.

Dole on the other hand was rendered with a very liberal court, soon to be altered in make-up also. While I can be persuaded for grad credit to argue about the actual legality of judicial review, I tend to avoid it in entertaining discussions. However, it is really one of the few areas of 'established law.' Unless our system of government is actually being undone, judicial review is not going to be overturned.

One of the fascinating features of our system of law is that the SCOTUS has ruled in these two cases, seemingly contradicting each other at first perusal, yet they both stand. The interpretation of any future cases heard might bring up both and the court may rule in the middle or towards one or the other, all depending on the players in court that particular day. Then again, they might come up with a whole new scenario, based on the Constitution or out of some mix of international law, the illuminati, or some other basis they find reasonable.

The Founder's purposefully, in my opinion, left the courts to the legislature, executive, and time to be fully developed. There is little doubt that they didn't want to lists the duties or limitations of the courts for reasons or they would have done so.

The way I look at it, the Constitution itself is not limiting of the rights of the people or the potential powers of the government, only the make up of the court at a particular point in time.

That's why I edited my text, omitting 'finality' of judgment.:thumb:

[LuvRPgrl]

Ugh! Haven't I addressed this reference already?

Public apology, I hadnt read the entire thread, dont always have time to, 7 kids and all,,,,,,,,,,

but apparently another poster and I had the same basic idea.....

[LuvRPgrl]

Other than bring up Godwin's Law and explaining why you think that really no analogies to fascism should be used against progressives, unsure. I did however. :laugh2:

In this latest case, LuvRPgrl's post seem a bit out of place.

For the record, calling people Nazi's is about as effective as calling people racists, just for their point of view on issues. However, when it's a policy or tactic for establishing policies that is being referred to and racism is the underlying reason or fascist tactics are being used purposefully or not, then calling it out is not only fair, but is the only logical way of addressing the post.

I didnt call anyone a nazi, I merely saw the similiarity, I posted without having been able to read the entire thread, thats all.

There is only ONE PERSON I have ever encountered on this board whom I would out and out call a nazi, and he doesnt seem to be currently posting.

Idealism is a great thing, except it doesnt take into account the negative side of human behavior, and I think LR and a few others are idealists, and experience and the experience of others should eventually show them the truth.

[logroller]

I didnt call anyone a nazi, I merely saw the similiarity, I posted without having been able to read the entire thread, thats all.

There is only ONE PERSON I have ever encountered on this board whom I would out and out call a nazi, and he doesnt seem to be currently posting.

Idealism is a great thing, except it doesnt take into account the negative side of human behavior, and I think LR and a few others are idealists, and experience and the experience of others should eventually show them the truth.
That's why I'm here.:2up:

[Palin Rider]

I didnt call anyone a nazi, I merely saw the similiarity, I posted without having been able to read the entire thread, thats all.

There is only ONE PERSON I have ever encountered on this board whom I would out and out call a nazi, and he doesnt seem to be currently posting.

Idealism is a great thing, except it doesnt take into account the negative side of human behavior, and I think LR and a few others are idealists, and experience and the experience of others should eventually show them the truth.

The Nazis also believed in sterilization. Your posts do a great job of demonstrating why.

[Kathianne]

I didnt call anyone a nazi, I merely saw the similiarity, I posted without having been able to read the entire thread, thats all.

There is only ONE PERSON I have ever encountered on this board whom I would out and out call a nazi, and he doesnt seem to be currently posting.

Idealism is a great thing, except it doesnt take into account the negative side of human behavior, and I think LR and a few others are idealists, and experience and the experience of others should eventually show them the truth.

You read too fast. No one thought you did. LR thought I did, early on. He even added it with his avatar. However, we discussed, I didn't call him any such thing. He still keeps it though, last I looked. ;)

My point was about his assumption and that if someone did what he thought, they'd be wrong. As usual, I didn't do bad. :laugh2: Give me 5 minutes though.

[BoogyMan]

logroller, you have completely ignored the question upon which I started this thread. Is there anything that the feds don't want to control?

[Kathianne]

logroller, you have completely ignored the question upon which I started this thread. Is there anything that the feds don't want to control?

I started this thread.

[BoogyMan]

I started this thread.

DUH! I was thinking I started it because I started a dupe thread that you merged.

In my best Steve Martin imitation voice.....

Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me!

http://blogs.chron.com/cougars/Steve%20Martin.jpg

[NightTrain]

DUH! I was thinking I started it because I started a dupe thread that you merged.

In my best Steve Martin imitation voice.....

Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me!

http://blogs.chron.com/cougars/Steve%20Martin.jpg

:laugh2:

[SassyLady]

DUH! I was thinking I started it because I started a dupe thread that you merged.

In my best Steve Martin imitation voice.....

Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me!

http://blogs.chron.com/cougars/Steve%20Martin.jpg

:thewave:

[LuvRPgrl]

I started this thread.

I thought I started this thread,,,,,

[logroller]

logroller, you have completely ignored the question upon which I started this thread. Is there anything that the feds don't want to control?

I wasn't ignoring it, I'd thought I addressed in the following:


To answer the question as to the extent gov't protection is warranted:
I believe the food provided at schools should prescribe to a federal health standard, but I don't believe the schools have any right to control what I send in my own child's lunch.


However, that doesn't answer the open-ended question " Is there anything that the feds don't want to control? "

So, I'll do my best in the following response.

I challenge you to show me any proposed federal legislation which would control the direction toilet tissue is to unroll from a dispenser- Under or over?

PS- I'm currently seeking signatures from California residents for two voter initiatives on this. One for over and one for under.:laugh2:

PPS. I'd vote yes on both. With three women in my house, toiletpaper doesn't last long -- I'd be happy if they merely put it in the dispenser.:beer:

[SassyLady]

I wasn't ignoring it, I'd thought I addressed in the following:


However, that doesn't answer the open-ended question " Is there anything that the feds don't want to control? "

So, I'll do my best in the following response.

I challenge you to show me any proposed federal legislation which would control the direction toilet tissue is to unroll from a dispenser- Under or over?

PS- I'm currently seeking signatures from California residents for two voter initiatives on this. One for over and one for under.:laugh2:

PPS. I'd vote yes on both. With three women in my house, toiletpaper doesn't last long -- I'd be happy if they merely put it in the dispenser.:beer:

Way back when I had cats and had the toilet paper direction over they would come in and unroll the toilet paper. I just got in the habit of the direction coming from under ... really frustrated them when it wouldn't unroll.

So ... I would vote for UNDER!!!

[BoogyMan]

I wasn't ignoring it, I'd thought I addressed in the following:


However, that doesn't answer the open-ended question " Is there anything that the feds don't want to control? "

So, I'll do my best in the following response.

I challenge you to show me any proposed federal legislation which would control the direction toilet tissue is to unroll from a dispenser- Under or over?

PS- I'm currently seeking signatures from California residents for two voter initiatives on this. One for over and one for under.:laugh2:

PPS. I'd vote yes on both. With three women in my house, toiletpaper doesn't last long -- I'd be happy if they merely put it in the dispenser.:beer:

You know what? I wouldn't be surprised if there WAS such a moronic bit of legislation under the Obama regime.

Still no real answer to the question, my friend.

[LuvRPgrl]

You know what? I wouldn't be surprised if there WAS such a moronic bit of legislation under the Obama regime.

Still no real answer to the question, my friend.

I made our dispenser so it sits sideways

[logroller]

Still no real answer to the question, my friend.

I can't logically argue against the question. I shall explain why.

The question, IMO, is rhetorical; as it is impossible to offer any sincere argument without tacitly accepting the underlying assertion: the feds seek to over-control. I assume, my friend, this was your intent!

Hence, it would be logically false to support any alternate conclusion, if the proposition is loaded with a contradictory assertion. To refute an assertion one must only issue a contradiction, which I did.

You may contend my response wasn't serious or valid, but it was genuine and authentic -- which is also a definition of real!