Obama school lunch debacle (Page 3)

It is about an inferior product being delivered by the schools not about how the school needs to be a parent to the kids.

My sons school still has a buffet type lunch system so he get what he needs but calling those who disagree with the new system hypocrites because they are complaining about the changes that have been made is BS.

I have made my son lunch, I have had him make his own lunch, and I buy school lunches now.  Guess what, it is more economically feasible for me to buy his lunches than it is for me to make them for a variety of reasons.  It is something I have found through my own personal experiences.  It is different for everyone.  My son is required to go to the school during lunch so I have every right to expect them to have a decent selection and adequate calories in their lunch program.  And I have every right to complain if they do not.

School lunches are subsidized, and parents pay a large portion (depending on income level).  In public schools, the menu choices are set by the DOEd/FDA and have been for decades - I think it started in WWII or right after to insure boys who get drafter are healthy enough to catch bullets.  The DOE used to allow just about any cheap crap to end up on a plate as long as it meets the recommended caloric amounts.

Now, they require the meals to actually be healthy and meet the caloric recommendations.  Kids aren't eating it all because they aren't used to eating real food.

lol, i was curious how this thread would go when I posted it.

It's all a Romney conspiracy to turn the youth vote away from Michelle when she runs for Prez in 2016.  buhahaha

I think so. And, like the exercise excuses, no one has to pack lunch in the morning. Make it in the evening, after dinner is done and you are cleaning up from that. Of course, making and eating dinner with the family is apparently a dying art. I sometimes feel like we must be living like the amish when we cook actual food from actual ingredients.

LMGTFY. 

$11.1B of subsidized lunches FY11. Don't know what the total $ volume is, but it's still sizable by any standard. 

That doesn't include breakfasts, which are subsidized under a different program. 

Yep

The government does not require you go to a sushi place instead of a hamburger joint.

Hey, you're hitting a little close to home there.  I've actually done this.  haha

Comparing a choice of resturant to a school lunch choice is dumb....especially if there is no choice at school. 

And I'm dying laughing here....you have no idea what our kids eat at home or what we provide.  Sorry dude, I don't have to defend complaining about the lousy lunch choices my kids get at school.  There lunch wouldn't feed a bird....but it's great for fat kids.....that's the only point I'm making.  You can run down any road you like, it's worth reading for the entertainment value.

Like I said....liberals are fun!!

By that argument the government does not force anyone to eat a school lunch. 

Solution:

Fat kids and poor kids go in one line, they get subsidized fruits and veggies.

Skinny kids and wealthy kids get a different line. Buffet with all the trimmings.

Solves the problem and provides an incentive for the fat kids to get skinny and the poor kids to get wealthy!

ETA: Also gives incentive to not get fat so you don't have to switch lines. 

But what about the fat weathy kids?

And they don't. No one is going to make a kid turn in their lunch that they made at home (unless they left the knife in the bag). 

What is funny to me about this whole thing is that the people who tend to be arguing in favor of having the school give the kid more food, or "bad" food, are the same ones who tend (here on COJ) to argue against the "nanny state". If you are getting food from the government (state or local), how do you have the right to complain that it is not enough, or it is not what you like? As long as there are enough calories to provide for your basic needs, it should be adequate. Even if it IS "government cheese". Don't like it? Get an education, get a job, and provide for yourself and your kids in the future. And remember that getting help should not mean it is better than having to work for it. If it was, no one would work. But at the same time, getting help SHOULD still be an option for those who cannot get help themselves (kids can't work and provide the meals for themselves - that is up to the parents).

Or universal health care.

You must have missed the whole I pay for my kids school lunch (as do a lot of parents) post.

So you mean like taking care of those who blow out their knees in sports related injuries?

 Here let me direct you to this forum

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=21#s

Nope the link certainly does have bearing.  We all make choices in our lives and all of those choices have risk associated with them as the link to the injury forum shows.   Just because you choose different risks does not make them not a risk and therefore not "something we all have to pay for".

Wow this thread has really gone off course to just change the subject of discussion on how some people some people IN THIS THREAD made ironic statements.

Wow this is what the politicians must feel like.

These aren’t the droids you're looking for.

Not ironic at all.  I pay for my kids lunches, my kid is required to go to school therefore I have every right to have some opinion about the school lunch program.  I have every right to express that opinion without being accused of hypocrisy, and I have every right to work to change the system if I feel it is inadequate.  It is those trying to prove irony that are having to make the stretch to do so including forgetting the first point, most of us pay for our kids lunches.