login
Obama school lunch debacle (Page 7)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-09-27 11:24 AM in reply to: #4430230 |
Champion  6056    Menomonee Falls, WI |  Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacleLeft Brain - 2012-09-27 11:18 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:56 AM tuwood - 2012-09-27 10:53 AM Why are we training people that government will feed their kids to begin with? This isn't a helping hand type program. It's a permanent program that says the government is responsible for feeding your kids. lisac957 - 2012-09-27 10:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:30 AM I actually somewhat agree with you here. I would probably be in favor of doing away with school lunch programs. And breakfast programs. And snack programs. I'm not quite sure why government is in the food service business to begin with. I'd be interested in the history of this (but am too lazy to research). My guess is that today especially, there are so many kids who would literally not eat if not for school meal programs. I volunteer for a program that gives kids backpacks full of healthy/kid-friendly food on Fridays so they will have food to eat on the weekend - in the backpack it's easy to "hide" from parents and older siblings. Sadly if they get food not concealed, it's usually taken away from them at home. Imagine if this is on the weekends, what would happen on school days if they didn't have food available at school. It's a huge problem, and I'm guessing it's not limited to my community. Yeah, I think for all of us here it probably wouldn't be a huge deal because we either pay for their school lunches or we'd pay for them to take their lunches. However, with the free and reduced lunch crowd that would be a new expense for a family that likely can't afford to buy their kids lunch. That would certainly cause some issues. That doesn't apply to everyone....I will PAY for better choices at school lunch.....for our family it's the easiest deal. I kinow, I've already heard it, we're lazy. That's ridiclulous. We look at our day and how much we have going on and make it easy on ourselves when we can. We pack enough food to eat between all of the activities. I want my kid to be able to buy a hot lunch with plenty of calories at school.....provided they are making lunches....the same as I could when Iwas a kid. If some kids need free food....I don't care...give it to them. Just don't tell me that my kid needs to eat 850 calories or less for lunch so he doesn't get fat.....he's under 7% body fat....we're good with a couple hamburgers. It's not free food. The taxpayers pay for it. I have no objection to anyone wanting to pay for the convenience of school providing lunch for their kids so long as they pay for it. I simply question why the government is in the business of providing taxpayer-funded lunches. And breakfasts. And snacks. All as some sort of expectation that people then whine about anyway. |
| 2012-09-27 11:53 AM in reply to: #4430253 |
Pro 6767  the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 12:24 PM ... It's not free food. The taxpayers pay for it. I have no objection to anyone wanting to pay for the convenience of school providing lunch for their kids so long as they pay for it. I simply question why the government is in the business of providing taxpayer-funded lunches. And breakfasts. And snacks. All as some sort of expectation that people then whine about anyway. If you question this, then you miss the connection on having kids fed well enough to focus on education. If a kid cannot get adequate food at home, they will not be able to study or learn. Their brain will be deprived of fuel and they are essentially bonking all day long. I like to take the long view - feed them so they can learn. Then teach them so they can become productive members of society. Of course, we could just let them starve, then penalize them for doing poorly at school and/or disrupting the environment, so they become discouraged and drop out. Then, until we are forced to arrest them, jail them, house, clothe and feed them, we will be saving money from having to educate them. |
| 2012-09-27 11:54 AM in reply to: #4430152 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle Edited by Left Brain 2012-09-27 11:55 AM |
| 2012-09-27 11:57 AM in reply to: #4430232 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle mr2tony - 2012-09-27 11:18 AM Left Brain - 2012-09-27 10:52 AM Unhealthy offerings in the school lunch program. Which is why it was changed. Which is why people are complaining. You see, the people who make the lunch offerings can't win. Either they're villains for feeding kids fatty foods or they're villains for not offering high-calorie options. lisac957 - 2012-09-27 10:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:30 AM I actually somewhat agree with you here. I would probably be in favor of doing away with school lunch programs. And breakfast programs. And snack programs. I'm not quite sure why government is in the food service business to begin with. I'd be interested in the history of this (but am too lazy to research). My guess is that today especially, there are so many kids who would literally not eat if not for school meal programs. I volunteer for a program that gives kids backpacks full of healthy/kid-friendly food on Fridays so they will have food to eat on the weekend - in the backpack it's easy to "hide" from parents and older siblings. Sadly if they get food not concealed, it's usually taken away from them at home. Imagine if this is on the weekends, what would happen on school days if they didn't have food available at school. It's a huge problem, and I'm guessing it's not limited to my community. Then how did they get so fat? Either we have an obesity problem or a starvation problem....which is it? On another note.....props to you for volunteering for that program. That's BS.....5 meals out of 21 in a week caused them to be fat? More ridiculousness. |
| 2012-09-27 12:08 PM in reply to: #4430332 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle Left Brain - 2012-09-27 11:57 AM mr2tony - 2012-09-27 11:18 AM Left Brain - 2012-09-27 10:52 AM Unhealthy offerings in the school lunch program. Which is why it was changed. Which is why people are complaining. You see, the people who make the lunch offerings can't win. Either they're villains for feeding kids fatty foods or they're villains for not offering high-calorie options. lisac957 - 2012-09-27 10:45 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:30 AM I actually somewhat agree with you here. I would probably be in favor of doing away with school lunch programs. And breakfast programs. And snack programs. I'm not quite sure why government is in the food service business to begin with. I'd be interested in the history of this (but am too lazy to research). My guess is that today especially, there are so many kids who would literally not eat if not for school meal programs. I volunteer for a program that gives kids backpacks full of healthy/kid-friendly food on Fridays so they will have food to eat on the weekend - in the backpack it's easy to "hide" from parents and older siblings. Sadly if they get food not concealed, it's usually taken away from them at home. Imagine if this is on the weekends, what would happen on school days if they didn't have food available at school. It's a huge problem, and I'm guessing it's not limited to my community. Then how did they get so fat? Either we have an obesity problem or a starvation problem....which is it? On another note.....props to you for volunteering for that program. That's BS.....5 meals out of 21 in a week caused them to be fat? More ridiculousness. I would contend that five meals out of 21, that's 25 percent, is enough to make kids fat. Especially when combined with unhealthy offerings in the home-dinner program. |
| 2012-09-27 3:27 PM in reply to: #4430319 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle gearboy - 2012-09-27 11:53 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 12:24 PM ... It's not free food. The taxpayers pay for it. I have no objection to anyone wanting to pay for the convenience of school providing lunch for their kids so long as they pay for it. I simply question why the government is in the business of providing taxpayer-funded lunches. And breakfasts. And snacks. All as some sort of expectation that people then whine about anyway. If you question this, then you miss the connection on having kids fed well enough to focus on education. If a kid cannot get adequate food at home, they will not be able to study or learn. Their brain will be deprived of fuel and they are essentially bonking all day long. I like to take the long view - feed them so they can learn. Then teach them so they can become productive members of society. Of course, we could just let them starve, then penalize them for doing poorly at school and/or disrupting the environment, so they become discouraged and drop out. Then, until we are forced to arrest them, jail them, house, clothe and feed them, we will be saving money from having to educate them. So the school lunch program was meant to solve the starvation problem which led to the obesity problem which led to the low-cal school lunch program which must now be fixed with a school snack program. All subsidized by taxpayers. Got it. I'm glad we have the government around to solve our problems. |
| 2012-09-27 3:41 PM in reply to: #4430894 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 3:27 PM gearboy - 2012-09-27 11:53 AM So the school lunch program was meant to solve the starvation problem which led to the obesity problem which led to the low-cal school lunch program which must now be fixed with a school snack program. All subsidized by taxpayers. Got it. I'm glad we have the government around to solve our problems. scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 12:24 PM ... It's not free food. The taxpayers pay for it. I have no objection to anyone wanting to pay for the convenience of school providing lunch for their kids so long as they pay for it. I simply question why the government is in the business of providing taxpayer-funded lunches. And breakfasts. And snacks. All as some sort of expectation that people then whine about anyway. If you question this, then you miss the connection on having kids fed well enough to focus on education. If a kid cannot get adequate food at home, they will not be able to study or learn. Their brain will be deprived of fuel and they are essentially bonking all day long. I like to take the long view - feed them so they can learn. Then teach them so they can become productive members of society. Of course, we could just let them starve, then penalize them for doing poorly at school and/or disrupting the environment, so they become discouraged and drop out. Then, until we are forced to arrest them, jail them, house, clothe and feed them, we will be saving money from having to educate them. You know, you're bringing me around.....why not make school cafeterias a profitable enterprise? Hire some decent culinary people and make some good food for the kids. Let us pay for what our kids have been taught to eat and create some jobs and profit for the school....use the money to bring back some cut athletic/football programs. For the kids with lower income, let the govt. subsidize them, all they have to do to get their lunch money is complete 30 minutes of exercise/nutrition classes per day. There, the problem is solved and the govt. is out of the lunch business and in the fitness business, and as a bonus the subsidized kids are "working" for their lunch money. This deal about all kids being fed the same because some of them are fat and haven't been taught any nutrition skills is not working and will not work.
|
 2012-09-27 4:01 PM in reply to: #4430111 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-09-27 4:07 PM in reply to: #4430958 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:01 PM tuwood - 2012-09-27 10:41 AM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 10:25 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:10 AM Don't worry, everyone. There's no problem this Administration can't solve. They are now developing school SNACK programs to supplement the school lunch programs. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hungry-kids-grumble-healthy-sch... It is unclear if the government is also working on a "Keep Your Elbows Off the Table Program".
BTW, Congress approved the changes. Last I saw, Obama didn't run Congress. Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal. I think the administration still gets to take credit. So, for the average kid, there is a school lunch that has a reasonable number of calories, and for the very active kid, there is a program to get that kid more calories. If you assume that the school SHOULD be providing lunch in the first place, doesn't it seem prudent to do the above? And don't forget the program to decide which kids are active, and qualify for the high-calorie lunch, and which kids are sedentary, who will only qualify for the low-calorie lunch. None of which will matter anyway once the ACLU gets involved and file a lawsuit on behalf of fat kids who should not be denied the calories their bodies need and to which they are entitled. |
| 2012-09-27 4:10 PM in reply to: #4430967 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-09-27 4:15 PM in reply to: #4430974 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:10 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 4:07 PM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:01 PM And don't forget the program to decide which kids are active, and qualify for the high-calorie lunch, and which kids are sedentary, who will only qualify for the low-calorie lunch. None of which will matter anyway once the ACLU gets involved and file a lawsuit on behalf of fat kids who should not be denied the calories their bodies need and to which they are entitled. tuwood - 2012-09-27 10:41 AM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 10:25 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:10 AM Don't worry, everyone. There's no problem this Administration can't solve. They are now developing school SNACK programs to supplement the school lunch programs. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hungry-kids-grumble-healthy-sch... It is unclear if the government is also working on a "Keep Your Elbows Off the Table Program".
BTW, Congress approved the changes. Last I saw, Obama didn't run Congress. Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal. I think the administration still gets to take credit. So, for the average kid, there is a school lunch that has a reasonable number of calories, and for the very active kid, there is a program to get that kid more calories. If you assume that the school SHOULD be providing lunch in the first place, doesn't it seem prudent to do the above? The mission of the public school system is to educate. Every moment of every school day is a teachable moment. If we are to feed our students, we should do so in a manner that also teaches them to eat in a healthy manner. I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. |
| 2012-09-27 4:25 PM in reply to: #4430980 |
| Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 5:15 PM ... I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. You mean that education that is being paid for by "government (i.e. the people who pay taxes)"? Yes, let's stop providing services to kids. Starting with that. Let them get educated in schools that their parents can pay for. Because that will show them how to become accountable. Or keep them at the same economic level. Whatever. At least then they won't be mooching off the public teat. |
| 2012-09-27 5:09 PM in reply to: #4430980 |
| Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 4:15 PM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:10 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 4:07 PM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:01 PM And don't forget the program to decide which kids are active, and qualify for the high-calorie lunch, and which kids are sedentary, who will only qualify for the low-calorie lunch. None of which will matter anyway once the ACLU gets involved and file a lawsuit on behalf of fat kids who should not be denied the calories their bodies need and to which they are entitled. tuwood - 2012-09-27 10:41 AM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 10:25 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:10 AM Don't worry, everyone. There's no problem this Administration can't solve. They are now developing school SNACK programs to supplement the school lunch programs. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hungry-kids-grumble-healthy-sch... It is unclear if the government is also working on a "Keep Your Elbows Off the Table Program".
BTW, Congress approved the changes. Last I saw, Obama didn't run Congress. Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal. I think the administration still gets to take credit. So, for the average kid, there is a school lunch that has a reasonable number of calories, and for the very active kid, there is a program to get that kid more calories. If you assume that the school SHOULD be providing lunch in the first place, doesn't it seem prudent to do the above? The mission of the public school system is to educate. Every moment of every school day is a teachable moment. If we are to feed our students, we should do so in a manner that also teaches them to eat in a healthy manner. I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. So, just to be clear-- are you saying that you think that subsidized school lunch programs should be done away with altogether? IOW, kids should get to eat only what their parents can afford to either send with them or give them money to purchase? |
| 2012-09-27 5:18 PM in reply to: #4431073 |
| Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle jmk-brooklyn - 2012-09-27 6:09 PM ... So, just to be clear-- are you saying that you think that subsidized school lunch programs should be done away with altogether? IOW, kids should get to eat only what their parents can afford to either send with them or give them money to purchase? scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 11:56 AM ... Why are we training people that government will feed their kids to begin with? This isn't a helping hand type program. It's a permanent program that says the government is responsible for feeding your kids. scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 12:24 PM ... It's not free food. The taxpayers pay for it. I have no objection to anyone wanting to pay for the convenience of school providing lunch for their kids so long as they pay for it. I simply question why the government is in the business of providing taxpayer-funded lunches. And breakfasts. And snacks. All as some sort of expectation that people then whine about anyway. I believe, based on his comments in this thread, that THAT is EXACTLY what he is saying. Or, to paraphrase the gist of his message - "Are there no poor houses? No prisons? And workhouses? Are they still in operation?"
|
| 2012-09-28 8:31 AM in reply to: #4431000 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle gearboy - 2012-09-27 4:25 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 5:15 PM ... I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. You mean that education that is being paid for by "government (i.e. the people who pay taxes)"? Yes, let's stop providing services to kids. Starting with that. Let them get educated in schools that their parents can pay for. Because that will show them how to become accountable. Or keep them at the same economic level. Whatever. At least then they won't be mooching off the public teat. I'd argue that getting people to suck deeper and deeper on the public teat is what keeps them on the same economic level. Once you get people comfortable with a subsistence level of living, and take away self-reliance and personal initiative, what incentive and skills do they have left to improve their station in life? |
| 2012-09-28 8:38 AM in reply to: #4431647 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2012-09-28 8:43 AM in reply to: #4431647 |
| Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-28 9:31 AM ... I'd argue that getting people to suck deeper and deeper on the public teat is what keeps them on the same economic level. Once you get people comfortable with a subsistence level of living, and take away self-reliance and personal initiative, what incentive and skills do they have left to improve their station in life? That is a very interesting perspective. I read recently that the people born at the top AND the bottom of the economic ladder BOTH struggle to challenge themselves. At the top, it is because they have never experienced a failure, and therefore are reluctant to do things they might fail at. At the bottom, they have never experienced a success, and therefore do not expect to have success in the future. So, if we are talking about people having both incentive and skills, then again, at the bottom rungs, you need to give kids more opportunities to succeed. Which means sometimes giving them more supports to do so. Like getting fed. And an education. So that they know that they CAN be successful, instead of being seen as constantly failing. As for giving them motivation to have more than a subsitence level of survival, I would say that two things will do that - one, living at that level, frankly, sucks. So of course, they may turn to capitalistic enterprises (though not necessarily legal ones) as well as criminal activity - like simply being armed and taking things from those who are not. And, two, perhaps you have heard of this thing called "TV"? It brings into people's homes the vision of all that they could have, if they had more money. As Homer Simpson once said, when bemoaning his lack of material possessions: "I have three children and no money. I wish I had no children and three moneys" |
| 2012-09-28 8:43 AM in reply to: #4426307 |
| Regular 91 | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle The diff between free and reduced lunch kids. Reduced lunch kids know who they daddy is. |
| 2012-09-28 8:48 AM in reply to: #4431676 |
| Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle Kevin07 - 2012-09-28 9:43 AM The diff between free and reduced lunch kids. Reduced lunch kids know who they daddy is. this isn't funny. |
| 2012-09-28 8:57 AM in reply to: #4431647 |
| Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle scoobysdad - 2012-09-28 8:31 AM gearboy - 2012-09-27 4:25 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 5:15 PM ... I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. You mean that education that is being paid for by "government (i.e. the people who pay taxes)"? Yes, let's stop providing services to kids. Starting with that. Let them get educated in schools that their parents can pay for. Because that will show them how to become accountable. Or keep them at the same economic level. Whatever. At least then they won't be mooching off the public teat. I'd argue that getting people to suck deeper and deeper on the public teat is what keeps them on the same economic level. Once you get people comfortable with a subsistence level of living, and take away self-reliance and personal initiative, what incentive and skills do they have left to improve their station in life? Scoob have you ever lived on welfare, including free lunches, `the government cheese,' food stamps, etc etc etc? |
| 2012-09-28 9:00 AM in reply to: #4431697 |
| Champion 14571 the alamo city, Texas | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle mr2tony - 2012-09-28 9:57 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-28 8:31 AM Scoob have you ever lived on welfare, including free lunches, `the government cheese,' food stamps, etc etc etc? gearboy - 2012-09-27 4:25 PM I'd argue that getting people to suck deeper and deeper on the public teat is what keeps them on the same economic level. Once you get people comfortable with a subsistence level of living, and take away self-reliance and personal initiative, what incentive and skills do they have left to improve their station in life? scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 5:15 PM ... I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. You mean that education that is being paid for by "government (i.e. the people who pay taxes)"? Yes, let's stop providing services to kids. Starting with that. Let them get educated in schools that their parents can pay for. Because that will show them how to become accountable. Or keep them at the same economic level. Whatever. At least then they won't be mooching off the public teat. i did. free and reduced lunch from 1st grade through maybe 7th. i turned out all right. most of the other people i know that had free and reduced lunches did too. we have jobs, own our homes, pay our bills on time, etc. i'm thankful that program was available. |
| 2012-09-28 9:03 AM in reply to: #4426307 |
| Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle Can my kid just get a couple double cheeseburgers on the days he swims before and after school with XC in between? That's all I'm asking. That and a seven grain bun.......is it too much? I'll pay for the burgers. Edited by Left Brain 2012-09-28 9:04 AM |
| 2012-09-28 9:05 AM in reply to: #4431701 |
| Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle mehaner - 2012-09-28 9:00 AM mr2tony - 2012-09-28 9:57 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-28 8:31 AM Scoob have you ever lived on welfare, including free lunches, `the government cheese,' food stamps, etc etc etc? gearboy - 2012-09-27 4:25 PM I'd argue that getting people to suck deeper and deeper on the public teat is what keeps them on the same economic level. Once you get people comfortable with a subsistence level of living, and take away self-reliance and personal initiative, what incentive and skills do they have left to improve their station in life? scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 5:15 PM ... I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. You mean that education that is being paid for by "government (i.e. the people who pay taxes)"? Yes, let's stop providing services to kids. Starting with that. Let them get educated in schools that their parents can pay for. Because that will show them how to become accountable. Or keep them at the same economic level. Whatever. At least then they won't be mooching off the public teat. i did. free and reduced lunch from 1st grade through maybe 7th. i turned out all right. most of the other people i know that had free and reduced lunches did too. we have jobs, own our homes, pay our bills on time, etc. i'm thankful that program was available. Well I did too -- free lunch from K-4 (I knew who my daddy was to THAT GUY who thinks he's a comedian) and we were on food stamps, and I turned out just fine as well! Got me a job and everything! Shocking huh? I only asked because Scoob seems to know exactly how people who are or were on government programs will grow up. I mean, Meh, you and I were on government programs and, golly gee whiz, we turned out not on welfare, improved our stations in life, got educations and jobs and now pay taxes, probably at a higher rate than Mitt Romney, and contribute to society. So Scoob, given that you seem to think that all people on welfare grow up and STAY on welfare because it's just so glamorous and easy, explain me and Meh, please. |
| 2012-09-28 9:05 AM in reply to: #4431073 |
| Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle jmk-brooklyn - 2012-09-27 5:09 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 4:15 PM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:10 PM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 4:07 PM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 4:01 PM And don't forget the program to decide which kids are active, and qualify for the high-calorie lunch, and which kids are sedentary, who will only qualify for the low-calorie lunch. None of which will matter anyway once the ACLU gets involved and file a lawsuit on behalf of fat kids who should not be denied the calories their bodies need and to which they are entitled. tuwood - 2012-09-27 10:41 AM AcesFull - 2012-09-27 10:25 AM scoobysdad - 2012-09-27 10:10 AM Don't worry, everyone. There's no problem this Administration can't solve. They are now developing school SNACK programs to supplement the school lunch programs. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/hungry-kids-grumble-healthy-sch... It is unclear if the government is also working on a "Keep Your Elbows Off the Table Program".
BTW, Congress approved the changes. Last I saw, Obama didn't run Congress. Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal. I think the administration still gets to take credit. So, for the average kid, there is a school lunch that has a reasonable number of calories, and for the very active kid, there is a program to get that kid more calories. If you assume that the school SHOULD be providing lunch in the first place, doesn't it seem prudent to do the above? The mission of the public school system is to educate. Every moment of every school day is a teachable moment. If we are to feed our students, we should do so in a manner that also teaches them to eat in a healthy manner. I'd argue what we're really teaching them is you don't have to be accountable for yourself, or eventually, for your kids. That you can look to the government (i.e. people who pay taxes) to pay your way through life. And that really, getting that education (you know, the basic mission of schools) isn't all that important anyway because the government will always be there to provide a subsistent level of living for you. So, just to be clear-- are you saying that you think that subsidized school lunch programs should be done away with altogether? IOW, kids should get to eat only what their parents can afford to either send with them or give them money to purchase? No, I don't think so. I get why we have them-- to provide kids with the fuel they need to learn and to provide a convenience for busy parents. But I very much object to the federal government trying to expand them to include summer lunch programs, breakfast programs and snack programs. At some point, parents have to take responsibility for feeding their own kids-- the government/taxpayers can't do it all. I also call BS on programs that incentivize schools to get more kids to sign up for school lunches, breakfasts and snacks-- too often schools simply use these programs as additional revenue streams while encouraging families to become ever more dependent on the federal government for basic needs. I also don't think the federal government should attempt to micro-manage programs like school lunch with "one size fits all" solutions. The record shows the federal government isn't very good at it, and it often creates more problems than it solves. That said, IF the taxpayers are paying for lunch, I see it as a "take it or leave it" proposition, so I may not entirely disagree with the Administration on this one. So long as parents still have the option of providing a cold lunch for their kids to take and eat at school, I'm not sure they have that much of a right to complain about what the school serves (though they have some right, if their tax dollars are paying for it.) But then, we also get stories like that one school who objected to the cold lunch that the student's parents sent along for their child to eat that didn't meet the school's nutritional guidelines (I believe it was a turkey sandwich.) Sorry, government, it's one or the other-- you can include what you want in the lunch you serve, but don't dictate to me what I need to include in the lunch I make for my kids. I grew up on cold lunch. I didn't even know what a hot lunch was until I got to high school. Today, I still make my kids' lunches about 50% of the time (I let them look at the school lunch menu each week and tell me which days they want hot lunch and which days they want me to pack them a lunch.) I make them a turkey or PB&J sandwich, throw in some carrots, an apple sauce or fruit cup and maybe a treat. It costs about $2 with the milk they buy at school, so it's not like it's some huge cost. On the other hand, it likely costs taxpayers three or four times that to provide a similar $2 lunch. It doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense, especially in districts where the vast majority of families can afford to buy their kids an unsubsidized meal. As with most issues, I feel the less government involvement, the better. |
| 2012-09-28 9:07 AM in reply to: #4431709 |
| Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Obama school lunch debacle Left Brain - 2012-09-28 9:03 AM Can my kid just get a couple double cheeseburgers on the days he swims before and after school with XC in between? That's all I'm asking. That and a seven grain bun.......is it too much? I'll pay for the burgers. Ha is THAT all you wanted? I thought you were asking for the Old Country Buffet at school! Which leads to another question -- why do old people like buffets so much? They rarely eat much, and when they do it's stuff like pumpkin pie and green beans. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK