• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to sign Child Nutrition Bill today

Jetboogieman said:
The scariest issue with alot of our food is the sodium content, the amount of salt we intake on a daily basis is a big contributor to coronary Heart disease.
Click to expand...

Many people add salt without tasting first. Try tasting first, and I bet most people will refrain from adding more salt..
 
Kelzie said:
Very rude.
Click to expand...
It is an insult to the cook to season food without tasting it first....
so Mr. French said on "Family Affair"....just something that stuck in my head...
 
Jetboogieman said:
Well no becase it's precisely the problem that what they'd want is:

mcdonalds.jpg
Click to expand...

Not Safe for Empty Stomachs! :( Feck you!
 
God damn you guys....

I'm going to Burger King ASAP.
 
apdst said:
So, let me get this straight: we're spending $4.5 billion to keep poor kids from getting fat?

I thought this bill was to prevent them from starving to death, in the street. That's how it was portrayed when the Republicans opposed the bill.
Click to expand...

Poor people are generally fat in America because guess what the cheapest places to eat out are? McDonalds and other fast food chains. Eating healthy while it being delicious is more expensive.
 
Last edited:
Kelzie said:
I'm deeply critical of today's parents. There's way too much parenting being done according to what's easiest.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree, but I'd also be willing to bet that in the day when we were brought up, it only took one income to efficiently run, and fund the household. Today that just simply isn't the case. It takes two parents income to do that.

My mom made me eat my vegetables because it was the right way to raise me, not because it was easier. And I lived in such fear of her laws that I ate everything at school lunch, even the stuff I hated.
Click to expand...

Yep, mine too. And to boot, she shopped for her veggies at the farmers market. Today we get processed bags of bulk, and frozen from the local Wal Mart. On a budget and all.

Too many parents want to be liked by their children.
Click to expand...

Again no disagreement here. But that is not to say that all of today's parents are like this.

The time for that is when they're out of your house. And it's not just nutritionally, I see it reflected in poor tests scores and (I hate to say it) rude behavior in public.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a factor no doubt, but not the whole story. There are many contributors that play into scholastic testing, but for the rudeness among today's youth, that is a parental factor.

So obviously I'm inclined to blame the parents, but I'm curious what other factors you think are involved.
Click to expand...

If I had to guess I'd bet you are a teacher? Am I close? :) But I think that overall society is expecting these kids to grow up too damned fast. both parents out of the house, discipline lacking, role models left to the streets. for starters.

Keeping your eye on the government is great policy no matter what side of the fence you vote on.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


j-mac
 
WeAreReborn said:
Poor people are generally fat in America because guess what the cheapest places to eat out are? McDonalds and other fast food chains. Eating healthy while it being delicious is more expensive.
Click to expand...

You got that right.....America's poor are relegated many times to the processed meals section to make their budget stretch.


j-mac
 
WeAreReborn said:
Poor people are generally fat in America because guess what the cheapest places to eat out are? McDonalds and other fast food chains. Eating healthy while it being delicious is more expensive.
Click to expand...

It is, and there is no doubt about that. Sadly.
 
WeAreReborn said:
Poor people are generally fat in America because guess what the cheapest places to eat out are? McDonalds and other fast food chains. Eating healthy while it being delicious is more expensive.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think one of the best fixes for our nutritional system would be to subsidize produce instead of meat, dairy, corn and soy. Let the market take over then. When apples are a quarter each and a box of twinkies are $8.00, we might see some better choices being made.
 
Kelzie said:
Indeed. I think one of the best fixes for our nutritional system would be to subsidize produce instead of meat, dairy, corn and soy. Let the market take over then. When apples are a quarter each and a box of twinkies are $8.00, we might see some better choices being made.
Click to expand...

I just listen to a bunch of students earlier argue that nutriious food should be subsidized by taxes on unhealthy food. It was an interesting presentation.
 
Red Crow said:
The REAL problem is that kids don't exercise, they sit on their posteriors watching TV (the same as their parents), play video games and the parents don't give a damn about "Health" period!!! Wait till the kids become adults and they will start drinking alcohol beverages just like their parents do also. Setting a "healthy" example starts in the home.
Look at the smoking going on and who permits it?? the government does. If the government was so concerned about every body's health they should ban tobacco and alcohol, but NO!!! They have to have "the tax money" from both of them.
This is hypocritical as hell.:giggle1:
Click to expand...

That displays the general stupidty of Liberalism. They want to tax the hell out of cigarettes so people will quit smoking, but then bitch when revenues go down and unemployment goes up and don't have a clue how to replace those lost tax dollars and jobs, when it happens.

That defines Liberalism and is why I oppose it.

This bill is a prime example. They piss and moan about the deficit and we need to raise taxes, then turn around and pass a bill that spends money on ****ing green lunch rooms in the school houses.
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
I can't disagree, but I'd also be willing to bet that in the day when we were brought up, it only took one income to efficiently run, and fund the household. Today that just simply isn't the case. It takes two parents income to do that.

Yep, mine too. And to boot, she shopped for her veggies at the farmers market. Today we get processed bags of bulk, and frozen from the local Wal Mart. On a budget and all.

Again no disagreement here. But that is not to say that all of today's parents are like this.

Yes, that is a factor no doubt, but not the whole story. There are many contributors that play into scholastic testing, but for the rudeness among today's youth, that is a parental factor.

If I had to guess I'd bet you are a teacher? Am I close? :) But I think that overall society is expecting these kids to grow up too damned fast. both parents out of the house, discipline lacking, role models left to the streets. for starters.

Agreed.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent. I do think the loss of a stay at home parent was extremely detrimental to the family unit. There is a ton of work that goes into properly caring for a family and it's hard for two people to get all of it done after their jobs.

But it is still possible. It takes some reshuffling of priorties and you don't have much relaxing time, but it can be done. But many (you're right, not all) parents today would rather come home from work, reheat a frozen dinner and turn the tv on. It's hard to cook dinner every night, help your kids through an hour of homework, supervise 30 minutes of music practice, not to mention sports, etc. But people used to understand that choosing to raise a child IS hard.

And I'm actually an accountant. But my closest friend since high school teaches 7th grade and I hear more stories from her than I care too.:lol:
 
apdst said:
That displays the general stupidty of Liberalism. They want to tax the hell out of cigarettes so people will quit smoking, but then bitch when revenues go down and unemployment goes up and don't have a clue how to replace those lost tax dollars and jobs, when it happens.

That defines Liberalism and is why I oppose it.

This bill is a prime example. They piss and moan about the deficit and we need to raise taxes, then turn around and pass a bill that spends money on ****ing green lunch rooms in the school houses.
Click to expand...

Bravo my friend!!!! :applaud
 
WeAreReborn said:
Poor people are generally fat in America because guess what the cheapest places to eat out are? McDonalds and other fast food chains. Eating healthy while it being delicious is more expensive.
Click to expand...

How come this guy is not fat??? he eats hamburgers.

ObamaBurger(1).jpg
 
Taylor said:
I can't afford to pack a lunch! Little Timmy is one of those "hungry children" who needs school breakfast lunch and dinner.

Now, given that he's "free to eat whatever he likes" or so Boo says... where can we turn in this soy patty and plain yogurt for some real food?
Click to expand...

Well, I can't speak for Boo, but like I said schools don't need to be serving the unhealthy foods that they do (like deep fried french fries). I don't think you actually know what kinds of foods would be provided, but that aside, parents can pack what ever they like in a lunch but if you want food that is state supplied then it is going to be regulated.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Rich people eat like **** too... Just sayin. All the money in the world being pumped into this issue won't change this.
Click to expand...

One, not the **** that low income earners eat.
Two, that doesn't mean that schools should be serving said ****.
 
They really are on the road to completely taking away all parental rights.

Stimulus cash spurs after-care program changes for Santa Fe schools - The Santa Fe New Mexican



Parents of students who registered for the after-school program at E.J. Martinez Elementary School were told last week that they would not be allowed to pick up their children until 5:30 p.m., even if they themselves get off work earlier than that.

"It's asinine to say if I can pick my kids up earlier than 5:30 p.m., I get penalized. That's nuts," said Valerie Ingram, whose children are enrolled in the school's after-care program. "I'll see them for maybe two hours before they go to sleep."

If it weren't for federal stimulus money, Santa Fe Public Schools might have been forced to cut the after-care completely. Earlier this year the district was facing a $4.5 million budget shortfall for the new school year.

Now many families are assured of getting the services — and for free. But, as Gutierrez admitted, there are "so many strings attached."

In addition to the required academic instruction, the schools must keep careful attendance records and sign-in logs, employ research-based curricula and submit lesson plans to authorities. And because the money is reserved for children in low-income, Title I schools, students at Wood Gormley, who used to come to E.J. Martinez for after-care, must now go to a fee-paying YMCA program at Atalaya.
 
Plus, I'd also like to add I'm a little tired of people bitching about free things. You don't like the rules for this after school program? Pay for your own. You don't like the nutritious lunch the school is serving? Pack one for your kid.
 
Sean_H said:
schools don't need to be serving the unhealthy foods that they do (like deep fried french fries).
Click to expand...

My generation ate as many junk foods as kids do today, but the long-term effects weren't as destructive as you'd think. Life expectancy rose from 68 to 78, and heart attacks are about the same.

ricksfolly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom