For a "straw man," the military sure is going through a lot of effort to the eating habits of its recruits, and has had some struggles with recruiting people because so many candidates are overweight.Of course I didn't elaborate on her logic, because it's a ridiculous strawman argument. The US doesn't need even 25% of it population to maintain it's current numbers. Currently, less than 1% of the population is serving in the military. Obviously, there's not a shortage in actual manpower, and it doesn't justify by any means telling me what I have to feed my children.
US Army active component: 539,675
US Army Reserve component: 557,375
Total Army: 1,097,050
USMC Active: 203,000
USMC Reserve: 40,000
USMC Total: 243,000
US Navy: 332,000
USAF active: 327,452
USAF reserve: 115,300
Air National Guard: 106,700
USAF Total:549,452
Total military: 2,221,502
USCG: 49.973
Total military w/ USCG: 2,271,475
------------------
Population of the *United States 310,906,000 as of December 14, 2010
:shrug: I'd rather spend the money on our kids then bailing out banks. How is the government preventing you from raising your kids again?
Is someone telling you what you have to feed your children? Or merely making suggestions?
If the tax payer is feeding them 3 meals a day yr round, I'd say yes.
That's where I take issue: why should it costs billions to stop serving pizza and start serving healthier foods?
Mandate: to officially require (something) : make (something) mandatory : order <a law mandating recycling>; also : to direct or require (someone) to do something <a commission mandated to investigate corruption>
So unless you're of the opinion that the government is forcing kids to eat their meals, I'm thinking you should say no. If parents don't like it, pack your kids a lunch.
drinking to excess can destroy families, can cause the death or injury to innocent people, death, illness to the drinker, lead to poverty, crime
gambling addiction can lead to poverty, destruction of families, crime
smoking can lead to health issues, financial strain
adultery can destroy families
pre-marital sex can lead to low self-esteem later, STDs, unwanted children, abortions
gay sex can cause STDs
adult porn addiction can destroy families, lives
Rap music I just don't like it
Rock and Roll I do like it, but didn't want to look biased against Rap
violent video games Think they bad for impressionable young children and might lead to acting out.
single parents many live on government subsidies, disadvantage to the children
abortion morally bad for society and not healthy for the unborn
laying on sofa, watching TV causes obesity
not working, by choice not harmful I guess, just not helpful
bars can lead to arrests from fights or DUI
accepting subsidies just because you qualify drag on tax payers
Having Dish network while on welfare just not right if you can't afford food and rent on your own.
wasting food just wrong and well, wasteful.
finding loop holes to avoid taxes, legal but a simpler tax system would be more fair to those who can't find or use them.
letting your pets reproduce just wrong in every way unless you are a reputable breeder. fill up shelters, strain on animal control
wasting all day on DPcould lead to mental breakdowns and can cause obesity.
but the childhood obesity problem deserves 17 more gov. programs billions of dollars, tons of regulations, because it's costly to our healthcare.:roll:
Oh, and it's a danger to our national security.:roll:
It's breeding a cradle to grave mentality.
Government needs to get the hell out of the way and let people live their lives, and raise their own kids.
:shrug: I'd rather spend the money on our kids then bailing out banks. How is the government preventing you from raising your kids again?
Healthy food is much more expensive. A packet of ramen noodles is what, $.30? A healthy balanced meal with fresh fruits and vegetables would cost at least $1-2 more. Doesn't sound a lot, but multiplied over the millions of lunches served every day...
Mandate: to officially require (something) : make (something) mandatory : order <a law mandating recycling>; also : to direct or require (someone) to do something <a commission mandated to investigate corruption>
So unless you're of the opinion that the government is forcing kids to eat their meals, I'm thinking you should say no. If parents don't like it, pack your kids a lunch.
Oh, but that would probably run into problems too. It's not a simple bill and who knows what's in there? No bakes sales, so maybe no twinkies in the lunch. You'll probably still have to meet their guidlines.
Alright...time's up!
If you answered, "I DO", then it's likely your household (like mine) is a throwback to the days before it became part of our social status quo that both parents must work in order to provide for our families. My point is very simple: all this nutrition initiative does is try to get ahead of the "convenience curve" so-to-speak where most families either don't have the time or can barely afford to sit down long enough and prepare a healthy meal for their children. And in some cases even when atleast one parent does stay home, he or she still sends their child to school w/o having breakfast from home. Why?
A) Because it's more convenient to do so; or,
B) It's more cost effective to do so.
But let's not get it twisted here, folks. Yes, as parents and heads of our households we do owe it to our children to look after their overall health and well being. No one else can, will or should do this for us. However, if the vast majority of our children are attending public schools AND most households are two-income households on different work schedules AND the children themselves are involved in a wide variety of extra-curricular activities that in some cases require them to be at school long before the tardy bell rings, then changing the way our schools present, prepare and provide food in the cafeteria IS a reasonable step to take in an effort to make sure our children eat healthier. It's not about government control or government intrusion although many people would have one believe otherwise. It's about government being that one impartial voice that can speak to the People towhich it governs and informs them of the problems this country faces.
Again, WE didn't seem to have much of a problem with C. Everett Kopp told us smoking caused cancer despite the fact that many people to this day believe his message was a positive one for the good of the nation, despite the government "intruding" on your right to decide for yourself what was healthy for you or not, despite the Dept. of Health and Humans Services laying out tons of health statistics that linked cigerette smoking to cancer. We listened and ultimately we did what was right...cracked down on big tobacco and started changing the way we approached this unhealthy habit. I see school nutrition programs in much the same way.
The best way to change a nation's unhealthy eating habits is to start educating parents. And one of the most "influential tools" are our disposal happens to be our children. I mean, let's be honest...how often has your child caught you doing something you know you weren't suppose to be doing (i.e., you're trying to diet and your little one caught you eating a Big Mac) and called you on it? To the bigger point, if this nation is to have a healthy society from which our military is to pull recruits from in the near future, one sure way to ensure the pool is healthier is to start from the bottom up. And it begins with making our children healthier.
Can we stop seeing everything as so negative and so intrusionist long enough to see the bigger picture here, folks? The Obama Administration isn't coming into your homes and telling you what to feed your family. It's not setting school lunch menus. There will still be pizza served in lunch rooms. Only now instead of it being that nasty stuff that tastes like cardboard, it more likely will taste like Desornos or Papa John's..."better ingrediants, better pizza". :mrgreen:
Problem solved! Removes the entire argument from debate. NEXT!!! (Or parents can home school their kids or send them to private school; we still have choices w/the most obvious yet least "convenient" being GET YOUR LAZY BUTT UP AND MAKE YOUR CHILD A SACK LUNCH! I've done it a many-a days.)
I don't think it's that much more expensive, unless schools systems are getting soaked by commissary companies; which would need to be looked into.
I think this is more about agenda, than anything else. Why else put the section about Green Cafeterias in the bill? How much of these billions is being forked out for green cafeterias?
I don't think my money should be spent on green cafeterias.
That setion purdy much made this bill a very expensive joke.
Ok, everyone that thinks this is a novel idea, that actually have kids and don't qualify for the earned income credit, raise your hand.
Oh, but that would probably run into problems too. It's not a simple bill and who knows what's in there? No bakes sales, so maybe no twinkies in the lunch. You'll probably still have to meet their guidlines.
Ok, everyone that thinks this is a novel idea, that actually have kids and don't qualify for the earned income credit, raise your hand.
then maybe you should read it.
Um me? I don't understand why you think those things are mutually exclusive.
What has the EIC have to do with public school nutrition? Enlighten me 'cause I'm failing to see the connection here.
Just using CT's logic.
So, you don't pay taxes, so you're not real concerned about how tax dollars are wasted on the green agenda. Yes?
People that have a tax debt every year aren't real concerned about how tax money is wasted on bull****. My tax bill for '09 was 9 g's and the Libbos want to make me pay more. What was your tax debt for '09? Did you even have one, or did you get a refund?
Ah I see what you were going for. Except I do pay tax dollars and I'm thrilled with the green agenda. In fact, I'd support higher taxes to encourage it.
:shrug: Hey, I'm a liberal.