• 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!

Michelle Obama has new warning on obesity

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
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.

The U.S. military has not been immune to American society's expanding waistline and couch-potato propensity.





Meeting recruiting goals while maintaining fitness standards has proven challenging as obesity rates soar and young people opt for video games over physical activity. In 2007, the U.S. Army instituted a waiver program to allow enlistees who didn't qualify for the military because of their weight to join the Army and then participate in a special program to get them into shape. Such efforts were necessary to ensure adequate troop strength to meet combat needs Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Army launches initiative aimed at fitness, diet | battlecreekenquirer.com | The Enquirer
 
: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?

That's where I take issue: why should it costs billions to stop serving pizza and start serving healthier foods?
 
Is someone telling you what you have to feed your children? Or merely making suggestions?

They are taking the "feeding" responsibilty away from parents all together by letting the tax payers take it over.
If they were just making "suggestions", no one would be complaining.
 
If the tax payer is feeding them 3 meals a day yr round, I'd say yes.

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.
 
That's where I take issue: why should it costs billions to stop serving pizza and start serving healthier foods?

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...
 
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" at 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:

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.

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.)
 
Last edited:
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 DP
could 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.

How did I know this "ready-made-cut-N-paste reply" was coming. :doh:
 
: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?

If it was a choice between the two, I'd agree with you, but it's not.
The bank bailouts is a done deal.
Come to think of it, Mommy Michelle's is too, but here we are...
oh well
 
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...

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.
 
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.
 
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.

then maybe you should read it.
 
I noticed two factions with opposing arguments the same side.. One is arguing "we know how to feed our kids," and the other is saying "I have a right to be unhealthy and fat and feed my kids however I want," which kind goes against the initial premise.

I just think it's funny...
 
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.)

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.
 
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.

Even if it's just a dollar more per lunch, there are 31 million lunches served five days a week. I'm becoming surprised that the bill costs so little.
 
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.

Um me? I don't understand why you think those things are mutually exclusive.
 
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.

Also, there's a reason home baked, pre-packaged foods are considered a health risk and aren't allowed in places such as rec league food stands or in some cases school bake sales.

The consumer doesn't know if the facility, i.e., grandma's kitchen, meets health and safety standards nor do we know exactly what those ingredients are that went into making that food item. I know...seems silly to keep something so seemingly innocent as a brand muffin out of schools, but it IS a safety concern that most states recognize. Again, working in public health even I've questioned some of the food safety rules, but once I learn the history behind them, i.e., leaving a drink in a food prep area = high risk of cross contamination should the drink mixed with a person's saliva is accidentally spilled in the food prep area which can lead to a foodborne outbreak = food poisoning, then people change their tune quick!

How's the saying go..."You don't know what you don't know until you know it." Well, now you know...
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the entire thread, but just leave government out of this conversation for a minute... Can we all agree that at some point, feeding your kid a bunch of crap to the point they are obese and have health problems is and should be a form of child abuse?



That is disgusting.. that mother should lose her child, and if my sisters did that to their kids I would do something about it. That isn't a right, that is wrong and f***ed up.
 
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.

What has the EIC have to do with public school nutrition? Enlighten me 'cause I'm failing to see the connection here.
 
then maybe you should read it.

I lost the link. still looking

But why can't this administration just stop spending? We can't afford things like this. It's just more control by big government. It should be left up to the states or individual communities.
Schools would get a financial incentive to adopt the new nutrition standards that the bill requires — standards that the USDA would write, based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. Those schools that implement the new rules would get an additional 6 cents per meal added to their federal reimbursement rate. Current reimbursement rates, which give schools $2.68 for each lunch they serve, have not changed since 1973, except for inflation adjustment, and schools have long complained that they are insufficient.
Before Wednesday’s vote, Lincoln said that additional funding is unlikely, because additional increases would have to be offset by cuts in other agriculture programs. The current bill falls far short of President Obama’s request for $10 billion in added spending over the next 10 years for child nutrition programs, which currently cost $16.3 billion a year.
“We felt that (the $4.5 billion increase) was the maximum we could take” from other agriculture programs, said Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Agriculture Committee’s senior Republican. Chambliss, who supports the child nutrition bill, noted that “there’s never enough money,” but he said the pending legislation will make big strides in combating child obesity and “improving the health and livelihood of our children.”
Associated Press and USA Today contributed to this article
Hungry-Free Kids Act passes Senate Committee - Stuttgart, AR - Stuttgart Daily Leader
 
Um me? I don't understand why you think those things are mutually exclusive.

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?
 
What has the EIC have to do with public school nutrition? Enlighten me 'cause I'm failing to see the connection here.

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?
 
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?

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.
 
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?

Having a refund doesn't mean you didn't pay taxes. It means you gave the government an interest free loan for a year, ie you overpaid.
 
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.

You had a tax debt for '09?
 
Back
Top Bottom