Schools seek changes to healthier lunch rules

Rainman05 · May 5, 2014

clownboy said:
Sure it's a problem in places, but it's a personal problem, NOT a government one. It's not for government to "fix".

35% of american adults over 20 are obese. Another 35% are overweight. 70% of the people over 20 are unhealthy. 70% of americans have personal problems of weight issue and you think it's not a governmental problem...

Really?

It's not the governments problem that nearly 70% of americans are obese or overweight... and the next generation may be worse.

Do you know what the government is and who it is supposed to work for and who it is supposed to represent? I'm just asking because it seems to me you don't understand what this entity "the government" is. It's supposed to be something that works for the public interest. And that means it should work on both the internal matters and the external matters.

But you know, fine, lets say you're right. This issue will continue and the USA will be the first nation in the history of the world to collapse from being too fat. You'll set a new precedent. Other nations collapsed due to environmental disasters, wars, famines (quite a lot really), diseases... america will be the first to fall flat on it's ass because it'll be too fat. Now it has a lot of junk in the trunk so it won't feel that painful but it's still gonna need one of those mopeds to waddle around the international stage. That's the future you want for america by not promoting healthy eating and a healthy life... and that's because you don't understand what the government is.

clownboy · May 5, 2014

sangha said:
So we should let our national security be weakened before we do anything?

I wish you had been bush*'s VP instead of Cheney

You blind yourself to the wiggle words because it suits your argument. COULD BECOME is not will become. And all this is in the rank opinion of ONE general. I know two former generals, both have opinions and ideas that would make you say, "wtf?".

clownboy · May 5, 2014

Rainman05 said:
35% of american adults over 20 are obese. Another 35% are overweight. 70% of the people over 20 are unhealthy. 70% of americans have personal problems of weight issue and you think it's not a governmental problem...

Really?

It's not the governments problem that nearly 70% of americans are obese or overweight... and the next generation may be worse.

Do you know what the government is and who it is supposed to work for and who it is supposed to represent? I'm just asking because it seems to me you don't understand what this entity "the government" is. It's supposed to be something that works for the public interest. And that means it should work on both the internal matters and the external matters.

But you know, fine, lets say you're right. This issue will continue and the USA will be the first nation in the history of the world to collapse from being too fat. You'll set a new precedent. Other nations collapsed due to environmental disasters, wars, famines (quite a lot really), diseases... america will be the first to fall flat on it's ass because it'll be too fat. Now it has a lot of junk in the trunk so it won't feel that painful but it's still gonna need one of those mopeds to waddle around the international stage. That's the future you want for america by not promoting healthy eating and a healthy life... and that's because you don't understand what the government is.

The sky isn't falling and it's not near the end of the nation issue you are panicking over. No matter how much YOU see a need, doesn't make it a government issue. YOU may be fine with being told by government what to eat, when and how to exercise, you may even find having a nanny helpful, but I don't and a whole lot of Americans are with me in that.

I have no problem with local and state government promoting good nutrition, advertising it. But mandating it? No.

Rainman05 · May 5, 2014

clownboy said:
The sky isn't falling and it's not near the end of the nation issue you are panicking over. No matter how much YOU see a need, doesn't make it a government issue. YOU may be fine with being told by government what to eat, when and how to exercise, you may even find having a nanny helpful, but I don't and a whole lot of Americans are with me in that.

I have no problem with local and state government promoting good nutrition, advertising it. But mandating it? No.

It's not mandated. It's given as an option in schools. It wasn't forced on them. Read the articles.

Also. In order to have a choice, you need to be informed on the fact that you CAN make a choice. A lot of people don't know that they can CHOOSE to eat healthy and that they can CHOOSE to do exercise. It may sound amazing but you'd be shocked how many people rationalize being fat and stupid as being "genetic" or "how they are". If you don't teach people they can be better, they won't be better.

It's like if you don't teach someone how to read, how can you expect him to choose which russian literary classic to read.

notquiteright · May 5, 2014

Winchester said:
This whole issue is IMO insane. If one is on a Free/Reduced meal plan you fall into the "beggar" group. Beggar's can't be choosers. Those that don't fall into the beggar group still have choices.

Ahhh great insight into the mind of a CON. When it suits the 'gubmint' is a one size fits all... and of course the CON will scream a blue streak when that same gubmint comes to them with one size... :roll:

I CAN tell such CONs the 'beggars' in the reduced to free program are cops and soldiers, nurses aides, lab techs, receptionists.... quite a large cross-section of WORKING America... :doh

far from beggars, hard working folks, some with a sworn duty to protect the whiniest of CONs.

Grant is of the opinion using CON is 'insulting'... THIS beggar CON crap is both ignorant and insulting.

Educate your CON self....

eace

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

clownboy said:
Except, IF it is a problem, it's not one government (right or left) should be involved in. You want to eat wheatgrass for lunch, bring your own.

What about the kids who have irresponsible parents who don't bother packing their kids lunch? Unfortunately there's a lot of kids out there who's only meals are the school breakfast and lunch. It is the right thing to do to give them some access to healthy food.

clownboy · May 5, 2014

Rainman05 said:
It's not mandated. It's given as an option in schools. It wasn't forced on them. Read the articles.

Also. In order to have a choice, you need to be informed on the fact that you CAN make a choice. A lot of people don't know that they can CHOOSE to eat healthy and that they can CHOOSE to do exercise. It may sound amazing but you'd be shocked how many people rationalize being fat and stupid as being "genetic" or "how they are". If you don't teach people they can be better, they won't be better.

It's like if you don't teach someone how to read, how can you expect him to choose which russian literary classic to read.

That's nice, so you agree with me then. I said "I have no problem with local and state government promoting good nutrition, advertising it. But mandating it? No."

However, I am not exactly comfortable with government as a teacher. I don't look to my government to teach me to "be better". Maybe you do.

clownboy · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
What about the kids who have irresponsible parents who don't bother packing their kids lunch? Unfortunately there's a lot of kids out there who's only meals are the school breakfast and lunch. It is the right thing to do to give them some access to healthy food.

Sure, if you don't blow the budget for education by doing so. Remember why we have schools, it's not to provide a cafeteria, but an education.

ocean515 · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
What about the kids who have irresponsible parents who don't bother packing their kids lunch? Unfortunately there's a lot of kids out there who's only meals are the school breakfast and lunch. It is the right thing to do to give them some access to healthy food.

The right thing to do is let the parents take responsibility. As it is, the trend is to provide year round meals for children and remove all responsibility for feeding them from the parents. Why is that a good thing?

What happens when a parent disagrees with the decisions of the government school food czars? Will they have any recourse? Will the government decide when a child is to eat, and with whom?

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

So the Right prefers that our tax dollars subsidize sugar, salt, corn and grease, processed psuedo-food for children to eat at school. That is a good thing. But if those dollars subsidize whole foods, fruits and vegetables, that is a bad thing? Talk about an ass jack backwards POV.

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

clownboy said:
Sure, if you don't blow the budget for education by doing so. Remember why we have schools, it's not to provide a cafeteria, but an education.

Try n teach a child who's belly is grumbling who hasn't eaten.

Winchester · May 5, 2014

notquiteright said:
Ahhh great insight into the mind of a CON. When it suits the 'gubmint' is a one size fits all... and of course the CON will scream a blue streak when that same gubmint comes to them with one size... :roll:

I CAN tell such CONs the 'beggars' in the reduced to free program are cops and soldiers, nurses aides, lab techs, receptionists.... quite a large cross-section of WORKING America... :doh

far from beggars, hard working folks, some with a sworn duty to protect the whiniest of CONs.

Grant is of the opinion using CON is 'insulting'... THIS beggar CON crap is both ignorant and insulting.

Educate your CON self.... eace

You think I'm a Con cause I used the word beggars? Have you never heard the phrase "beggars can't be choosers"? Try this one, "never look a gift horse in the mouth".

BMCM · May 5, 2014

MrVicchio said:
Pack my kids (well he does now) lunch. Always have cause feeding my family is my job.

Then why are you complaining about school lunches. What do you put in your kids lunches?

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

ocean515 said:
The right thing to do is let the parents take responsibility. As it is, the trend is to provide year round meals for children and remove all responsibility for feeding them from the parents. Why is that a good thing?

What happens when a parent disagrees with the decisions of the government school food czars? Will they have any recourse? Will the government decide when a child is to eat, and with whom?

Ah but here's your problem. There are parents who don't take responsibility. They don't provide breakfast for their children, they don't do the right thing and pack a lunch. I was one of those children. The moral and right thing that we can do as a civilized society is provide a meal to a child at school. For many those are the only meals that they receive.

BMCM · May 5, 2014

clownboy said:
You blind yourself to the wiggle words because it suits your argument. COULD BECOME is not will become. And all this is in the rank opinion of ONE general. I know two former generals, both have opinions and ideas that would make you say, "wtf?".

I know three Admirals and two Generals so my full boat beats your pair.

Winchester · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
Ah but here's your problem. There are parents who don't take responsibility. They don't provide breakfast for their children, they don't do the right thing and pack a lunch. I was one of those children. The moral and right thing that we can do as a civilized society is provide a meal to a child at school. For many those are the only meals that they receive.

It is and if they're to be given anything it ought to be "healthy".

ocean515 · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
Ah but here's your problem. There are parents who don't take responsibility. They don't provide breakfast for their children, they don't do the right thing and pack a lunch. I was one of those children. The moral and right thing that we can do as a civilized society is provide a meal to a child at school. For many those are the only meals that they receive.

So the answer is to reward the parents irresponsibility with a plan that allows them to become even more irresponsible. Where's the learning process here?

As it is, schools decided some time ago to provide a lunch to these children, of whom you were one at one point. Then it became breakfast and lunch. Then breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack. Then all that and perhaps something to take home for dinner. Here in Los Angeles, for many kids it's all that, plus weekends, year round, and available whether they're a student or not, as long as the kid is under 18.

So, where does it stop? Are these parents going to eventually be removed from the equation? Because, it certainly can't be argued they are being made to learn to be more responsible.

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

I can't fathom why anyone with any sense of moral decency would want to deny our children access to food particularly healthy food in our learning institutions. What's the conservative message in that? Anyone who has common sense should be aware of the fact that there are irresponsible parents who don't provide properly for their children. So give them some damn decent food at school and go find something else to bitch about.

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

ocean515 said:
So the answer is to reward the parents irresponsibility with a plan that allows them to become even more irresponsible. Where's the learning process here?

As it is, schools decided some time ago to provide a lunch to these children, of whom you were one at one point. Then it became breakfast and lunch. Then breakfast, lunch, and an afternoon snack. Then all that and perhaps something to take home for dinner. Here in Los Angeles, for many kids it's all that, plus weekends, year round, and available whether they're a student or not, as long as the kid is under 18.

So, where does it stop? Are these parents going to eventually be removed from the equation? Because, it certainly can't be argued they are being made to learn to be more responsible.

Your solution is to punish the child and let them go hungry all day? Tough kid, We're not going to reward your irresponsible parents by giving you a sandwich. Talk about a ****ing heartless POV.

Renae · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
What about the kids who have irresponsible parents who don't bother packing their kids lunch? Unfortunately there's a lot of kids out there who's only meals are the school breakfast and lunch. It is the right thing to do to give them some access to healthy food.

So punish the responsible parents by taxing them so you dont feel guilty. Ever think many of these kids on free meals are because the parents refuse to be responsible because they know ppl like you will gladly make others pay for thier kids?

Renae · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
Your solution is to punish the child and let them go hungry all day? Tough kid, We're not going to reward your irresponsible parents by giving you a sandwich. Talk about a ****ing heartless POV.

Sorry responsible people you gotta pay more xause we care! Heartless is relative. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

clownboy · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
So the Right prefers that our tax dollars subsidize sugar, salt, corn and grease, processed psuedo-food for children to eat at school. That is a good thing. But if those dollars subsidize whole foods, fruits and vegetables, that is a bad thing? Talk about an ass jack backwards POV.

Actually, sugars, salt, corn and grease ARE part of a healthy human diet. But no, no one is saying we shouldn't also subsidize the production of whole foods and vegies, we do, we always have. However, it's the cost of the product at delivery that counts here. And again, if it doesn't dig into the educational budget, fine.

But in the end cafeteria food isn't going to be the best, most nutritious, most tasty food you can provide with unlimited funding. If parents want that for their kids they can and should pack a lunch for them.

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

MrVicchio said:
So punish the responsible parents by taxing them so you dont feel guilty. Ever think many of these kids on free meals are because the parents refuse to be responsible because they know ppl like you will gladly make others pay for thier kids?

You can always take comfort knowing that a bit of your tax money is being used to fill the belly of hungry children who have dip**** parents. Give yourself a round of applause.

HenryChinaski · May 5, 2014

MrVicchio said:
Sorry responsible people you gotta pay more xause we care! Heartless is relative. The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Wow. Heartless.

ocean515 · May 5, 2014

HenryChinaski said:
Your solution is to punish the child and let them go hungry all day? Tough kid, We're not going to reward your irresponsible parents by giving you a sandwich. Talk about a ****ing heartless POV.

Yea, that's it. F the child. That's the point I'm trying to make. :doh