U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-14-2010, 09:46 AM
 
19,572 posts, read 13,312,593 times
Reputation: 4910

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SloRoller View Post
Last things first...if the states and cities should, as you put it, take care of their citizens, then why the hell aren't they doing it??
Because too many people, like you apparently, think the feds will be along soon, to take care of it all.

Another reason is that the federal government is taking so much wealth out of the states, through high income taxes, that the states are denied a lot of revenue. It's a vicious cycle, the feds drain away resources from the states, and the states find it more and more difficult to meet their commitments. so the fed dives in with a new federal program, funded by more income taxes, and then the states have less revenue - rinse, repeat.

This new $10 billion federal program will drain $200 million more from each state. The states cannot seem to object to these tactics, and slowly but surely the federal government grows, and grows, and the states ' ability to take care of their own citizens shrinks.

It comes down to the voters in the state, and their desire to do something about whatever situation. Problem is, if the state stopped all federal school lunch programs, the freaking feds will still drain taxes from the state to fund the school lunch program. so now the state is out the revenue the feds drain for the program, and the state is funding their own program on top of it. It like tpaying for your own health care needs in cash, but still being taxed to pay for 0bamaCare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SloRoller View Post
As for a tear-jerking scam...you obviously don't (or didn't) have any concerns about whether your school-aged child is eating enough, or eating nutritiously. Maybe you don't know what it's like as a kid to try to learn on an empty stomach. Nothing wrong with not knowing that, but for those who cannot afford to or do not know how to feed healthy meals to their children (for whatever the reason), why do you want to take this away from those children. This isn't for the parents, it's for the kids.
Obviously you know nothing about me. As if I'd ever let my children go hungry. My mother packed a lunch for me when I went to school, we did not have a school lunch program. We packed a lunch for our children most times, or we gave them money to buy their lunch, they were never allowed to go hungry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-14-2010, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,206 posts, read 99,439,539 times
Reputation: 31653
Quote:
Originally Posted by stayinformed40 View Post
First, the country was NOT in near the mess with GWB as it is now. Period.

Second, I do recognize that it is SOP for first ladies to take on a nonpolitical cause.

However, literacy is a far better and more contributive cause than nutrition in schools. Educating our children is very important, as is making sure that all kids have an equal opportunity to receive a great education.

Nutrition in schools? Please! And for her to say that kids are receiving great meals at home and are concerned with what they are eating at school is a joke. Most kids in these economic times are thankful just to have a meal on the table, let alone a 'healty' one - which can actually be more costly.

I am not saying nutrition is not important - it is. I just think Michelle could have chosen a more worthwhile cause with all that is going on in our country right now. Nutrition? wow.
Re: the bold. You are right. We have had the equivalent of several "September 11" attacks since Obama was pres. I just forgot. We had a recession then, barely came out of it and the present recession started before Obama's presidency.

Secondly, what non-political cause do you think Michelle Obama should take up? As a health profession, I think childhood nutrition is a great cause. In case you missed it (as I did all these terrorist attacks we've had since Obama was inaugurated), childhood obesity has been a hot topic for the last several years.

Michelle Obama is not an elected official. Hillary Clinton got in truoble for acting like she was an elected official. Most first ladies try to stay far away from politics. Literacy was taken, sorry. Michlelle chose nutrition as her cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cw30000 View Post
Didn't you read what OP said? This is a parent's responsibility. Not the government. Why do they feel they need to be in every aspect of our life? Do you think someone in a remote office, that never eat public school lunch will know my kids better than me?
No, I don't think a federal official will know your kids better than you. But that doesn't mean you know anything about nutrition, no offense. The school lunch program is not about every morsel that a child puts into his/her mouth. It's about the nutritional content of school lunches. Standards for these lunches have been in place for decades. If you want your kids to eat crap, pack a lunch for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:24 AM
 
19,572 posts, read 13,312,593 times
Reputation: 4910
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillynillyTalc View Post
How are the parents supposed to educate their children about proper nutrition when they don't even know what that is in the first place?

If I teach my kids how to eat healthy and they go to school and get pizza and french fries and soda for lunch, how does that help me? I am completely in favor of school lunches and subsidizing them for the poor, but they should be the healthiest thing possible.

I'm shocked that the nutrition of our children has been politicized into some perverse right vs left issue. In this country we offer free public education to all, it's not perfect but it is what it is. It's also better than what most lesser countries have. It's also better than nothing. With education we also make available food to those who need to eat, even pay for it for those that need that sort of assistance. Why on earth should we give them junk food? Who does that benefit? Granted, the system needs work, it's not perfect, but it ain't really that bad either. I take the system we have now over no system at all. It's better than only those who can afford education getting education.

Nutrition should be taught and practiced alongside Physical Education, Finance, History, English, etc.
Nutrition is not a political issue, the feds wanting another freaking multi-billion dollar program is the issue.

I remember when the repubs took over congers in 1994, Dick Gephardt went on national TV, from a school cafeteria, spewing propaganda, that if his version of a bill was not passed thru the congress, that "children in this very school wili go hungry". The very next day the principle had to go on local TV to calm the parents down, she said her school was not even using federal funds for their school lunch program, and none of the children will go hungry.

I only mention the incident in 1994, because states will be taxed an extra $200 million by the feds, even if they do not participate in this new, new school meals program. That's $200 mill, on top of their current state budget deficits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:35 AM
 
19,572 posts, read 13,312,593 times
Reputation: 4910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I clicked on the link and one has to register to watch the video so I decided to pass; don't need anymore passowrds, etc. However, I would be willing to bet my life that M. Obama's statement was taken way out of context, as the RW is wont to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYo_...layer_embedded

Parents feed their kids breakfast and supper, and lunch for a kid is commonly a peanut butter sandwich or lunch meat, or left-over chicken, fruit cup, etc... Parents can pack their kids a box lunch, but this bill would prevent them from doing so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:41 AM
 
29,988 posts, read 36,096,360 times
Reputation: 12733
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBYo_...layer_embedded

Parents feed their kids breakfast and supper, and lunch for a kid is commonly a peanut butter sandwich or lunch meat, or left-over chicken, fruit cup, etc... Parents can pack their kids a box lunch, but this bill would prevent them from doing so.
Does it? Or does it just prevent the sale of such restricted items? Do you have a link to that portion of the legislation?

Either way, that the liberals, and Michelle Obama specifically, had to pull out both barrels of "it's for the children" and " a matter of national security" should have red flags waving and sirens going off for everyone.

Would it not just have been more beneficial to incentivize states to add nutrition classes into schools beginning at the elementary level as well as for Medicaid/foodstamp recipients? Nope, not since it is about control rather than long term health choices. Not since this is really a union payback.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,206 posts, read 99,439,539 times
Reputation: 31653
I haven't read the bill closely, but I'd guess it's more about the sale of "competitive foods" (something that is not new, BTW) than prohibiting kids from bringing their own lunches.

At the schools my kids attended, nutrition was integrated into health classes and other science classes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:20 AM
 
19,572 posts, read 13,312,593 times
Reputation: 4910
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Does it? Or does it just prevent the sale of such restricted items? Do you have a link to that portion of the legislation?

Either way, that the liberals, and Michelle Obama specifically, had to pull out both barrels of "it's for the children" and " a matter of national security" should have red flags waving and sirens going off for everyone.

Would it not just have been more beneficial to incentivize states to add nutrition classes into schools beginning at the elementary level as well as for Medicaid/foodstamp recipients? Nope, not since it is about control rather than long term health choices. Not since this is really a union payback.
I was just being a little facetious, if I packed my kid a lunch with a peanutbutter sandwich, hard boiled egg, Hostess fruit pie and a Snickers bar, that the school nutition Nazis would pounce my kid "Son, please step away from the fruit pie and the candy bar".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,225 posts, read 15,394,087 times
Reputation: 11861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
4

Parents feed their kids breakfast and supper, and lunch for a kid is commonly a peanut butter sandwich or lunch meat, or left-over chicken, fruit cup, etc... Parents can pack their kids a box lunch, but this bill would prevent them from doing so.
Seriously? This bill actually says that parents will no longer be able to pack lunch for their own children?


The bill only covers food either sold at schools or provided as part of the free/reduced cost meal programs.

"The new nutrition standards would be written by the Agriculture Department, which would decide which kinds of foods may be sold and what ingredients can be used in school cafeterias and vending machines.

Popular foods like hamburgers and pizza will likely stay on school lunch lines but become healthier, made with leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks."

Bill signed into law will boost funding, nutrition for school lunch programs *

If anyone wants to know what this legislation is intended to combat, take a look at this:

Fed Up With Lunch: The School Lunch Project
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:32 AM
 
19,572 posts, read 13,312,593 times
Reputation: 4910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I haven't read the bill closely, but I'd guess it's more about the sale of "competitive foods" (something that is not new, BTW) than prohibiting kids from bringing their own lunches.

At the schools my kids attended, nutrition was integrated into health classes and other science classes.
I think teaching nutrition in school science class is universal now. I would say teaching children about their own bodies and nutrition is extremely important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2010, 11:36 AM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,399,401 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post

Secondly, what non-political cause do you think Michelle Obama should take up? As a health profession, I think childhood nutrition is a great cause. In case you missed it (as I did all these terrorist attacks we've had since Obama was inaugurated), childhood obesity has been a hot topic for the last several years.

Michelle Obama is not an elected official. Hillary Clinton got in truoble for acting like she was an elected official. Most first ladies try to stay far away from politics. Literacy was taken, sorry. Michlelle chose nutrition as her cause.

So I guess when we elect a president we should just assume that new laws will be written due to the concerns of their wives? Literacy may have been "taken" but if you think that parents don't know about nutrition then it says our educational system is flawed. Didn't parents go through the educational system as well?

Maybe her "cause", given she has the ear of unions, would be to have them drop tenure and get rid of inaffective teachers.




No, I don't think a federal official will know your kids better than you. But that doesn't mean you know anything about nutrition, no offense. The school lunch program is not about every morsel that a child puts into his/her mouth. It's about the nutritional content of school lunches. Standards for these lunches have been in place for decades. If you want your kids to eat crap, pack a lunch for them.
So if the schools will now be doing breakfast, lunch, and dinner, it takes up a good percentages of the morsels I would say and "no offense" but who should make those decisions? Do you really believe that parents these days are so uneducated that they can't raise their own children without a bueracrat making the rules for them?

If the standards for these lunches have been in place for decades I guess you are admitting it isn't the lunches or standards that are the problem. So what do you think it is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top