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.
First it was complaining that kids were too fat and we were feeding them junk in school. Now it's complaining because the schools are serving healthy food but the kids won't eat it and how dare Michelle Obama have an opinion about that.
Can't win with some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay51
I think it is terrifying that the feds can tell anyone what they can and cannot eat.
In a school cafeteria that uses federal funding to feed the kids? Of course they do. If schools don't want to follow Fed regulations requiring healthy nutirioun guidelines then they are welcome to say no to the Federal funds and spend their own budgets on chicken nuggets and french fries exclusively.
Are you serious? Michelle Obama is abusing kids by giving them publicly funded
healthy food?
More like forcing it upon them with no choice but to not eat it. Yes, that is abuse.
Quote:
Since when are taxpayers required to pay for unhealthy food for kids? That
makes no sense. It's government food, it should be healthy. If their parents
want them to be fat, they're free to stuff them with cake and candy
themselves.
Who do you think are required to pay for government meals. If by healthy you mean it won't kill the kids, rejecting it will not kill them either. And the taxpayers still pays for it.
As for your opinion of options for the parents, whether or not the kids eat the meals, they still are forced to pay for them with no choice in the decision. That means that they have to pay for something that they are entitled to not to use.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Taxpayers are paying for the food. Kids don't have "freedom" eat what they want on the taxpayer's dime.
If your kid is hungry, maybe he should eat the food, even if he "doesn't like it". It's not the government's duty to feed kids pizza.
But it is their duty to feed kids item that they know won't be eaten? Simply talking to the kids would solve half of the problem, but what do kids know according to the government.
Oh well, then I guess they can starve themselves. If they don't like the food then they should bring their lunch....problem solved. Most kids who don't get a decent meal at home are thankful for what they eat at school and would never throw it in the trash.
Proof and statistics on your opinion? How many kids did you interview to confirm your opinion before stating it as fact?
ONE school in Chicago.
And that was the Principal's decision. It had nothing to do with Chicago Schools policy, or Michelle O, or The Federal Gov't, or the rest of the world.
ONE school out of thousands. But you'd know that if you provided a link.
Every thing has to start with one. Just wait for it.
Sorry, the Federal Government helps fund school lunch programs, which has
been discussed extensively in this thread. The program (NSLP) has been around
since the 40's. That sort of gives them the right to have input.
Pose the question again to see if all want government to tell them what to eat and how to raise their children. I suspect the program would be rescinded.
I agree. It was one of those ideas that sounded great in theory but was impossible to execute because you can't force feed children food they don't want to eat.
I don't think Michelle was wrong, intrusive or out of line for wanting to introduce healthy options into the school lunch program. Maybe some places went all Food Nazi and got carried away, but the overall basis of the program was well-intended. If you don't encourage children to make healthy choices when they're young, they're not going to do so when they're adults. We have the obesity rates to prove it.
Do you know how "well intended" programs have faired in history?
You could also make the argument that if parents would get off their lazy a**es and make a home-cooked meal instead of filling their kids up on crap, the federal government wouldn't have to step in and dictate what's served in the school cafeteria.
Obesity related diseases cost us billions annually and the percentage of Americans who are overweight/obese keeps going up. If parents aren't going to teach their children about nutrition, who else is supposed to do it? I get that it's personal choice, but when little Johnny is pre-diabetic at ten, that's an epic fail on the parenting front.
But wasn't Obamacare supposed to take care of all of those "billions" of dollars? Or is that another government dictate that is failing?
Additionally, the government cannot (yet) dictate what is taught in the home.
First it was complaining that kids were too fat and we were feeding them junk in school. Now it's complaining because the schools are serving healthy food but the kids won't eat it and how dare Michelle Obama have an opinion about that.
Can't win with some people.
In a school cafeteria that uses federal funding to feed the kids? Of course they do. If schools don't want to follow Fed regulations requiring healthy nutirioun guidelines then they are welcome to say no to the Federal funds and spend their own budgets on chicken nuggets and french fries exclusively.
So you approve of bribery and coercion by the federal government to get what they want?
Good to know that some approve the destruction of freedom.
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.
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.
