The School Lunches Malia And Sasha Eat Vs. The Crap Michelle Obama Has Foisted On America

[rightwinger]

Why obsess over the federal government?

Government is government. We want it performed at the most efficient level. Sometimes local government is the most efficient.....sometimes federal government is the most efficient

right, just sit back and agree with everything you say, right?

Actually...We the People get to say

What a concept!

In other words, the mob decides for everyone.

If you consider "We the People" a mob...that is your right

"We the people" is a euphemism meaning the mob.

It is a "mob" of over 300 million people living peaceably

 

[RKMBrown]

You asked, whether that means "instead of packing their own they should tell the schools what each one wants and thats the solution?" No that's not what it means. It means the schools should provide a menu of options to the parents and the parents should set a meal plan for their kids, either from said menu or they can send their kids off to school with a lunch pail, or some combination.

You do understand that giving them a menu to choose from is not liberty, right?

It is certainly more liberty than they get now. True liberty would mean abolishing government schools.

No, abolishing government schools is not liberty.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Having control over the meals your kids are served is not "being treated VIP." Why should anyone besides the parents have any say whatsoever in how public schools are run? What possible justification is there for Washington bureaucrats to get involved?

When I was at school I had a packed lunch. When I was young it was a sandwich and some other stuff, by high school it consisted of a few pieces of bread and nothing else. That was the control. The control exists, parents should have several options. One option should be a healthy balanced meal at school. One option should NOT be crap food.

What justification could there be for Washington bureaucrats to get involved? Well, the govt could be merely the provider of information and plans for schools to take up. So the govt can basically used pooled money so that each individual state doesn't have to. Then they show their plans to states who either take it up or don't. However the problem is that Washington is just full of people looking out for their own interests. So I understand where you're coming from on this one.

Schools should be run better. Guidance from above should be better, also communication with parents and schools should be better so that schools actually do what they're supposed to do, rather than just be a political battleground.

"Guidance from above should be better?" In other words, you believe Washington bureaucrats should have more say than the parents. Parents don't need "better communication." They need control. You have yet to post a single reason they shouldn't have it. The "battleground" is a result of the fact that outsiders like Moochelle want control. It will end the minute they butt out.

No, not necessarily.

What I mean first off is the aims for education in the first place. I don't know if there are any aims other than getting kids an "education". What does an "education" mean? Not much. Kids in madrassas get an "education". It's not good and it's not useful in the real world.


I'd like for education to be skills based, and also with aims for teaching kids how to be good adults. Able to think for themselves, able to make decisions about relationships, kids, health and so on that are positive.

In theory this would have to come from high up for it to have an impact nationwide. Do I think that a bunch of politicians who can't get rid of the dollar bill could manage such a thing? No I don't.

How much do parents know about education? Unless they're in the business probably not a lot. I'm not saying they shouldn't have an input, I think it's essential, but I don't think it solves the major problem of educational aims which are severely lacking right now.

A reason why parents should have control. Because parents can think they have the best interests of their kids at heart but they don't do anything that puts the best interests of their kids in place. Some parents are great, others not. When you have Parent Teacher meetings, most parents don't go. It's some who do, and some have some great ideas.

In the UK there is a system of free schools that the Tories (right wing) govt put in place. It's a bit of a disaster (I'm being generous), you have the religious schools, one which took 1 million pounds and sent it off to Pakistan while their school in the UK was falling down. That was "parent power" or something like that.

Free Schools National Union of Teachers - NUT

"The first free schools were opened in 2011. Free Schools are independent schools with state funding. Any "suitable sponsor" can apply to the Secretary of State for Education for approval to open a free school including private businesses, academy chains, parents, teachers, other schools, universities and faith groups."

"The NUT [National Union of Teachers] opposes free schools. We believe it is wrong that state funding should be given to small groups of individuals to run schools that are unaccountable to their local communities. "

Majority of identifiable Free School proposals from 2011-13 were religious British Humanist Association
"Majority of identifiable Free School proposals from 2011-13 were religious"

Muslim schools especially have come under fire for major problems

Troubled Muslim free school to close - Telegraph

"
Troubled Muslim free school to close"

Muslim free school branded as dysfunctional UK News Daily Express

"
Muslim free school branded as 'dysfunctional'"

 

[frigidweirdo]

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Really? Forced? They can't home school or private? Clearly some people can't, but then again they're getting a free education for their kids.

However this isn't even the problem. The problem is that schools aren't run well enough for parents to be happy with what's happening with their kids in a lot of cases. I'm not saying schools shouldn't be accommodating. What I'm saying is that parents can't just walk around demanding everything from a school, which would make the effectiveness of schools be much lower.

I've seen some excellent schools and I've seen some pretty bad schools.

The problem is that weasels like you think Washington bureaucrats know better than parents.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. However I do think there is a massive problem in Washington. They do have the ability to run things properly, they just choose not to.

Also, I've seen some pretty bad parents, and schools in certain areas are going to have a hard time if parents are in charge.

It's not always about one group having all the control and power, but about lots of different things coming together with good leadership.

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of times this doesn't happen.

You can either look at what I write and not just to conclusions, or you can start throwing insults at me.

Do I think you know better than SOME politicians about how education should be run? No, however there are many politicians who don't have a freaking clue.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Parents are the legal guardians of their kids. Yes?

Parents should have the right to select a meal plan for their kids. Yes?

Funding for said meal plan's is the responsibility of the legal guardians. Yes?

Parents should have the right to ask schools, that they are funding, to treat their kids as they deem. Yes?

Welfare safety nets is a tertiary issue. However, just because you are on welfare does not mean you should have to hand over guardianship of you kids to the government. Yes?

Voila... off the top of my head there is the outline of my liberty based solution for you sir.

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

 

[rightwinger]

I do

My check also pays for military invasions

I'm not talking about taxes, asshole. Write a check from your personal funds. Otherwise, no one believes you give a shit. You just want to loot others.

I write personal checks too

Our government does what needs to be done. Helping those who need help is one of those needs.

It doesn't need to be done by the federal government, nimrod.

Why obsess over the federal government?

Government is government. We want it performed at the most efficient level. Sometimes local government is the most efficient.....sometimes federal government is the most efficient

The real questions are;

... do you want a postal service employee removing your appendix?
... do you want the county clerk removing your appendix?

Be honest RW, you would balk at either option.

.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Every parent should be able to pick their kids lunch? Meaning instead of packing their own they should tell the schools what each one wants and thats the solution?

That sounds more like anarchy to me because everyone will want something different and when someone doesnt get their veggie tofu wrap then w're back a square one with the parents not liking the choices arent we?

There has to be a better way than let every parent decide what the school menu will be everyday

The idea that some bureaucrat in Washington DC should have more say over what's in a kids lunch than his own parents is too ludicrous to contemplate. In fact, the idea that Washington bureaucrats should have any say whatsoever is ludicrous.

How can all these numskulls who claim to believe in "choice" and "democracy" support this police state policy?

How many parents should make up the school lunch decisions? All of them?

How is that logistically possible? lol

The parents of each school should make the decision for that school.

Actually, the government schools should just be abolished and that would solve this problem once and for all.

Every parent and Every school has to fill in the blanks of what their kid wants and then what? Does everyone get what they want or do you have to narrow down the choices and take away their liberty?

What is the justification for giving some Washington bureaucrat authority over school lunch menus? Please, I'm dying to know. None of your questions are a justification for Washington to interfere.

Now shut up with your "parents know better"

 

[bripat9643]

The idea that some bureaucrat in Washington DC should have more say over what's in a kids lunch than his own parents is too ludicrous to contemplate. In fact, the idea that Washington bureaucrats should have any say whatsoever is ludicrous.

How can all these numskulls who claim to believe in "choice" and "democracy" support this police state policy?

How many parents should make up the school lunch decisions? All of them?

How is that logistically possible? lol

The parents of each school should make the decision for that school.

Actually, the government schools should just be abolished and that would solve this problem once and for all.

Every parent and Every school has to fill in the blanks of what their kid wants and then what? Does everyone get what they want or do you have to narrow down the choices and take away their liberty?

What is the justification for giving some Washington bureaucrat authority over school lunch menus? Please, I'm dying to know. None of your questions are a justification for Washington to interfere.

Now shut up with your "parents know better"

Are you going to have that kid's parents arrested for overfeeding him?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

How many parents should make up the school lunch decisions? All of them?

How is that logistically possible? lol

The parents of each school should make the decision for that school.

Actually, the government schools should just be abolished and that would solve this problem once and for all.

Every parent and Every school has to fill in the blanks of what their kid wants and then what? Does everyone get what they want or do you have to narrow down the choices and take away their liberty?

What is the justification for giving some Washington bureaucrat authority over school lunch menus? Please, I'm dying to know. None of your questions are a justification for Washington to interfere.

Now shut up with your "parents know better"

Are you going to have that kid's parents arrested for overfeeding him?

I surely would like to. That's child abuse IMHO

 

[RKMBrown]

Parents are the legal guardians of their kids. Yes?

Parents should have the right to select a meal plan for their kids. Yes?

Funding for said meal plan's is the responsibility of the legal guardians. Yes?

Parents should have the right to ask schools, that they are funding, to treat their kids as they deem. Yes?

Welfare safety nets is a tertiary issue. However, just because you are on welfare does not mean you should have to hand over guardianship of you kids to the government. Yes?

Voila... off the top of my head there is the outline of my liberty based solution for you sir.

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property owned by people, be it through shares of business or private. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Parents are the legal guardians of their kids. Yes?

Parents should have the right to select a meal plan for their kids. Yes?

Funding for said meal plan's is the responsibility of the legal guardians. Yes?

Parents should have the right to ask schools, that they are funding, to treat their kids as they deem. Yes?

Welfare safety nets is a tertiary issue. However, just because you are on welfare does not mean you should have to hand over guardianship of you kids to the government. Yes?

Voila... off the top of my head there is the outline of my liberty based solution for you sir.

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

 

[jc456]

I'm not talking about taxes, asshole. Write a check from your personal funds. Otherwise, no one believes you give a shit. You just want to loot others.

I write personal checks too

Our government does what needs to be done. Helping those who need help is one of those needs.

It doesn't need to be done by the federal government, nimrod.

Why obsess over the federal government?

Government is government. We want it performed at the most efficient level. Sometimes local government is the most efficient.....sometimes federal government is the most efficient

right, just sit back and agree with everything you say, right?

Actually...We the People get to say

What a concept!

no that isn't true, herr Obama says otherwise. Did you miss that one,hmmm excuse me two?

 

[rightwinger]

Parents are the legal guardians of their kids. Yes?

Parents should have the right to select a meal plan for their kids. Yes?

Funding for said meal plan's is the responsibility of the legal guardians. Yes?

Parents should have the right to ask schools, that they are funding, to treat their kids as they deem. Yes?

Welfare safety nets is a tertiary issue. However, just because you are on welfare does not mean you should have to hand over guardianship of you kids to the government. Yes?

Voila... off the top of my head there is the outline of my liberty based solution for you sir.

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

Business also profits from an educated workforce

 

[rightwinger]

I write personal checks too

Our government does what needs to be done. Helping those who need help is one of those needs.

It doesn't need to be done by the federal government, nimrod.

Why obsess over the federal government?

Government is government. We want it performed at the most efficient level. Sometimes local government is the most efficient.....sometimes federal government is the most efficient

right, just sit back and agree with everything you say, right?

Actually...We the People get to say

What a concept!

no that isn't true, herr Obama says otherwise. Did you miss that one,hmmm excuse me two?

No idea what you are babbling about

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

Business also profits from an educated workforce

I own a restaurant.

I could hire 10 sixteen year olds who never had a day of public education in their lives., and with one year have them trained for various jobs in my business for FAR less than what I pay in combined taxes to "educate" those kids

 

[RKMBrown]

Parents are the legal guardians of their kids. Yes?

Parents should have the right to select a meal plan for their kids. Yes?

Funding for said meal plan's is the responsibility of the legal guardians. Yes?

Parents should have the right to ask schools, that they are funding, to treat their kids as they deem. Yes?

Welfare safety nets is a tertiary issue. However, just because you are on welfare does not mean you should have to hand over guardianship of you kids to the government. Yes?

Voila... off the top of my head there is the outline of my liberty based solution for you sir.

No. Parents have a choice of where they send their kids for their education, home schooling, private schools or state run schools. They cannot demand the school accomodate their child in every which way they choose. The school can set something up, if the parents don't like it they can CHOOSE to move their child out of the school.

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

Most, but not all businesses are owned by multiple people. Most, but not all businesses raise prices of their product to cover property taxes. Thus the property tax is really just passed along to consumers.

 

[ricechickie]

What is wrong with you people? Jake, there is a vast difference between what the Obama's get and the slop shown in the pictures.

Do you think school lunches looked more like the Sidwell school lunches before Obama became President?

 

[RKMBrown]

No that's not true. Parents are forced to fund public schools. Thus only parents that can afford to fund public and private schools have the choice. Most parents don't have the luxury to throw the money away that they are forced to pay for public schools.

Further, parents can and most certainly do demand schools accommodate their child. Not sure what schools your kids went to but our schools are pretty accommodating to the parents.

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

Business also profits from an educated workforce

I own a restaurant.

I could hire 10 sixteen year olds who never had a day of public education in their lives., and with one year have them trained for various jobs in my business for FAR less than what I pay in combined taxes to "educate" those kids

Well said! Yes, there is no valid reason to push the price of raising kids onto property owners.

 

[Stephanie]

Every parent should be required to eat the crap in a grade school they are FORCING them to cook. And while you are there apply to cook for 150 breakfast and lunch for 600 to 700 hundred children in 5.75 hrs. and that's a lie in this article, they didn't serve pizza and fries EVERYDAY for lunch.

SNIP;

Health groups fear bill could lead to return of pizza, fries in schools
295

By Lydia Wheeler - 12/12/14 06:00 AM EST
Health advocates are blasting provisions in federal funding legislation that are seen as dialing back school nutrition standards, even as the White House seeks to downplay the riders as “minor adjustments” to the first lady’s signature policy.

The bill known as “cromnibus,” contains language that would allow states to exempt struggling districts from having to offer all whole grain products and eases requirements for schools to reduce sodium levels.

Critics who lobbied against more restrictive nutrition rules hailed the language as a win.

The American Heart Association, meanwhile, worries the changes will open the door for more legislation that will allow schools to revert back to serving pizza and French fries every day for lunch.

“I don’t think we quite know the extent of what these provisions will do and how to move forward with them,” AHA’s Government Relations Manager Kristy Anderson said. “This is the tip of the iceberg for them to keep chipping away and rescind a popular law that works.”

The White House, which formally came out Thursday in support of the $1.1 trillion package, is denying that the riders will have any major impact on Michelle Obama’s prized standards, which are in line with her efforts to combat childhood obesity.

“In light of the efforts to roll back school nutrition standards, we consider the minor adjustments to the standards a real win for kids and parents,” Sam Kass, the executive director of the first lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative said in a statement.

“The Administration will continue to support districts across the country in every way we can to achieve the goal of providing good nutritious food for students,” added Kass, who is stepping down as President Obama’s personal chef at the end of the month.

The AHA is also upset about language in the bill that will keep schools from being able to use federal funds to implement the second round of sodium reductions in 2017 “until the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children.”

Sodium levels in school lunches now under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act must be less than 1,230 miligrams in elementary schools, 1,360 mg in middle schools and 1,420 mg in high schools. By 2017, those numbers were expected to drop to 935 mg, 1,035 mg and 1,080 mg respectively.

“We know that reducing sodium and increasing fruits and vegetables is critical for the cardio vascular health of children across the U.S.,” said Laurie Whitsel, AHA’s director of policy research.

“We’re seeing high blood pressure more and more in young children and that’s related to the obesity epidemic and high levels of sodium in the food supply.”

Whitsel admits the current sodium levels aren’t unsafe. They just aren’t the optimal levels the dietary Guidelines of America recommend.

Still, Jessica Donze Black, a child nutrition expert at the Pew Charitable Trusts, believes that U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans, due out next year, will provide sufficient data to trigger the more stringent standards.

As for whole grains, Cromnibus allows schools struggling financially to revert back to 2012 standards, which require only 50 percent of all grains used in meals to be whole grains rather than the new 100 percent standard, which kicks in this year.

The School Nutrition Association, a vocal critic of the tougher regulations, is calling this new flexibility a win for its members.

“We strongly support the legislation and see it as a critical first step in addressing unintended consequences that have resulted from some of the regulations,” SNA Spokeswoman Diane Preatt-Heavner.

The national nonprofit said it couldn’t wait until next year’s reauthorization of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to lobby for more relaxed rules. The group instead hired Barnes & Thornburg LLP to push through riders in the appropriations bill.

all of it here:
Health groups fear bill could lead to return of pizza fries in schools TheHill

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Not true,very few - if any - parents actually fund their children's public education. Most of that is paid for with property taxed, the bulk of which are paid for by businesses.

I guess that depends on where you live. Property is taxed here yes, but it's not like business property isn't owned by people. Thus what is being taxed is property. Yes, it's not right that property taxes are used to fund schools.

Right, but I mean a businesses property is worth FAR more than any personal property tax. I know very few people who pay enough in property tax to fund their child's education. But a large business on the other hand probably pays enough to fund the educaton of SEVERAL children.

Business also profits from an educated workforce

I own a restaurant.

I could hire 10 sixteen year olds who never had a day of public education in their lives., and with one year have them trained for various jobs in my business for FAR less than what I pay in combined taxes to "educate" those kids

Well said! Yes, there is no valid reason to push the price of raising kids onto property owners.

Actually,, there is one valid reason..

Liberty must be balanced with what's best for the community.

Having parents who refuse to educate their children certainly isn't what's best for the community, hence we must have mandatory education. You can't have mandatory education without funding it.

That being said, I think the public school system is an outdated model, at least at the high school level