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

[Vigilante]

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

Riders should be ILLEGAL

As a small government "conservative" you should agree with that statement.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you believe ANY police department generates enough revenue from speeding tickets alone to pay for the measures used to stop those speeders in the first place? I would highly doubt that is true.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you believe ANY police department generates enough revenue from speeding tickets alone to pay for the measures used to stop those speeders in the first place? I would highly doubt that is true.

Remember this place?

Ferguson, Missouri, collects around $2 million annually in fines and fees, mostly from traffic tickets -- a 44 percent increase from three years ago, the city's annual budget shows.

According to data compiled by Better Together, an economic-development group in St. Louis, fines for speeding and other violations account for more than 14 percent of Ferguson's municipal revenue. The town of 21,203 is too small and too poor to support itself with taxes, so police help the city's bottom line by ticketing drivers aggressively
​

How about GA:

Doraville, a city of 10,600, took in nearly $9 million in traffic fines between 2008 and 2012; Jonesboro, with 4,700 people, netted $3 million during the same period.

Roswell: 94,000 people, $9 million in fines;

Doraville: 10,600 people, $9 million in fines​

What about this town:

Randolph, Mo., is a tiny town with a common problem: money is tight.

To keep afloat, the Kansas City outpost apparently did what many little towns on big highways do. It came to rely on passing motorists filling its municipal coffers one traffic ticket at a time.

The problem came last year when, 15 years after Missouri passed a law capping certain ticket collections at 35% of a town's revenue, the state decided to actually enforce the law.

It's unclear why state auditors suddenly opened the town's books, but upon doing so they discovered that Randolph--population 47--had collected more than three-quarters of its $270,000 budget the year before from traffic fines issued on state and federal roads. By law, money that exceeds the 35% limit must be turned over to county schools​

There are a number of small towns along highways that fund their police force from tickets. It's actually quite common.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you believe ANY police department generates enough revenue from speeding tickets alone to pay for the measures used to stop those speeders in the first place? I would highly doubt that is true.

Remember this place?

Ferguson, Missouri, collects around $2 million annually in fines and fees, mostly from traffic tickets -- a 44 percent increase from three years ago, the city's annual budget shows.

According to data compiled by Better Together, an economic-development group in St. Louis, fines for speeding and other violations account for more than 14 percent of Ferguson's municipal revenue. The town of 21,203 is too small and too poor to support itself with taxes, so police help the city's bottom line by ticketing drivers aggressively
​

How about GA:

Doraville, a city of 10,600, took in nearly $9 million in traffic fines between 2008 and 2012; Jonesboro, with 4,700 people, netted $3 million during the same period.

Roswell: 94,000 people, $9 million in fines;

Doraville: 10,600 people, $9 million in fines​

What about this town:

Randolph, Mo., is a tiny town with a common problem: money is tight.

To keep afloat, the Kansas City outpost apparently did what many little towns on big highways do. It came to rely on passing motorists filling its municipal coffers one traffic ticket at a time.

The problem came last year when, 15 years after Missouri passed a law capping certain ticket collections at 35% of a town's revenue, the state decided to actually enforce the law.

It's unclear why state auditors suddenly opened the town's books, but upon doing so they discovered that Randolph--population 47--had collected more than three-quarters of its $270,000 budget the year before from traffic fines issued on state and federal roads. By law, money that exceeds the 35% limit must be turned over to county schools​

There are a number of small towns along highways that fund their police force from tickets. It's actually quite common.

Now this is going to blow your mind Mike , because you are clearly incapable of doing this when necessary , but you proved me wrong on this point.

 

[Howey]

Look if want your kids to enjoy the fine foods served at private schools then quit complaining send your children to a private school.

Wow, you are a classless ass.

In other words, parents of kids in public schools can fuck off. That's what you meant to say, right?

They can make lunch. Buying a school lunch is entirely optional.

Taxpayers have already paid for those school lunches, moron. That part isn't optional. what you're saying is that parents have the option of paying twice.

Liberals are mentally retarded. That's the only explanation for such idiocies. You have to talk to them like they are children.

And what you're saying is you're too lazy to get off your fat ass and make your kid's lunches. Gotcha.

What I'm saying is that you and your Komrades are a gang of assholes who want to impose your "standards" on people who don't want them. Parents paid for school lunches with their taxes. They are the only ones who should determine what they contain.

Ok. Go ahead and call your kid's school and tell them you want your kids served peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every day. They'll tell you the same thing I did:

Good. Make them or STFU.

And be ready to be liable for their fellow students deaths from peanut allergies because your kids traded away that nasty shit for something else.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

In other words, parents of kids in public schools can fuck off. That's what you meant to say, right?

They can make lunch. Buying a school lunch is entirely optional.

Taxpayers have already paid for those school lunches, moron. That part isn't optional. what you're saying is that parents have the option of paying twice.

Liberals are mentally retarded. That's the only explanation for such idiocies. You have to talk to them like they are children.

And what you're saying is you're too lazy to get off your fat ass and make your kid's lunches. Gotcha.

What I'm saying is that you and your Komrades are a gang of assholes who want to impose your "standards" on people who don't want them. Parents paid for school lunches with their taxes. They are the only ones who should determine what they contain.

Ok. Go ahead and call your kid's school and tell them you want your kids served peanut butter and jelly sandwiches every day. They'll tell you the same thing I did:

Good. Make them or STFU.

And be ready to be liable for their fellow students deaths from peanut allergies because your kids traded away that nasty shit for something else.

I packed lunches this morning, it was an " I don't wanna eat cafeteria food" day

Almond butter and honey on artisan bread with rosemary and sea salt potato wedges,with a wedge of chocolate pie and a bottled water (Perrier of course)

Fucking poor people.

 

[Howey]

They can make lunch. Buying a school lunch is entirely optional.

Taxpayers have already paid for those school lunches, moron. That part isn't optional. what you're saying is that parents have the option of paying twice.

Liberals are mentally retarded. That's the only explanation for such idiocies. You have to talk to them like they are children.

If you don't like the program, pay to have your kids go to the school the Obama kids go to. Or STFU and get off y
our lazy ass and make their goddam lunch!

No, it wouldn't, dumbass. The federal government is imposing these menus on our schools, so how would bitching to the school board help?

Question: bripat9643 : If you were unemployed or disabled and couldn't afford school lunches for your children, wouldn't you appreciate this program?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Taxpayers have already paid for those school lunches, moron. That part isn't optional. what you're saying is that parents have the option of paying twice.

Liberals are mentally retarded. That's the only explanation for such idiocies. You have to talk to them like they are children.

If you don't like the program, pay to have your kids go to the school the Obama kids go to. Or STFU and get off y
our lazy ass and make their goddam lunch!

No, it wouldn't, dumbass. The federal government is imposing these menus on our schools, so how would bitching to the school board help?

Question: bripat9643 : If you were unemployed or disabled and couldn't afford school lunches for your children, wouldn't you appreciate this program?

Howey tell the truth here. An unemployed person should have plenty of time to pack their kids lunch right?

 

[Howey]

What's so bad about this?

 

[Howey]

bripat9643 to schoolkid:

"Don't eat that shit! It's good for you!"

 

[Rozman]

What's so bad about this?

That has to be what Obama's kids eat...
I have seen many pics from kids who have to eat the crap Michelle has set up for them to eat...
They looked nothing like this pic...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What's so bad about this?

May as well give it up Howey, they are apparently too stupid to realize that it is entirely up to whomever is cookingin the kitchen as to how good the food is.

 

[mdk]

Kids in school are grossed out by the food that is served in the cafeteria. In other news: the sun rises in the East.

 

[Howey]

Wouldn't your time be better spent bitching to your school board instead of bitching on an Internet forum?

No, it wouldn't, dumbass. The federal government is imposing these menus on our schools, so how would bitching to the school board help?

And you think bitching here is going to help? Not hardly. Get off your dead ass and raise hell with other like minded parents at the next school board meeting. Threaten their jobs next election if they don't make the changes you wish. Or you could do nothing and complain on a forum instead.

The school board isn't responsible, you fucking dumbass. The federal government is reponsible.

Why I will do is lobby every chance I get to abolish public schools. This is just one more example of how fucked up they are. Kids can't even get a decent lunch because bootlickers and toadies want to use them for social experiments.

Good luck with that mate.

People who agree with me are growing in numbers.

Apparently so...

Mental health substance abuse inpatient admissions increase - FierceHealthcare

 

[Howey]

What's so bad about this?

That has to be what Obama's kids eat...
I have seen many pics from kids who have to eat the crap Michelle has set up for them to eat...
They looked nothing like this pic...

I believe that's from the Jefferson Co. Mo. school lunch menu.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

This menu is SOOOOOOOOOOOO disgusting and pathetic. FUCK YOU MOOOCHELLE


Food Services Primary Elementary Menu

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you believe ANY police department generates enough revenue from speeding tickets alone to pay for the measures used to stop those speeders in the first place? I would highly doubt that is true.

Remember this place?

Ferguson, Missouri, collects around $2 million annually in fines and fees, mostly from traffic tickets -- a 44 percent increase from three years ago, the city's annual budget shows.

According to data compiled by Better Together, an economic-development group in St. Louis, fines for speeding and other violations account for more than 14 percent of Ferguson's municipal revenue. The town of 21,203 is too small and too poor to support itself with taxes, so police help the city's bottom line by ticketing drivers aggressively
​

How about GA:

Doraville, a city of 10,600, took in nearly $9 million in traffic fines between 2008 and 2012; Jonesboro, with 4,700 people, netted $3 million during the same period.

Roswell: 94,000 people, $9 million in fines;

Doraville: 10,600 people, $9 million in fines​

What about this town:

Randolph, Mo., is a tiny town with a common problem: money is tight.

To keep afloat, the Kansas City outpost apparently did what many little towns on big highways do. It came to rely on passing motorists filling its municipal coffers one traffic ticket at a time.

The problem came last year when, 15 years after Missouri passed a law capping certain ticket collections at 35% of a town's revenue, the state decided to actually enforce the law.

It's unclear why state auditors suddenly opened the town's books, but upon doing so they discovered that Randolph--population 47--had collected more than three-quarters of its $270,000 budget the year before from traffic fines issued on state and federal roads. By law, money that exceeds the 35% limit must be turned over to county schools​

There are a number of small towns along highways that fund their police force from tickets. It's actually quite common.

Now this is going to blow your mind Mike , because you are clearly incapable of doing this when necessary , but you proved me wrong on this point.

Yeah well on the other issues, I never had a leg to stand on... I was playing the part of public defender of guilty parties.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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

Why should liberty be balanced with what's best for the community? I don't get that. Why is the desire of certain members of the community to force others to bend to their will more important than the minority to choose to live other ways?

Yes you can have mandatory education without funding it. For example, you can't speed, if you do speed you pay a fine the fine goes to pay for law enforcement officers to police more speeders.

In this example, if you mandate education for children then the parents have to put their kids through school, any which way they can. Beg, borrow, receive donations, home-school, pay it, start a school, or other means.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that you believe ANY police department generates enough revenue from speeding tickets alone to pay for the measures used to stop those speeders in the first place? I would highly doubt that is true.

Remember this place?

Ferguson, Missouri, collects around $2 million annually in fines and fees, mostly from traffic tickets -- a 44 percent increase from three years ago, the city's annual budget shows.

According to data compiled by Better Together, an economic-development group in St. Louis, fines for speeding and other violations account for more than 14 percent of Ferguson's municipal revenue. The town of 21,203 is too small and too poor to support itself with taxes, so police help the city's bottom line by ticketing drivers aggressively
​

How about GA:

Doraville, a city of 10,600, took in nearly $9 million in traffic fines between 2008 and 2012; Jonesboro, with 4,700 people, netted $3 million during the same period.

Roswell: 94,000 people, $9 million in fines;

Doraville: 10,600 people, $9 million in fines​

What about this town:

Randolph, Mo., is a tiny town with a common problem: money is tight.

To keep afloat, the Kansas City outpost apparently did what many little towns on big highways do. It came to rely on passing motorists filling its municipal coffers one traffic ticket at a time.

The problem came last year when, 15 years after Missouri passed a law capping certain ticket collections at 35% of a town's revenue, the state decided to actually enforce the law.

It's unclear why state auditors suddenly opened the town's books, but upon doing so they discovered that Randolph--population 47--had collected more than three-quarters of its $270,000 budget the year before from traffic fines issued on state and federal roads. By law, money that exceeds the 35% limit must be turned over to county schools​

There are a number of small towns along highways that fund their police force from tickets. It's actually quite common.

Now this is going to blow your mind Mike , because you are clearly incapable of doing this when necessary , but you proved me wrong on this point.

Yeah well on the other issues, I never had a leg to stand on... I was playing the part of public defender of guilty parties.

IE trolling