What would Liberals eat?

[koshergrl]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Then argue that we should get rid of school provided lunches altogether.

You lazy fucking parents make your child a home packed lunch. Poor people, that's what SNAP is for.

Problem SOLVED

I sure as shit hope you aren't talking to me.

 

[boedicca]

Why does a school need to get food from the federal government in the first place?

That really is the issue. Why does the Federal government hoover up taxpayer dollars and then dole them out with strings attached?

Because that is the way to put areas that used to be governed by state and local governments under the Federal thumb. It's basically a maneuver to make the 10th Amendment meaningless.

Who doles out money without strings attached? Don't think I've ever seen that.

Has it ever occurred to you how corrupt it is to give people back their own money in social engineering experiments.

give them back their own money?

huh?

the families getting free and reduced lunches are taxpayers ya think? that's an odd thought.

Perhaps if the government weren't sucking up so much money the economy would grow...leading to more people having jobs and being able to afford their own food.

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.

If the argument is that children are STARVING because they don't meet the minimum daily caloric intake (and that is the allegation..that the only food these kids get is at school) then the primary consideration is calories.

You don't address *hunger* by reducing calories of the meals meant to alleviate *hunger*.

 

[Samson]

Then let local school districts decide what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make...one's where they aren't losing a ton of money.

Remember though, this is welfare we are talking about. Free lunch for illegal aliens out in my area. Parents who buy their own food for kids can feed them whatever they want.

This is heresy and I'll get it from all sides, but here is a novel idea, end the free lunch program.....

It's not heresy...it's common sense.

If you subsidize something, you get more of it.

Speaking of common sense, how are school districts going to decide "what kind of lunches that kids don't like to make?"



Let all the kids go into the cafeteria and begin experimenting?

 

[koshergrl]

My kids go to school with bologna sammiches on white bread, chips, pudding, and an apple.

Every day.

Occasionally I send yogurt, or pb&j.

 

[koshergrl]

And they get pissed if I make them eat cafeteria crap.

 

[Samson]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.

If the argument is that children are STARVING because they don't meet the minimum daily caloric intake (and that is the allegation..that the only food these kids get is at school) then the primary consideration is calories.

You don't address *hunger* by reducing calories of the meals meant to alleviate *hunger*.

So, you think F&R lunch programs are supposed to keep people from starving?

Where'd you get that idea?

 

[bendog]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.

If the argument is that children are STARVING because they don't meet the minimum daily caloric intake (and that is the allegation..that the only food these kids get is at school) then the primary consideration is calories.

You don't address *hunger* by reducing calories of the meals meant to alleviate *hunger*.

The OP is about potato chips being denied. But if you're talking about something else, I'd like to hear it.

 

[G.T.]

My kids go to school with bologna sammiches on white bread, chips, pudding, and an apple.

Every day.

Occasionally I send yogurt, or pb&j.

then you're not too sharp in terms of nutrition, if that's the goal with those meals.

 

[koshergrl]

My goal is to keep them fueled between breakfast and supper.

It serves the purpose.

 

[R.D.]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.

If the argument is that children are STARVING because they don't meet the minimum daily caloric intake (and that is the allegation..that the only food these kids get is at school) then the primary consideration is calories.

You don't address *hunger* by reducing calories of the meals meant to alleviate *hunger*.

The OP is about potato chips being denied. But if you're talking about something else, I'd like to hear it.

Its about choice being denied

 

[koshergrl]

Again.

The progressives tell us that children are starving, and that we must provide MORE money to school lunch programs.

Then they reduce the calories offered via school lunch programs.

How does this address hunger again?

Nutritional value is not all calories.

If the argument is that children are STARVING because they don't meet the minimum daily caloric intake (and that is the allegation..that the only food these kids get is at school) then the primary consideration is calories.

You don't address *hunger* by reducing calories of the meals meant to alleviate *hunger*.

The OP is about potato chips being denied. But if you're talking about something else, I'd like to hear it.

No, the OP is about the restrictions imposed upon school children by the federal school nutrition programs, under the fake guise of "feeding the hungry children".

Again. If they're hungry, why restrict the calories?

Ps...it has something to do with encouraging a *die off*.

 

[G.T.]

Yea?

Look up nitrates and their link to cancer.

Then see: whats in bologna.

Then realize, you dont give it to them in moderation, but EVERY DAY.

 

[koshergrl]

I would be perfectly happy if 250 calories of chips was replaced with 250 calories of protein, fruit, or veggie.

But they aren't doing that. They're just yanking those extra calories.

 

[Darlene]

If the Federal government didn't provide them 24/7/365 minute by minute instructions, what would Liberals eat? House plants? Dirt? Paint chips? paper clips? I mean are they really that helpless that they need Michelle Obama to tell them EVERYTHING?

"The federal snack rules take effect this year for school districts across the country that participate in the federal free and reduced lunch program. They restrict snack foods sold at schools to those with at least 50 percent whole grain, with low sugar, fat and sodium content. Each snack must also come in under 200 calories, according to the news site.

That means a lot of popular snacks are now off the table, including donuts, brownies, potato chips, full flavor pop, candy bars, and most other foods teenagers prefer. Even salt shakers and packets are now illegal."

School employee on snack rules 8216 You cannot buy a Tic Tac in a Nebraska school I checked 8217 - EAGnews.org powered by Education Action Group Foundation Inc.

Diet soda is worse than "full flavor" soda.

 

[koshergrl]

Yea?

Look up nitrates and their link to cancer.

Then see: whats in bologna.

Then realize, you dont give it to them in moderation, but EVERY DAY.

Meh.

 

[Tresha91203]

Meh, I don't have a problem with restricted choices when taxpayer money is used to pay for it, personally. It works well for WIC. Should work fine for public school lunches and snap. One is always free to spend their own money for junk food. When my budget is tight, junk food is the first to go, then eating out. Why should I pay for someone else's donuts when I can't afford any for my own family?

 

[boedicca]

Its about choice being denied

Bingo.

Why on earth should the feds be micromanaging school lunches?

On a side note, I committed an act of civil disobedience on Saturday. I bought lemonade from a neighborhood kid who was selling it without a Vendor Permit and Health Department Certificate.

 

[koshergrl]

Meh, I don't have a problem with restricted choices when taxpayer money is used to pay for it, personally. It works well for WIC. Should work fine for public school lunches and snap. One is always free to spend their own money for junk food. When by budget is tight, junk food is the first to go, then eating out. Why should I pay for someone else's donuts when I can't afford any for my own family?

And that is reasonable...EXCEPT...

they pushed these incredibly expensive programs onto us by insisting that school children were STARVING.

 

[jasonnfree]

If the Federal government didn't provide them 24/7/365 minute by minute instructions, what would Liberals eat? House plants? Dirt? Paint chips? paper clips? I mean are they really that helpless that they need Michelle Obama to tell them EVERYTHING?

"The federal snack rules take effect this year for school districts across the country that participate in the federal free and reduced lunch program. They restrict snack foods sold at schools to those with at least 50 percent whole grain, with low sugar, fat and sodium content. Each snack must also come in under 200 calories, according to the news site.

That means a lot of popular snacks are now off the table, including donuts, brownies, potato chips, full flavor pop, candy bars, and most other foods teenagers prefer. Even salt shakers and packets are now illegal."

School employee on snack rules 8216 You cannot buy a Tic Tac in a Nebraska school I checked 8217 - EAGnews.org powered by Education Action Group Foundation Inc.

Where are these instructions my government gives me, Frank? Hurry, I'm getting hungry. A link, anything. Hurry.