What would Liberals eat?

[koshergrl]

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.

OMG! Nitrates! Ecoli! Quick, let GT know so he can get the food police on your ass...

 

[Pogo]

Its about choice being denied

Bingo.

Why on earth should the feds be micromanaging school lunches?

Uhhh... "because they're buying" might be a good start...

 

[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.

OMG! Nitrates! Ecoli! Quick, let GT know so he can get the food police on your ass...

It's been 48 hours...and I'm STILL ALIVE!!!!!!

 

[bendog]

Those poor kids have a choice to be hungry. Dammit. For Christ's sake people, the feds were telling us we had to drink our milk back in 1965.

 

[boedicca]

Its about choice being denied

Bingo.

Why on earth should the feds be micromanaging school lunches?

Uhhh... "because they're buying" might be a good start...

No they're not. WE'RE paying for it. The Feds just take our money and give it to other people.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, that Salisbury Steak was nasty. But, I think you jpg is more circa 1965

I went to Public school in the Bronx and I'd rather eat plywood like a liberal than eat that Salisbury steak.

that's funny. you sell dope and move out of the bronx yet? or have a mattress business selling mexicans untaxed peanut wages lives so you could move on up over their wretched lives?

You should go to the nearest emergency room. You're concussed and not making a lick of sense. Pat your head and rub the stomach of the nearest person

just wondering what part of Bronx you saw? i saw that side. you see the bright side of it? where?

Grew up in Throggs Neck, went to Adlai Stevenson HS for 1 year when the City thought it was a good idea to bus white kids into the South Bronx so the black kids would learn how to learn. Yeah, that didn't end well. As much as we didn't want to be there, the community REALLY didn't want us there and correctly thought it was insulting. I missed about 20-25% of the school year but got to listen to the new Led Zeppelin IV (Vinyl) the day it was released.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

amazes me that anybody has a problem with public schools feeding kids healthier foods. But there it is.

I amazes me that libs continue to miss the point,.
We dont need Washington bureaurcrats telling us what to eat. We just dont. Making some snacks illegal is simply more nanny state nonsense.

Sure thing...

Childhood Obesity Facts

• Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2
• The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.1, 2
• In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1
• Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4
• Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health

 

[Pogo]

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

"choice" huh?

So lemme get this straight -- given an infusion of taxpayer money for free/subsidized nutrition in schools, you'd rather have your tax dollars buying LIttle Debbies and Snickers rather than actual human fuel. That's the way you want, again, your tax dollars being spent.

I'd like to take a moment to thank you for not running for office.

 

[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 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.

Some may be. I don't know. The kids have to eat lunch while they are at school, though, starving or not.

 

[R.D.]

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?

But those who can afford and with to allow their kids a treat now cant
either

 

[boedicca]

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.

amazes me that anybody has a problem with public schools feeding kids healthier foods. But there it is.

I amazes me that libs continue to miss the point,.
We dont need Washington bureaurcrats telling us what to eat. We just dont. Making some snacks illegal is simply more nanny state nonsense.

Sure thing...

Childhood Obesity Facts

• Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2
• The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.1, 2
• In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1
• Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4
• Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health

Yeah. Paying teenage girls to have children out of wedlock is working out really well...

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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*.

What are you talking about here? I mean really.

Caloric intake per meal is being reduced, total calories is not.

That's basic health knowledge that a few small calorie meals are better for you than one big calorie meal.

These kids getting these free and reduced price meals are getting breakfast, lunch, a snack, and sometimes dinner.

You really don't know what this program entails if you believe they are getting less calories in total than they used to.

 

[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

"choice" huh?

So lemme get this straight -- given an infusion of taxpayer money for free/subsidized nutrition in schools, you'd rather have your tax dollars buying LIttle Debbies and Snickers rather than actual human fuel. That's the way you want, again, your tax dollars being spent.

I'd like to take a moment to thank you for not running for office.

Pay attention.

Everyone is denied. Not only the poor.

And I thank you for not having kids.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

amazes me that anybody has a problem with public schools feeding kids healthier foods. But there it is.

I amazes me that libs continue to miss the point,.
We dont need Washington bureaurcrats telling us what to eat. We just dont. Making some snacks illegal is simply more nanny state nonsense.

Sure thing...

Childhood Obesity Facts

• Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2
• The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.1, 2
• In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1
• Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4
• Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health

Yeah. Paying teenage girls to have children out of wedlock is working out really well...

Huh, whaaa? How did you get that out of the above childhood obesity stats?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Where'd you get that idea?

The Communists told us:

{Federal child nutrition programs like NSLP address child hunger and promote good nutrition. With over 1 in 5 children in the United States living in a food insecure household,http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fi...cies/national-school-lunch-program.aspx#_edn1 NSLP plays a critical role in the healthy development and long-term health and educational outcomes for low-income children.}

National School Lunch Program br NSLP

 

[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?

But those who can afford and with to allow their kids a treat now cant
either

They can send lunch and a snickers with their child. IMO, that should ALWAYS be allowed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Change the white bread to whole grain and she would be doing well.

Protein, carb, dairy, fruit.

What exactly is wrong with it?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

"choice" huh?

So lemme get this straight -- given an infusion of taxpayer money for free/subsidized nutrition in schools, you'd rather have your tax dollars buying LIttle Debbies and Snickers rather than actual human fuel. That's the way you want, again, your tax dollars being spent.

I'd like to take a moment to thank you for not running for office.

It's not like they can't be waiting for the child to get home from school, so they can shovel a ton of junk into their little fat faces.

 

[boedicca]

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.

amazes me that anybody has a problem with public schools feeding kids healthier foods. But there it is.

I amazes me that libs continue to miss the point,.
We dont need Washington bureaurcrats telling us what to eat. We just dont. Making some snacks illegal is simply more nanny state nonsense.

Sure thing...

Childhood Obesity Facts

• Childhood obesity has more than doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years.1, 2
• The percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 18% in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to nearly 21% over the same period.1, 2
• In 2012, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.1
• Overweight is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors.3 Obesity is defined as having excess body fat.4
• Overweight and obesity are the result of “caloric imbalance”—too few calories expended for the amount of calories consumed—and are affected by various genetic, behavioral, and environmental factors.5,6

CDC - Obesity - Facts - Adolescent and School Health

Yeah. Paying teenage girls to have children out of wedlock is working out really well...

Huh, whaaa? How did you get that out of the above childhood obesity stats?

Easy Peasy. Parenting matters. Children raised by single moms are more likely to be obese...just one area in which such children are disadvantaged.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

Change the white bread to whole grain and she would be doing well.

Protein, carb, dairy, fruit.

What exactly is wrong with it?

and even at that, I don't think two slices of white bread about 260 times a year is going to harm anyone given an otherwise sensible diet