GOP decides America can't afford nutritious school meals
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
lol...."some conservatives"
and your thread title is a lie
and your thread title is a lie
Are you saying it is the democrats who want to feed poor american children non nutritious food?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I got news for ya Dune, there is a whole bunch of shit the GOP is going to decide we can't afford anymore. The 'free ride' days are over bud. If you are getting your panties in a wad over this, you have a very agonizing future ahead of you, because things are going to be cut, things you like, things you believe we can't live without. It has to be that way so we can remain solvent and pay the bills. If you don't like it, go find another country to live in, because that's just how it's going to be from now on.
Thanks for showing a part of the rich fantasy world you live in and truly believe Dixie.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
are you saying your IQ is below 60?
your thread title implicates the GOP party, yet...your source mentions only "some conservatives". who are these conservatives that are so mysterious they cannot be named? who are these conservatives that you claim speak for the entire GOP party?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
assuming dune's OP is truthful....do you actually not support nutritious meals in school? according to his link, it will not cost much more, and, when you consider the health care costs of feeding our kids crap....this is a bargain.
Now do you beleive me?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
post six retard
Are you saying Dixie is not a conservative?
Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
The same can be said about things you like, like defense. It's gonna get cut, and big.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Come on you fucking goofy bitch, you know better, don't you? Who doesn't support nutritious meals in school? naw... I want to feed kids deep fried marshmallows and potted meat food product! I actually think this is a good time to say I don't think WE THE TAXPAYER should even be feeding kids at school, that should be something the parents do, and local PTAs and school districts can determine what their menu should be, or if they even have one. I don't need the government telling my kids what they have to eat, and I don't want my tax money paying for them to tell other parents kids what to eat. It's none of their business! It's just more stupid liberal Big Government initiative to spend our money on shit we don't need!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I have no problem with cutting defense spending. If we completely eliminated our entire military, we would still have to find a half trillion dollars to pay the bills this year, so that won't solve our problems. Also, whenever you talk 'military cuts' you are also talking directly about American jobs. Unlike cutting out some regulatory bureaucracy we don't really need, or some 'assistance' program we can't afford, cutting military spending directly means people lose their jobs, their livelihoods, their businesses, their entire towns, which have been built around some military base, or military contractor, which fuels the bulk of their economy. So I tell ya what pinhead.... go tell your Democrat Fucktard Congressman to support HEAVY military cuts... let's see if we can get Obama's unemployment numbers back up over 10% by election time, mmk?
apple0154
MEOW
It's the same Repub BS. Can't afford health care. Can't afford pensions for the elderly. Can't afford to feed children nutritious meals. (Excerpt) Saying that "unrealistic demands" can lead to burdensome costs, the Republican bill directs USDA to rewrite the rules so they wouldn't force schools to spend additional money.(End)
However, taxes have to be cut for the wealthy because they'll get cranky and stamp their feet and close their businesses and fire their household staff and the world will be thrown into chaos.
(Excerpt) Advocates say that many schools are already following the new rules and that changes may be more expensive now but will defray health costs in the long term. The government spends billions of dollars a year on obesity-related diseases like diabetes. First lady Michelle Obama has made the healthier lunches a major part of her "Let's Move" campaign to combat the growing childhood obesity problem. (End)
Of course, the Repubs don't care if poor eating habits result in increased health costs later on because Repubs don't plan on there being a government medical assistance plan later on, either.
The new Republican slogan should be, "We just don't give a damn!"
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
First of all, no one has proposed a tax cut for the wealthy. Democrats have been clamoring for a tax increase on the wealthy, but not really. You see, there is a misappropriation of terms being used here. "The Wealthy" is being defined as people who report an earned income of over $200k per year. The problem with raising their taxes is this, 99.7% of the jobs in America, are provided by people who own small businesses. A "small business" is defined by legal statute, as 1.) Having 499 employees or less, and 2.) Reports income on an individual or joint tax return. This means, you want to raise taxes on people who are providers of 99.7% of the jobs, at a time when unemployment is near 10%. Now, the actually "Wealthy" people.... they don't have to, or need to earn an income, they are wealthy already. They can go for years and years, and never earn ANY income, and simply live off their billions and billions of wealth...many super-wealthy people do just that... they travel the world on their yachts... they don't go to work and earn incomes like the rest of us, because they don't have to. We can't tax the wealthy by raising income taxes, we end up taxing the people who are trying to become wealthy, by owning and operating a small business. Now you can still hate these wealthy people and be jealous of what they have, I expect an uncouth heathen like you to be that way.... but you can't raise income taxes and punish them, it doesn't work.
The whole government has to pay to feed kids in school is bullshit, when will parents learn that if you cannot afford to feed, clothe, and shelter a child, you should not be breeding. Democrats love having the sheep be dependent on them for everything, makes it easier for them to be controlled.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
But no abortion, right?
Remember this?
In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
The USDA convened a panel of nutritionists and food service directors to ponder what to do. One option on the table--no one later would admit to putting it there--was to "accept catsup as a fruit/vegetable when used as an ingredient."
Some panel members seized on this as an opportunity to discuss whether to count ketchup even if used as a condiment. From what I can tell, the motive wasn't so much penuriousness as trying to face facts about what kids would actually eat. USDA standards at the time required that a reimbursable lunch consist of five items: meat, milk, bread, and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Many kids refused to eat the veggies and the stuff wound up as "plate waste." Would-be realists on the panel reasoned that if they could count ketchup as a vegetable they could meet federal standards without having to throw away so many lima beans, thereby saving money while having no impact on the kids.
Looked at in a certain light, it made sense. Ketchup wasn't the only newly permissible substitute: pickle relish and conceivably other condiments could also count as vegetables (precise interpretation was left to state officials); protein sources like tofu or cottage cheese could replace meat; and corn chips, pretzels, and other snacks could replace bread. Minimum portion sizes were also reduced, purportedly another effort to reduce waste.
Mid-level Reaganauts at the USDA saw all this as a matter of giving the states more latitude; wiser heads might have realized that the rest of the world would see it as taking food away from children.
Unfortunately for Reagan, the 90-day deadline allowed no time for higher review. When the proposed new rules were released for comment in September 1981, food activists went ballistic. Democratic politicians staged photo ops where they feasted on skimpy-looking meals that conformed to the new standards. The mortified administration withdrew the proposal and the USDA official in charge of the program was transferred, a move widely interpreted as a firing. One person who didn't come out of the mess with ketchup on his face was Jimmy Carter, who'd had nothing to do with it.
So, a garden-variety goof, right? It looked worse than that, thanks to agriculture secretary John Block, an antiregulatory zealot who attempted to defend the new rules after the fact, claiming they'd been misunderstood. Nonsense; they were just stupid. All intentions aside, counting condiments as vegetables and reducing portion sizes were an invitation to abuse. A few months later the USDA adopted for preschools and elementary schools a more sensible policy already used in high schools, called "offer vs. serve"--schools still had to offer the five meal components, but students could refuse any two.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...a-usda-really-classify-ketchup-as-a-vegetable
W
WinterBorn
Guest
So the conservatives want to cut the quality of the lunches served in school.
And the liberals want to make it so kids can't bring their own lunches to school.
Thank God our gov't has our best interests in mind, isn't it? And of course, neither side worries about winning as much as they worry about serving the people. Oh yeah, and if you are good, Santa Claus will visit you on Christmas eve.
And the liberals want to make it so kids can't bring their own lunches to school.
Thank God our gov't has our best interests in mind, isn't it? And of course, neither side worries about winning as much as they worry about serving the people. Oh yeah, and if you are good, Santa Claus will visit you on Christmas eve.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
There are things that can be done to make meals more nutritious, without increasing costs. $.14 doesn't sound like that much, until you realize the multiple factor of requirement and the $.07 difference between the mandate and actual costs. As the one administrator brought up, what one 'serves' for the mandate and what the kids will eat are often at odds. Lunches from home are usually consumed, the lunches from school, not so much so. Often kids will eat the fruit, bread and throw out everything else.
The idea of eliminating potatoes is pretty weird, just stop frying them and use more healthy oils and spices in place of butter/margarine. Serve pasta or rice with spinach/greens/and shredded vegetables-at least more will eat than if the vegetable is off to the side.
Once again one must consider the primary purpose of schools and cost factors of what is being required of them. It seems to me that education is burden with with more unfunded and underfunded mandates than any other public sector.
So the national GOP is comparable to the administration of a single public school in Chicago? I guess accuracy isn't important when you're high on your horse.