Originally Posted By mawnck >>I never stated that. What I stated is that I want parents to act like bleeping parents. I apologize for the extremist point of view of adults actually taking responsibility.<< Here's the thing. And I'll confess that this topic is tl:dr for me. I just don't have this much time to put into LP these days. But once again I see you retreating down a side path to avoid addressing the issue, which is that this is something we need to spend tax money to fix. Guess what? EVERYBODY on this board wants parents to be responsible. Guess what else? Some of them aren't, and that IS your problem and ours. "Well we shouldn't have to" is not an argument. Because we do. So quit trying to weasel your way out of it. You are opposed to feeding hungry children. Either have some guts and face up to it, or change your position.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I cannot speak for DAR, they can speak for themselves but if you paint me with a Tea Party brush, I call BULL !
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 They?? Vbdad55 well said as always. The thing is I never said I want kids to starve. We all have to take responsibility but the first step is the parents. And they can do little things at home like providing a piece of fruit or a vegetable. And I'm not saying to spend hundreds of dollars on healthy eating. I know it's not cheap I've done it myself. But I think if you're buying food for home you can throw in a couple apples. And if you're a parent, play with your kids. Throw a ball around, play hide and seek. That I think is the bigger issue not that kids aren't eating healthy, it's that they aren't getting enough exercise.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>I am trying to figure out why I had 10 years of student loans to pay back when I graduated ( and that includes some time when my company did pay for part of my education ). You must be much older than me- it was hardly free.<<< I'm not Skinnerbox, but I never took out a loan for college. I got grants because I grew up very poor as well with a single mom. With poor parents you probably could have qualified for grants as well. Of course, I went to Community college then State college, so my tuition wasn't as high, only $700/semester for state college --- plus books.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>But I think if you're buying food for home you can throw in a couple apples<<< This is true, but in some homes there is no food. The only food a child may get some days is their free school lunch. Other parents are honestly ignorant about nutrition and have no idea that an apple is a better choice than chips. Either way, the original intent of this thread was to discuss the fact that Congress has rejected a bill which would make school lunches healthier because they are more worried about what the lobbiests want.
Originally Posted By dshyates I am hearing tons of stuff about not wanting kids to get a meal they don't deserve, and how it's not constitutionally your problem and all that is fine and dandy, but what does that have to do with the GOP lead congress taking lobby money to make the existing program, that some of actually pay for, less nutritious? This topic has nothing to do with the fairness or constitutionality of the lunch program. But thank you knee jerks for your input. Never let an oppertunity to get your conservative panties in a bunch slip by.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Either way, the original intent of this thread was to discuss the fact that Congress has rejected a bill which would make school lunches healthier >> But again that isn't something that should be left up to Congress, the school districts should find a way to get healthier food in the schools themselves
Originally Posted By DyGDisney The school districts have no money, so they'll buy what's cheap unless they are forced to do otherwise. The money they use for the cheap food is our money, from our taxes. I WANT MY tax money to go toward healthier food. I'm not talking about high school here, I mean in elementary school where the kids have no way to get other food if they don't bring.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But with national standards, it becomes far easier for school districts to do so. Local school districts are mostly strapped for cash and all too happy to take the cheap, pre-packaged stuff. Either because it's just easier, or sometimes because someone local is getting paid under the table. Local districts are hardly immune to corruption, you know. Without national standards, you have the situation you have now: wealthier school districts have better lunches, and poorer ones buy the cheaper stuff and have more obese kids. And good nutrition does affect the ability to study, so there's that part of the vicious circle as well.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I WANT MY tax money to go toward healthier food>> If we're talking schools I want my tax money towards retain quality teachers who actually care about their students.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<But thank you knee jerks for your input. Never let an oppertunity to get your conservative panties in a bunch slip by.>> It's funny you paint a broad brush of me yet you have no idea that in the past year I started to: -Volunteer at my sister's school once a month on my day off. -That I buy $20 worth of groceries to give to my local food bank once a month. -That I am starting what I hope is going to be a tradition for me, but I asked my sister to talk to the social worker at her school to get the name of a family that I can put a basket of food together to give to. But go ahead and continue label me as some heartless right winger, you're the one with the problem not me.
Originally Posted By dshyates If these kids want food so bad they shouldn't have poor and/or stupid parents. And since they are too lazy to solve their own problems. Screw 'um! Seriously, what do I look like, flippin' Santa Claus?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>If we're talking schools I want my tax money towards retain quality teachers who actually care about their students.<<< That too, but both is ideal.
Originally Posted By queenbee >>If we're talking schools I want my tax money towards retain quality teachers who actually care about their students.<<< I care deeply about my students and I'd like to think I am a quality teacher. (I have spent over $15K on continuing my education so I can be a better teacher) But what do I do if half my class of 32 students is hungry and they are thinking about food and not fractions? I can't afford to bring food everyday for them. Parents, sure, but what if they are unwilling or unable to help? Then what do I do??
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan This is possibly the most depressing thread since the ones during Hurricane Katrina. I'm sitting here with my jaw dropped at some of what I've read. The inability to have compassion for the plight of the less fortunate is really disturbing and shocking to me. I hope that it's more a case of some people just liking to argue a lot, so they stake out an extreme standpoint and dig in their heels like this is some high school debate team. That they don't really believe that providing a decent meal to little American kids is some socialist plot. Because I would hate to believe that some LPers truly don't have the ability to understand how life can quickly turn upside down for people through no fault of their own. Any one of us here is only a certain number of paychecks away from being in deep, deep trouble. With Thanksgiving close at hand, now is a great time to remember that and consider the less fortunate.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That's were the district should come in.<< The federal school lunch program began during the Truman administration. If local school districts had the ability to handle the problem of malnutrition, they would have done so back then. School districts get revenue from local property taxes. That means that the amount available will vary from district to district. Guess which districts get more money? Yes, that's right, districts in more affluent areas. Grants and bond measures are some of the ways society tries to level the playing field. Most people, I think, don't believe that students in poorer districts should have to just suck it up. If we value children like we say we do, then yes, sorry, but it "takes a village." It takes a village committed to ensuring that children's health and welfare is a priority. It means that someone doesn't refuse to get involved when they see a child in danger because "it's not my business." This Ayn Rand utopia some of you pine for is an incredibly dark place. It pretty much ensures that only the wealthy have a fair shot at success, wealth, health. It's an I-got-mine, too bad for you world of total selfishness, with nothing done for the common good.
Originally Posted By velo I am also noticing that a few of the posters that are against federal funding of school lunches are not parents themselves?
Originally Posted By velo and..this: >>But what do I do if half my class of 32 students is hungry and they are thinking about food and not fractions? << It's a proven fact that kids do better in school when provided an adequate diet. That's the bottom line - and WE ALL benefit from this. We want our kids to STAY in school and hopefully do well. This benefits us as a society. I really don't think anyone wants to see what might happen if even more kids drop out of school and decide to occupy their time in less worthy activities, do they?
