Rolling back Michelle Obama's school lunch mandates

Have you ever been to the rural south? they wouldn't be able to afford to keep the doors open

 

What? Rolling back Michelle Obama's healthy school lunch program???

Aww, but from all of those pictures I saw of them, it was the tastiest looking pig food I have ever seen!

 

I know all about the place.

In our county, our thousands of tax dollars from our more upscale area must to shared with more impoverished schools in the sticks.

I don't care for this injustice. If the smaller schools want to have something more than their fair share of tax dollars provide, then they should provide for it out of their own time and money.

 

I disagree with both sides. Some of Obama's changes are using fat free milk and using whole wheat products which are technically healthier but aren't very tasty and given how nasty school food is, this is only going to be worse.

Milk and flour are by their nature high calorie and instead of serving unappetizing somewhat healthier versions of high calorie products, who not serve real low calorie products like fruits, vegetables, lentils, beans, rice, etc. If made right these things can be very tasty.

One big thing I disagree with in this roll back is bringing back the candy and pop machines and serving junk food like pizza and other foods for lunch. This food is simply not fit for lunch. Even if we don't serve more healthy stuff at least what Obama did right was cutting out the junk food.

 

I completely agree. I don't understand why the choice has to be framed as either unhealthy garbage or tasteless gruel. Candy and pop machines do not belong in our schools, and we should be able to come up with nutritious food offerings that our school kids can enjoy.

 

Totally agree, but Michele did more good than harm, since eating too much junk food is a bigger problem than kids not eating food. Why don't we have cooking classes that prepare lunches every day? Its a cheap solution and teaches people to cook healthy meals.

 

For the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives it does not matter the efficacy of a program spending tax payer dollars. It's all about the title of the program and their ability to say SEE WHAT I PASSED.

Just look at HeadStart and how we throw money down that black hole. But try to stop it and then you hate children and want them all to grow up stupid.

U.S. Government: Our “Head Start” Program Doesn’t Work

Head Start, the flagship federal education program for low-income preschoolers, doesn’t work. That is the conclusion of yet another high quality, large-scale randomized experiment commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services, which runs the program.

Like an earlier study that found no lasting benefit to Head Start by the end of the 1st grade, this new study confirms no lasting benefit by the end of the 3rd grade—after an investment of 47 years and about $200 billion.........

https://www.cato.org/blog/us-government-our-head-start-program-doesnt-work

I dare any reasonable congressperson to propose ending funding to it.

 

I think what people object to is expressed well by Tucker Carlson on the May 15th edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Michelle Obama says:

Tucker goes on to say:

I really wish that we'd be allowed to discuss subjects like this without having to have those on the left take up Michelle Obama's "pro kid / anti kid" argument.

 

Of course you make food taste better by adding fat and salt--it's basic cooking and chemistry. That's why most processed foods have too much of it.

 

Of course they would. On average, the federal input into the public schools is about 10% of the budget. That goes up a little with poorer schools, but not a whole lot.

 

I know the relationship. Please read for comprehension. Food is not binary. There are not just too types of food--crap and healthy. It's a continuum. I just think it's a better bet to go a little less perfect on the health side in order to get the kids to eat it. I'm not saying go to soda, Little Debbie Snack cakes, fried chicken nuggets and french fries every meal, I'm just saying make the vegetables taste good--add a little butter and salt to them. It's almost impossible to put enough fat in vegetables (no, a potato isn't a vegetable) to make them unhealthy.

 

That's my basic view as well. The problem is that we have to have the food somewhere between the current tasteless (for the most part) standards and the older less than healthy standards. Candy and soda machines have pretty much disappeared from public schools.

 

I don't think fat free milk is as healthy as whole milk. Fat is a carrier for some nutrients. In addition, fat is more filling.

http://time.com/4279538/low-fat-milk-vs-whole-milk/

 

We do in my school system.

 

That is correct. Our federal share runs about 10%, much of which is food aid, particularly to Title 1 Schools. Title 1 schools get extra funding for programs and equipment that we can't get money out of the state or country for, too!

 

You don't make food better by just adding fat and salt, otherwise the pinnacle of fine dining would be a block of salted butter. Processed foods aren't better, they're just cheap and addictive. Actually good food requires good cooking which doesn't require any compromise between taste and health. That's what school meals are so often missing (because it's expensive).

 

incorrect, do your homework before you post

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/cost-of-education-in-us/

 

I have never understood why the government picks and chooses what rules to implement regarding food programs. Mrs. Obama insisted that we have healthier school meals and she cited the increase in childhood obesity as a reason to change the meal requirements. However, the Obama administration (and every administration before Obama's) refused to insist that foods purchased via the food stamp program (SNAP) be healthy food choices. Why are our tax dollars paying for Cheetos and Pepsi instead of healthier food options? Many children who qualify for the government's free or reduced school meal program also live in families that receive SNAP benefits. The government mandates that only specific healthy foods can be purchased through the WIC program, so why no have that same mandate for the SNAP program? Why are school children relegated to eating (or choosing not to eat what is offered) "healthy" food at school, yet they go home after school and eat junk food paid for by the same taxpayers?

 

Never said anything about better, but tastier.

 

That article had nothing about the federal share of education funding. Do you have reading comprehension problems?

The actual federal percentage of funds in 2012-2013 (last year I could easily find) is:

It was 13 % in 2009-2010, but is down to 9% in 2012-2013.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_401.10.asp
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cma.asp

 

actually it did but I guess you are willing to be honest. you can go away now.

 

Read my sig for an explanation of why the government picks and chooses food rules.

 

No your article had no data about the percentage of federal money. Try again.

 

The headline got past you did it?

"Why Schools in Rich Areas Get More Funding Than Poor Areas"

 

The answer to that question is property taxes, which are state/local, not FEDERAL. Let me type this slow so you can understand it. Schools in rich areas have more funding because they collect more state/local property taxes than do schools in poor areas. That has NOTHING to do with federal funding. Remember, we have different levels of government. The problem is that you don't really understand the whole system. You must be a liberal who thinks the feds do everything.