Propensity for obesity is linked to many things, genetics and the weight of the mother during pregnancy included.
Your post is a pretty amazing combination of breathtaking ignorance and absolute certainty.
And yet, obesity is on the rise. Why do you suppose that is? I'll grant that some dietary changes have occurred (specifically, the inclusion of HFC in nearly everything), but I can tell you, kids nowadays just don't get out of the house and play like we did as kids.
Seriously, when I was 12 or 13, I could wolf down a couple Big Macs at lunch and I was never obese.
I'm not the one who played the race card. It was the conservatives trying to make this another Us vs Them issue by characterizing kids eating school lunch as poor children with a bad home life and shitty parents. You know damn well that's a dog whistle. I call it like I see it so stop crying about the "race card".
Would it make you happy if instead of Little J'quon I made it Little Billy Bob? It's the same thing whether it's black kids or white trash kids or immigrant kids or whatever-- "They're not us so fuck them."
And guess what, those black kids, white trash kids, and immigrant kids really are the ones who get the worst nutrition at home. So while better school nutrition helps almost every kid, it helps them the most. Let me guess, I'm playing the race card against myself now because I'm pointing out a racial difference?
Propensity for obesity is linked to many things, genetics and the weight of the mother during pregnancy included.
Your post is a pretty amazing combination of breathtaking ignorance and absolute certainty.
What are you going to pack for them that's going to be as nutritious as a freshly cooked meal? As someone mentioned earlier PB&J, lunch meat, or processed junk like Lunchables are about as unhealthy as it gets.
And this would benefit not just the kids who get free or reduced lunches, but those who actually pay full price (which should make our resident libertarians happy).
BS. YOU were the one who played the race card and equated what they said as being against poor black families.
How do you know who is getting bad nutrition at home? You guys are also making a ton of assumptions. There are a lot of middle class kids who get poor nutrition at home. What about those kids? As Fern pointed out, this is apparently aimed at after-school meals for which they would not qualify.
And yours is an amazing combination of foolhardy feelgood nonsense and near religious faith.
One thing is for sure: you won't solve obesity by throwing more food at people.
Another thing is for sure: you wont get parents to be responsible for their children by taking that responsibility from them and doing everything for them.
Really? I am a small government common sense guy. I personally think that our spending is way the hell out of control and I know for a fact that it is completely unsustainable.
With that said, you really want to draw a line in the sand with "feeding children"? Who gives a fuck if the parents suck, at the end of the day do YOU really want to be that asshole who has to tell a hungry kid to go sit down and watch everyone else eat?
Our Catholic schools are actually doing that here to a certain degree (they give the kid an apple). Are you fucking shitting me? What would Jesus do huh? He would tell that kid he better go tell his parents to get a better damned job so they can feed your ass! That is exactly what I read in the bible....
Tell yall what, lets make a deal. I am sure we can ALL agree that there is plenty of spending that can be cut, right? Lets leave "feeding children" to last, after all the other bullshit spending has been cut then we can bring this back up. Until that time, I simply don't have the heart to look a child in the eyes and tell him he ain't eating today cuz his POS parents didn't send him to school with a check.
Wanna starve the POS parents then that is still a really bad idea but whatever. The innocent children???? Are you really that cruel? The wealthiest country in the world, trillions a year spent in overseas military bullshit, military jets that a single one would cover the cost of this bill, trillion dollar bailout to the banks, trillion dollar stimulus, automaker bailout, Medicare (including part D you Republicans) but fuck giving kids one decent meal a day?!?! Really?
The legislation would give the government the power to decide what kinds of foods could be sold and what ingredients may be limited in school lunch lines and vending machines.
The Agriculture Department would create the standards, which would likely keep popular foods like hamburgers and pizza in school cafeterias but make them healthier, using leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks.
The bill would provide money to serve more than 20 million additional after-school meals annually to children in all 50 states. Many of those children now only receive after-school snacks. It would also increase the number of children eligible for school meals programs by at least 115,000, using Medicaid and census data to identify them.
The legislation would increase the amount of money schools are reimbursed by 6 cents a meal, a priority for schools that say they don't have the dollars to feed needy kids.
And yet, obesity is on the rise. Why do you suppose that is? I'll grant that some dietary changes have occurred (specifically, the inclusion of HFC in nearly everything), but I can tell you, kids nowadays just don't get out of the house and play like we did as kids.
Seriously, when I was 12 or 13, I could wolf down a couple Big Macs at lunch and I was never obese.
[/I]
I read that. Did you read this?
So effectively, if you meet the requirements, you get a healthier lunch and vending machine selection AND an after-school meal whereas the middle-class kids would not get the last meal and instead, could potentially unhealthy stuff at home.
This reminds me of when I accused my liberal friend of cheering for Julian Assange because she doesn't give a shit about brown people on the other side of the world. Of course I'm somehow the racist for pointing out when other people don't care about people who are different from them. Give me a break. You can deny the dog whistles all you want, but I'm not going to stop calling out liberals for not giving a damn about brown people in Afghanistan or conservatives for painting the school lunch issue as us-vs-them and using specific rhetoric to conjure up images of fat black children that you aren't supposed to care about.
But the legislation doesn't just affect those after school kids. It affects everybody who doesn't bring their own shitty PBJ lunch. So what's the problem?
Why characterize it as only benefiting those worthless evil poor kids, J'quon and Jim Bob?
I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were playing the race card, which you were. When I look at this issue, I don't care if the kid is black, white, yellow, red, purple, or polka dotted. What I see is the government spending more money and I want to see cuts elsewhere to offset the spending and even more so, I want these people to take responsibility for their own kids.
HFCS has no more to do with obesity than sugar.
According to Ferder, Ferder & Inserra, fructose consumption and obesity are linked because fructose consumption does not cause an insulin response. This is important because, without an insulin response after consumption of a high-fructose food, there is no suppression of appetite which is normally induced by hyperinsulinemia after a meal.
So..... instead of blaming it on the House Republicans why not pass the amendment and make the Senate Republicans block it and then you actually have someone to blame?
Right now I don't see how you can blame the Republicans, unless you disagree with the amendment, if the Senate Republicans block its passage I will stand right next to you in blaming them for this bill not getting passed.
Until then, balls in the D's court.
I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were playing the race card, which you were. When I look at this issue, I don't care if the kid is black, white, yellow, red, purple, or polka dotted. What I see is the government spending more money and I want to see cuts elsewhere to offset the spending and even more so, I want these people to take responsibility for their own kids.
I acknowledged that. What I'm saying is that this concern for kid's health seems to eliminate a large chunk of them from taking advantage of the after-school meal. You guys need to understand that good nutrition starts at home and I don't know about you, but I see a lot of obese kids and I am not in a poor area. What about those kids?
Those kids are effectively getting a free, nutritious dinner whereas suburban Sally or Steve may be subjected to whatever stuff their parents serve. The horror!
If kids aren't getting the nutrition they should be, whether it's because their parents are bad cooks, or because they can't afford healthy food, or because the local school system doesn't serve healthy stuff to children who are its wards for 7 hours a day, the federal government should step in--- not only because kids are citizens too, but because it's in our national interest to have a healthy smart population.
If kids aren't getting the nutrition they should be, whether it's because their parents are bad cooks, or because they can't afford healthy food, or because the local school system doesn't serve healthy stuff to children who are its wards for 7 hours a day, the federal government should step in--- not only because kids are citizens too, but because it's in our national interest to have a healthy smart population.
Very good points. We have similar programs here in Chattanooga, and of course on the news when they started the summer feeding program they had a near-three hundred pound welfare mom saying "I think it's a good idea, sometimes I forget to make they lunch." If parents are truly unable to feed their children, society needs to provide assistance. If instead the parents already receive hundreds of dollars in food stamps every month and are just too damned trifling to feed their kids, society needs to end the assistance and remove the children. Parents who can't even be bothered to feed their own children deserve nothing from anyone.1. This is for mostly AFTER school meals.
2. The article is kind of crappy.
You've got to read down quite a bit to see that it is mostly for after school meals.
3. Liberals should be outraged at this. It is simply corporate welfare.
It is big corporations who sell this processed crap food to the school systems. The $4.5 billion will be received by them.
Fern
The way Republicans get the public to oppose school lunch funding, like a lot of things, is with us-vs-them.
Why do you want to see cuts elsewhere in order to make investments that will have long term benefits? If every kid gets 5 extra IQ points from better nutrition, I guarantee that will have a much bigger effect on the national debt in 20 years than the few billion it costs.
We can't take away every kid who needs the after school meals... it's just not practical. Feeding them after school is cheap and easy and it benefits all of us.
Yes, I get it, you hate J'quon's fat mother. But in 10 years hopefully he'll be going to college or into the work force, and most likely the better we treated him at age 8, the better he'll be doing in 2020.
Because we simply can't afford it. As I mentioned earlier, I keep seeing "Well, $x billion isn't much." You know what? It adds up, and adds up quickly. There is PLENTY of spending that can be cut to accommodate other programs like this one. Let's start with defense, for example.
Look around you. Stop acting like kids are starving. We're not in Dickens' London. We're in 21st Century America where even poor people are overfeeding to the point of getting diabetes.