Michelle O's new School Lunch Menu: Less Fat, More Grains page 6

[BONZ]

So far, throaty at the end with a healty amount of spittle departing my bottom lip is winning out.....

[annedawso]

I went to Catholic school (private school) for a few years in elementary level. I bought the school lunch everyday. Seriously the worst lunches ever-- mystery meat, mashed potato paste, rice that was overcooked and like glue, mystery gravy, overcooked canned vegetables, cardboard pizza etc. After 2 years I had to go to public school because we were really broke and my Mom couldn't afford private school (at a reduced rate--in my region, the Catholic school tuition is not as expensive as they are in Nashville) so I went to a city public school. We actually had more choices there for lunch and my family qualified for the Federal School Lunch Program. I also had to receive tutoring in mathematics and the school provided a speech therapist for me. They also hooked me and my brother up with the BigBrother/BigSister organization. The fact is the private school sucked. The small things the big government school provided us made a big difference in our lives. I found out later my mother had to apply for AFDC as my father took a child support powder and real estate fell through the floor (mid 70's) and Mom was a real estate agent. Sure she found another job working as a secretary but it made the budget very tight. For the bean counting economic moralists, don't panic, she paid the state back when she sold our house. Don't want you to think some lazy kids got something for nothing.

I think that is what Governments responsibilities are, helping those who are in need through no fault of their own. A safety net.
Personally I dont mind paying more in taxes to ensure schools give kids a good start in life. After all these kids are part of our future workforce.
Pity in my opinion there is not some backlash against the massive international Corporations who actively evade paying the taxes they are meant to and influence all Governments so much.
I think these Corporations have contributed massively to the Obesity epidemic as they are just in pursuit of money and one of the reasons most people dont understand that low fat diets eating the mass produced crap is bad for you. Profit is the King.

[BONZ]

I think that is what Governments responsibilities are, helping those who are in need through no fault of their own. A safety net.
Personally I dont mind paying more in taxes to ensure schools give kids a good start in life. After all these kids are part of our future workforce.
Pity in my opinion there is not some backlash against the massive international Corporations who actively evade paying the taxes they are meant to and influence all Governments so much.
I think these Corporations have contributed massively to the Obesity epidemic as they are just in pursuit of money and one of the reasons most people dont understand that low fat diets eating the mass produced crap is bad for you. Profit is the King.

Governments go to corporations to gain more influence over the economy..... corporations go to government to purchase protections from competition through government regulation, often written by industry funded think tanks to reflect the larger firms existing business practices which completely blocks out small up-starts. This relationship is symbiotic. These two entities work together to make your life more expensive.... that relationship is parasitic. This is not a question of what we all think government should do. That is actually a legitimate discussion that could be had with little in the way of hurt feelings. What we have here (as in, in the world today) is a failure to understand or acknowlege that what government is doing goes so far beyond "giving a hand up to those who need it" and "providing a safety net" that we've ventured well into outright theft from citizens in the form of monetary inflation and outright fascist economic activity. This goes well beyond whether the politician has an R or a D in front of their name. Foreign empire is a bipartisan excercise. The domestic welfare state is a bipartisan excercise. Some of you are so enamured (<---- "enamoured" I CAN HAZ SPELLING BEE RIBBON!) by your particular team that you will defend them to the death to protect your own adopted dogma. The choice has been defined as complete government paternalism or nihilism, and nothing existing in between. Every 4 years we have a round of pretty funny attack ads and there you go.... politics.

[magnolia1973]

I believe the movie was called Precious.... not all kids have nice parents to pack a lunch. Yeah, wealthy suburban schools it's not worth government intervention. But when you have the kids that live in poverty they need that school lunch (and some schools offer breakfast). It's crazy sad to think about. But:

Here's today's lunch menu at her school (oddly, one of the better days):
Pork Roast - 3g (3 grams? That's all?)
Zesty lemon broccoli - 2g
Cooked Carrots - 8g
Brown Rice - 37g
Whole grain breadstick - 13g
Every day there's assorted fresh fruit/veggies and of course milk.

That beats a pizza slice or worse yet, nothing.

It's not perfect, and yeah, I has a hate for the Whole Grains, but given they often are recommended with fruit, veg and good protein, it's a good step. It's not like the kids were merrily eating steak with sweet potatoes and bacon cooked broccoli. They were eating crap. At least start showing these kids that a good meal is made up of recognizable foods.

[magnolia1973]

And I also have a hate for government, but damn, we need welfare for these kids. I hate paying taxes. I do some work in public housing and my heart breaks for the kids.So hopeless, and a lotof the parents would let those kids starve. You take away welfare and mom isn't going to go get a job like people think. I can't imagine a suitable job for many of these people. There is almost never a dad. And there are always sweet, bright, creative kids. We've fucked things up- by all means, making it plausible for these people to have kids while being unable to support them was stupid. But we as a society can't abandon those kids.

Our system sucks= those kids have one chance, succeed at school and escape. I'm happy to make sure they aren't hungry to help make that success happen. And I'd rather the government feed them than hand mama foodstamps to trade for crack and beer.

[BONZ]

And I also have a hate for government, but damn, we need welfare for these kids. I hate paying taxes. I do some work in public housing and my heart breaks for the kids.So hopeless, and a lotof the parents would let those kids starve. You take away welfare and mom isn't going to go get a job like people think. I can't imagine a suitable job for many of these people. There is almost never a dad. And there are always sweet, bright, creative kids. We've fucked things up- by all means, making it plausible for these people to have kids while being unable to support them was stupid. But we as a society can't abandon those kids.

Our system sucks= those kids have one chance, succeed at school and escape. I'm happy to make sure they aren't hungry to help make that success happen. And I'd rather the government feed them than hand mama foodstamps to trade for crack and beer.

I completely agree that the collective "We" have a moral obligation to take care of these kids.... but it's because I fully acknowledge that "Our" good ideas are the reason they are where they are today. When you start talking about this stuff, people will flat out deny that failed social policies have anything to do with the plight of the poor..... Like people are so inept that they just find themselves in a slum with no productive capacity naturally and the government is the only thing keeping them afloat.

Given todays standard for poverty, adjusted for inflation by year, over 80% of the population was impoverished at the turn of the 20th century. This number steadily declined until the 60's, where it leveled off around 12% and it's hovered there for the last 50 years. This "just so happened" to coincide with LBJ's Great Society and the "War on Poverty". You can yell correlation all you want, I'm calling BS. If both parents are present in the home, welfare goes away. Is it any coincidence then that the out of wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed? It's currently around the 50ish % mark for white and hispanic I believe, over 70% in the black community alone. Anybody who wants to argue that we have a moral obligation to support those whom "Our" decisions have done the most harm, I'm right there with you.... BUT, if you'd like to tell me that "government help" hasn't played a generally negative role in causing those circumstances then I refer you to my earlier statement..... defend your adopted dogma.

[magnolia1973]

I hate that our system assumes that these parents are "normal". So they get $ for housing, food and medical coverage and its assumed that they spend it properly (well, public housing is provided, but not monitored).

It's very un-PC to assume otherwise. We were discussing amenities for our latest project and something that came to mind was a place for kids to study and get a snack, but no, we went with a pool. Their parents fail them. And a good indicator of doing well in life is doing well in school, which while we can argue all day about teachers and testing has more to do with parents giving a damn.

BUT, if you'd like to tell me that "government help" hasn't played a generally negative role in causing those circumstances then I refer you to my earlier statement..... defend your adopted dogma.

I did make that point. The system is god awful and insult to injury, you are better off in the system then working a low wage job. You'd have to make about $24,000 a year to equal the benefits of being in the system in my city. So you have people working hard to stay in the system.

I'm not sure how you undo the system though and prevent a pretty catastrophic meltdown. Just saying "The government has no business" is not a solution and there needs to be a plan to dismantle the system. Just saying "no more foodstamps and get out of that apartment" is going to cause crime. Job training is pointless- we don't have enough for the educated anyway. I think birth control is critical. Stop the breeding. Pay them NOT to have children. I'm not opposed to letting them stay in the system forever as long as they agree to sterilization. However, that is just about the most unPC thing you can recommend.

We do a lot of housing and suggested that funding home ownership was not optimal for those with below 50% median income. We had reasons- mortgages, job security, lack of appreciation in the proposed areas despite other programs.....Heads got ripped off about taking away opportunity. I can't imagine suggesting not allowing these people support if they have kids.

I'd say go vote republican, they'll gladly end these programs, but I'd like to their plan on how to end them and deal with the ramifications. I would imagine they don't have one and the people that run that party live pretty sheltered lives so would be quite out of the line of problems when those programs end. The people dealing with the crime and disrepair and chaos would be the middle class that now lives among deconcentrated poverty. Section 8. They stopped the practice of building concentrated public housing, so now your working class gets a certain % of section 8 homes in their neighborhoods that devalue everything around them if they fall into disrepair.

It's a dilly of a pickle, ending those programs isn't going to lower your taxes that much as a working class citizen (if you pay any, that is) but is going to lower your standard of living right quick when crime and disrepair takes over. You can keep moving out further, but how far are you willing to drive when gas is $5 a gallon?

[annedawso]

I completely agree that the collective "We" have a moral obligation to take care of these kids.... but it's because I fully acknowledge that "Our" good ideas are the reason they are where they are today. When you start talking about this stuff, people will flat out deny that failed social policies have anything to do with the plight of the poor..... Like people are so inept that they just find themselves in a slum with no productive capacity naturally and the government is the only thing keeping them afloat.

.

Well certainly in the UK I would agree the Welfare system has encouraged an increase in single parent families and created a culture of living on benefits. However I dont think UK Government have invested enough in tackling long term social issues. In my view the schools should all be of a decent enough standard to provide all kids with a good free education. Training or retraining should be given to long term unemployed and the benefits system should be such so as to encourage all to work. In the UK they introduced (though sadly now being eroded) Tax Credits to top up earnings so that the low paid were better off working than on benefits.
I think doing this helps break the cycle of worklesness.
And before you ask where is the money coming from I would make all the greedy corporations who have brought about this recession by gambling with money that is not theres and benefitted from the very lax financial rules pay up.
At one time stocks and shares were there to invest in companies and help them grow, now you have wheeler dealers, making millions with the click of a button in an unlicensed game of russian roulette.
Yet for some reason you never really hear working class/ middle class people condemn the Capitalist greed taken over the Western World.

[Scott F]

Why is somebody in DC telling the citizens of Bum-Frak Iowa what their kids are going to be eating in their school lunch rooms, and why are they using my tax money from Bum-Frak Alabama to pay for it? Hmmmmm....? When are we (and by that I mean the royal We, and by that I mean you bastards, all of you) going to start governing ourselves instead of complaining about how those on high do it for us? Anybody?

yeah, I'm with you. this country was founded on those principals but too many people today want to play the roll of a titty baby to some bureaucrat up in DC

[annedawso]

yeah, I'm with you. this country was founded on those principals but too many people today want to play the roll of a titty baby to some bureaucrat up in DC

I think it is lack of strong Government, demonstrated by financial deregulisation who have let the greedy corporations get away with whatever they want. Dont see anything wrong with Governments trying to improve peoples health. especially in the midst of this totally avoidable obesity epidemic. Just pity it is not Paleo. Lets face it the free market with the increase of massive corporations isnt going to do anything to help normal people. They want to give them the lowest pay possible whilst actively evading taxes. The rich are getting richer and the poor a lot poorer. I dont mind Capitalism, but there can be fair Capitalism so that everyone reaps the rewards not just the few..
In the UK, Bankers continue to get massive bonuses. Many of the lower paid workers pay has been frozen/ reduced. Benefits are being cut for the disabled.
I dont want to live in a dog eat dog world.