Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Got home tonight and the kids start bitching at me. New lunch rule at school. They can only have dessert once a week instead of being able to have something everyday. Since our school gets money from the feds we have to follow their rules. We had an inspection of our food program last week and got nailed because of Michelle's Let's Move initiative. Doesn't matter that it might only be a cookie or that for the elementary kids they have to eat their other stuff first. Like the one cookie or one rice krispy bar that the kid gets at school is making them fat.

Are they not allowed to bring their own lunches?

Now....she is the First Lady...and knows more than any individual parent...

[youtube][/youtube]

I honestly can't bring myself to give a shit how many days a week your kids eat dessert at lunch.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I honestly can't bring myself to give a shit how many days a week your kids eat dessert at lunch.

Do you really think this is about whether or not my kids get dessert at school? I don't really give a shit either. It's about do gooders that think the government knows best for everything and tells us how to live our lives.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I honestly can't bring myself to give a shit how many days a week your kids eat dessert at lunch.

Pretty much the point there Jelly. Why should anyone besides the parents care?

Don't take the Federal money if you don't want to play by their rules.

AshevilleApp wrote:Don't take the Federal money if you don't want to play by their rules.

Yeah! Don't take federal money for facilities, books and teachers if you don't like them fucking with your lunch.

89Hen wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:Don't take the Federal money if you don't want to play by their rules.

Yeah! Don't take federal money for facilities, books and teachers if you don't like them **** with your lunch.

Why should I subsidize your kids education, in another state, with my federal tax dollars?

(Edited to include rolling eyes.)

AshevilleApp wrote:Why should I subsidize your kids education, in another state, with my federal tax dollars?

(Edited to include rolling eyes.)

Good question, but that's really another topic.

My kids only buy lunch every other pizza friday. That sh!t is expensive these days!

89Hen wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:Why should I subsidize your kids education, in another state, with my federal tax dollars?

(Edited to include rolling eyes.)

Good question, but that's really another topic.

Maybe so. But the fact is if you accept money from another entity, whether it is public or private, there are likely going to be strings attached. It happened back in the '80's, likely before your time, when the Reagan administration threatened to withhold part of the highway money to states if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21.

More recently a college here in North Carolina accepted a large contribution from a donor on the condition that incoming Freshmen read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

In either instance the money could have been refused and life would have gone on as usual. But the money was accepted and compliance was triggered.

andy7171 wrote:My kids only buy lunch every other pizza friday. That sh!t is expensive these days!

Our's is $2.25 per lunch. And yeah, our little guy generally just buys on pizza days as well.

Really, though, trying to regulate lunches as an effective way to combat childhood obesity is like using an eyedropper to empty the ocean. It's something, but it has no chance of actually succeeding in its goal.

On the other hand, I say bring back dodgeball to gym classes. No one's really examined the coincidence of banning dodgeball in most schools with childhood obesity. Back in the day, fat kids had an incentive to lose weight - in dodgeball, fat kids provide a bigger and slower target. You lose weight, and you get slimmer and faster and harder to hit. Without dodgeball, they lose that incentive. Now if the Feds want to start promoting dodgeball as a means of combatting childhood obesity, I'm all for it!

andy7171 wrote:My kids only buy lunch every other pizza friday. That sh!t is expensive these days!

Way back when I went a Catholic grade school, brown bagging your lunch was the norm.

GannonFan wrote:

andy7171 wrote:My kids only buy lunch every other pizza friday. That sh!t is expensive these days!

Our's is $2.25 per lunch. And yeah, our little guy generally just buys on pizza days as well.

Really, though, trying to regulate lunches as an effective way to combat childhood obesity is like using an eyedropper to empty the ocean. It's something, but it has no chance of actually succeeding in its goal.

On the other hand, I say bring back dodgeball to gym classes. No one's really examined the coincidence of banning dodgeball in most schools with childhood obesity. Back in the day, fat kids had an incentive to lose weight - in dodgeball, fat kids provide a bigger and slower target. You lose weight, and you get slimmer and faster and harder to hit. Without dodgeball, they lose that incentive. Now if the Feds want to start promoting dodgeball as a means of combatting childhood obesity, I'm all for it!

That's good thinking right there.

AshevilleApp wrote:

89Hen wrote: Good question, but that's really another topic.

Maybe so. But the fact is if you accept money from another entity, whether it is public or private, there are likely going to be strings attached. It happened back in the '80's, likely before your time, when the Reagan administration threatened to withhold part of the highway money to states if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21.

More recently a college here in North Carolina accepted a large contribution from a donor on the condition that incoming Freshmen read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

In either instance the money could have been refused and life would have gone on as usual. But the money was accepted and compliance was triggered.

Interesting idea but here is the problem. The federal government takes substantially all of the available tax dollars from state residents to the point where states can't raise taxes without harming their citizens and their economies. So since the all powerful federal government takes what it wants and the doles it out to the states, the states have little choice but to take it since they can't raise additional revenues while the feds are taking the bulk.

If the above wasn't true, I would agree with your statement.

Now, if you said cut all that shit out of the federal government and the states can fend for themselves on issues such as school lunches, I would be right there with you. But since that isn't going to happen, the feds need to concern themselves with books and such and not dessert.

Dodgeball was awesome.

AshevilleApp wrote:Maybe so. But the fact is if you accept money from another entity, whether it is public or private, there are likely going to be strings attached.

I'm only guessing, but I'm thinking there was no such stipulation when they accepted the money. This is the Fed overstepping it's bounds, plain and simple.

AshevilleApp wrote: Way back when I went a Catholic grade school, brown bagging your lunch was the norm.

Most definitely. The kids that got school lunch were the outcasts. The only thing you'd buy at school was the 5 cent milk and an ice cream sandwich for desert when mom was feeling generous.

AshevilleApp wrote: More recently a college here in North Carolina accepted a large contribution from a donor on the condition that incoming Freshmen read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

Great another generation of assholes.

If I hit the lottery I'm gonna donate to that same school and make 'em read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

kalm wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote: More recently a college here in North Carolina accepted a large contribution from a donor on the condition that incoming Freshmen read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

Great another generation of assholes.

If I hit the lottery I'm gonna donate to that same school and make 'em read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

GODDAMMIT KALM, YOU IDIOT!!! I just involuntarily took a dump in the middle of a meeting because of you.

Not only will my kids not eat desserts at school, they won't the processed swill that passes for school lunches at all.

I'm going to pack them bags of fried chikken with gravy and potatoes and hostess cupcakes so they can torture all those free lunch bastards eating their white bread with fish sticks and no dessert.

OL FU wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:

Maybe so. But the fact is if you accept money from another entity, whether it is public or private, there are likely going to be strings attached. It happened back in the '80's, likely before your time, when the Reagan administration threatened to withhold part of the highway money to states if they didn't raise the drinking age to 21.

More recently a college here in North Carolina accepted a large contribution from a donor on the condition that incoming Freshmen read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

In either instance the money could have been refused and life would have gone on as usual. But the money was accepted and compliance was triggered.

Interesting idea but here is the problem. The federal government takes substantially all of the available tax dollars from state residents to the point where states can't raise taxes without harming their citizens and their economies. So since the all powerful federal government takes what it wants and the doles it out to the states, the states have little choice but to take it since they can't raise additional revenues while the feds are taking the bulk.

If the above wasn't true, I would agree with your statement.

Now, if you said cut all that **** out of the federal government and the states can fend for themselves on issues such as school lunches, I would be right there with you. But since that isn't going to happen, the feds need to concern themselves with books and such and not dessert.

I would have no problem with cutting federal subsidies for education. And I don't know how things are in SC, but the Great North State manages to ding me for nearly as big a chunk of money as the feds.

AshevilleApp wrote:I don't know how things are in SC, but the Great North State manages to ding me for nearly as big a chunk of money as the feds.

Who does your taxes?

http://www.dornc.com/taxes/individual/rates.html

89Hen wrote:

AshevilleApp wrote:I don't know how things are in SC, but the Great North State manages to ding me for nearly as big a chunk of money as the feds.

Who does your taxes?

http://www.dornc.com/taxes/individual/rates.html

I do.

I haven't done them this year. But if I recall last year correctly the federal tax was something like $2,300 and the state was $1,600-$1,700. The feds got more, but the state got a good bit as well.