No data or logic has been presented.
That's right. You have me on ignore. It gives you an excuse for not seeing data.
ALL NYC Public Schools go to "meatless mondays". Forced vegetarianism
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
No data or logic has been presented.
That's right. You have me on ignore. It gives you an excuse for not seeing data.
Her lunch program was a complete flop....If kids won't eat it there‘s no "nutritional value"...
If not, more calories can be added. For example, have jelly on the peanut butter sandwich, and have an apple with it. If you look at the physiques of kids these days, though, you'll see not many of them are suffering from too few calories. They may be short on various micronutrients, but in terms of the macronutrients (carbs, protein, and fat), they're well-stocked. And even more meat in the meat-heavy American diet almost certainly isn't the solution. If you check places where kids are healthier, they tend to eat a lot less meat, and especially less red meat (e.g., Japan or South Korea). Here's are examples of Korean school lunches:
Kids in such countries get through their days just fine -- and, in fact, tend to dominate kids in this country in measures of academic performance.
Then you're not doing enough as long as the rest of us are required to fund things YOU believe should happen. Reach deeper. You're not doing enough.
Not sure why you think it's the place of someone that isn't a kid's parent to do more for the kid than those that produced him/her.
I don't have a problem supporting my community for a worthwhile cause. Enabling freeloading parents to continue being freeloading parents isn't a worthwhile cause. I'm not real sure why you think it is.
It's ridiculous. I'm reminded of the h.s. my two youngest daughters attended. It was a very small h.s. (student body less than 500) in a rural area outside of STL. There were two black students and one Hispanic student; the rest were white. Most of the students received free or reduced-price lunches. Given that it's in a conservative area in a very Red state in the heart of the Bible belt, it's safe to say that most of their parents voted for Trump. But I guess cutting off low-income white students from something perceived as free is a small price to pay if you can keep those lazy non-whites from getting it too. *sigh*
I am not. The data are publicly available.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_112.asp
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/7085/files/ei060017.pdf
It's clear you don't understand proportions.
We're all better off, long term, if kids are growing up with good nutrition. It makes it more likely those kids will one day be productive, healthy, and law-abiding members of society, rather than burdens on society. Why pay for the pound of cure when you can buy the ounce of prevention so cheaply?
It makes it more likely that those kids will grow up to be like their freeloading parents.
You think it's the dollar amount, huh?
All that prevention is why we have so much multi generational welfare since the kids whose parents were freeloaders grew up to be freeloaders themselves.
Yep.
Even setting aside the issue of subsidized lunches, and just looking at school lunches in general, it's bizarre that so many on the right don't want that benefit. Because of economies of scale, even non-subsidized school lunches are pretty damned cheap, and it's an enormous convenience for parents. Even if you pack lunch most days, it's nice to know that if life gets away from you on a given day, you can skip that step and send your kid off with a little money and she'll still get a nourishing hot lunch that day. It's bizarre that right-wingers are so hostile to minorities that they'd gladly gut that benefit just to stick it to the minorities.
No, it does the opposite. There are studies on this -- studies that took advantage of "natural experiments" where such benefits were rolled out on different schedules in different places. It turns out that when you compare kids from similarly poor families, those that got earlier access to such programs wound up LESS likely to be dependent as adults. And that's exactly what any reasonable person would expect to happen, given what we know about the importance of nutrition in childhood development. OF COURSE kids who grow up with healthier bodies an higher IQs, because of superior childhood nutrition, are more likely to contribute to society rather than draining from it.
True. As a kid, I didn't know the reason. All I knew was that it was always the best lunch of the week. In a way I think Thursdays must have been the day that saved their budget a little...it was always spaghetti (so no meat there). Sketti, garlic bread, salad, dessert, milk all for $.25. Went up to $.50 for lunch in high school.
No, it creates freeloaders. There are studies on this.
Let their parents feed them, let you personally feed them, or let them go without. When they're adults and continue the ways they've been taught by their parents, apply the same thing. The smart ones will learn and the stupid ones won't be a concern. Either way the problem is solved.
Oh fuck off. I had school lunches most of Jr high and high school.