The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[PLAYER57832]

And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

Where does the Constitution say that the federal government is responsible for any education/school funding?

The federal government should not be involved in either education funding or education mandates.

LOL... and here we go.

But, of course, no one is saying to cut school lunches.. particularly not Nightstrike

[Juan_Bottom]

And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

Where does the Constitution say that the federal government is responsible for any education/school funding?

The federal government should not be involved in either education funding or education mandates.

Says the guy bitching about how much fast-food was cut from schools. It's the Feds job to feed you, but not to educate you.

The federal government has to be involved in education. Take the example of Civil Rights where Southern Schools taught that black people were sub-human and made by Jesus to be slaves. Or the current attack on science by creationist crazers. If not for the Feds people would be taught that Satan buried dinosaur bones to trick people into not whipping coloreds for not picking cotton fast enough.

[Juan_Bottom]

And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

Where does the Constitution say that the federal government is responsible for any education/school funding?

The federal government should not be involved in either education funding or education mandates.

LOL... and here we go.

But, of course, no one is saying to cut school lunches.. particularly not Nightstrike

ZING!

[Night Strike]

And then of course, THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION cut the f*ck out of funding for schools. That's when the switch to fast food lunches happened.

Where does the Constitution say that the federal government is responsible for any education/school funding?

The federal government should not be involved in either education funding or education mandates.

LOL... and here we go.

But, of course, no one is saying to cut school lunches.. particularly not Nightstrike

Let the states run the schools, not the federal government.

By the way, I wonder why Player has completely ignored my post......

I responded to quite a few, but I have not been coming online as often as I have been. If I missed something you feel critical.. point it out again.

Only 3 separate news stories about how your progressives are forcing kids to go hungry at school because they aren't allowed to eat enough calories. It's not conservatives that are making kids go hungry.

If true, those would be idiots, not progressives. Try again.

PLAYER, WAKE UP!!! These are federal government mandates that are limiting the amounts of calories that schools can serve to students, not the individual school districts!! This is what you get when the government provides blanket policies for all people instead of individuals making their own decisions. One-size-fits-all does not work in a country of more than 300 million people.

Nightstrike, I am just going to suggest that having run a daycare for several years (dealing with the federal food program, just in case you need a further hint...), having 4 kids in or through the local schools, not to mention working in food services now....

I just MIGHT have a clue about the program, a bit more than you, even. I CERTAINLY have a better grasp on the problems and why they are happening. Juan hit a lot of it.

But one factoid you have wrong. While a lot is mandate by the federal government, how each program is implemented is modified by the states and localities. So, it is controlled by all levels not just the feds.

The federal mandates do not allow any implementation that falls outside the mandated calorie ranges or goes above any specific intake (sodium, fats, etc.), therefore states and localities aren't actually able to modify it in a way that is beneficial to the students. I apparently can't copy/paste the PDF link, so go to this website and click on the "Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs (1/26/12)" link and go to page 58 of the PDF: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/nutritionstandards.htm

The problems are the federal government mandating everything we do.

[Juan_Bottom]

Well, that tends to be what happens in a free society: people make their own choices. The government does not exist to make those choices for you. And I believe at least 1 of those articles, if not all 3, quoted a dietician.

The second one did, but no one in any of those "articles" was actually attacking the plan in any way. The dietician just said that she doesn't like the plan because her students are too addicted to fast food, so they won't eat their healthy food and then they starve. Not a very compelling argument. Sounds like they are being fed, but exercising that right to choose not to eat that you're talking about.

So your argument remains that children are able to decide for themselves what foods they eat and in what quantity's? I know a 10 year old who will be glad to know that he can now live on gummi worms.



This is kind of funny to me because my school had serving-suggestion meals with 1 of each food group. You didn't have any options. You couldn't say "I don't want my fruit, I want 2 sandwiches instead." And this is part of what they were bitching about in one of these storys.

[tzor]

You were born at least 10 years too late, because in most of the US (not PA, ironically enough), college education WAS nearly free for students who had reasonable grades and abilities.

It was? I didn't get the memo either. Granted my student loans were at an interest rate below the rate of inflation at the time but I still had to pay the loans back, even with devalued dollars.

[HapSmo19]

You were born at least 10 years too late, because in most of the US (not PA, ironically enough), college education WAS nearly free for students who had reasonable grades and abilities.

It was? I didn't get the memo either. Granted my student loans were at an interest rate below the rate of inflation at the time but I still had to pay the loans back, even with devalued dollars.

She got her money's worth too. Lemme tell ya.

[thegreekdog]

Somewhere there there's a fair point to be made. In the 50s the head of household was the Husband, and he made enough money at his 40-hour job to support his whole family, and that's without college. Today, everything is flipped. Unions have lost support, pay for workers is on the decline, production is up, and the norm is for both parents to work 100million hours with little time for family.
I know that people blame the integration of blacks and women into the workforce, but that explanation is absolutely lacking.

I never heard people say the integration of blacks into the workforce was to blame. I have heard the integration of women in the workforce had an effect. So why do you think that explanation is lacking?

First, I am in no way shape or form suggesting YOU think this way. But, you are beginning to demonstrate the truth in the saying "he who ignores history is doomed to repeat it". Not only have those ideas very much been a part of American politics and thinking -- albiet more "backroom and boardroom" thinking than "6 O'clock news" thinking (from a time when the 6 O'clock news actually meant something), BUT it is very much a part of recent rhetoric. The "get women back in the home" bit is particularly strong within Christian right circles. The race bit is changed somewhat and is from different groups (though, like in the past, there is overlap with some conservative Christians taking both stances). Blacks are no longer the target, its "Mexicans" who are assumed to be illegal unless proven otherwise are more the target. And, of course... throw in homosexuality for good measure.

A major difference from the past is that there are more issues and so its not all the same groups opposing all of those together, even though in many cases the same folks do essentially target all three.

Whoa, hold on a second. I'm not suggesting women shouldn't work. I'm wondering why the explanation is lacking. If at some point in history we doubled the workforce supply and that accounts for lowered wages, why is that explanation lacking?

I never said you were suggesting that. In fact, I believe I cearly said that I did NOT think you thought that way, I was addressing the point that you don't feel other people think that way.

As for the double the workforce... There are plenty of competing issues, enough that sociologists will no doubt be debating the "true causes" and "whether the chicken or egg came first" for centuries.

1. The initial input of women into the workforce it did not lower wages, because the demand for work expanded at about the same time... and many jobs that did not require sheer physical force.
2. Women still tended to move into the lower ranks, take the "pink collar" jobs -- some of which (like day care provider) were essentially created for the needs of the "female workforce". This resulted in more men beign able to move further up.
3. Recently, the unemployment pain has often been mitigated because often at least one partner is still employed... even if for lesser wages and/or hours. Also, loss of jobs (or decreased hours) often allows shifting of childcare responsibilities and other shifts so that even while the overall work output is down, families can still "maintain".. just not progress they way they would like. (let's not forget the use of credit cards for "income" as well.. but thats off topic). Ironically, a lot of women in higher up positions sometimes stayed employed when "their men" were laid off, partly because it can be harder for a company to fire a loan woman in the department.

4.The rhetoric is not about overall lowering of jobs because women are in, its about men not getting jobs, women who are "undeserving" keeping their jobs, and push back against the idea that women should be getting more pay, in some cases against the fact that women get paid less than men for the same job (never mind that female jobs pay less than traditional male jobs, irrelevant of skills required).


Or, to put it another way, the argument is there, its just not quite as direct as you are looking for.

The rhetoric is largely irrelevant (at least to me). I do not support those that would put women back in the kitchen, or whatever we want to call it. I know you think this is a major issue right now, and I know the Democrats are trying to make it a major issue, but let's put that issue aside. The question I asked, from purely from a numbers perspective, is whether the inclusion of twice as many people in the workforce raised the supply of available employees which, in turn, lowered the price that such employees could be paid. That being said, I think I largely agree with your (1) and (2), although I haven't done enough research on the subject to know (to put it another way, your (1) and (2) make sense).

[PLAYER57832]

The rhetoric is largely irrelevant (at least to me). I do not support those that would put women back in the kitchen, or whatever we want to call it.

Yeah, I said that.. three times now.

I know you think this is a major issue right now, and I know the Democrats are trying to make it a major issue, but let's put that issue aside.

Like I said, he who ignores history....

The question I asked, from purely from a numbers perspective, is whether the inclusion of twice as many people in the workforce raised the supply of available employees which, in turn, lowered the price that such employees could be paid. That being said, I think I largely agree with your (1) and (2), although I haven't done enough research on the subject to know (to put it another way, your (1) and (2) make sense).

I answered that question.

In recent times, the blame has fallen on immigrants. That is pretty traditional as well. Blaming women is not as politically attractive, even though reading through the lines makes it hard to ignore that this would be the effect of various actions, no matter how much the supporters claim they are not attacking women.

Denying women the ability to make choices about their own reproductive healthy other than to not have sex, not get married at all; heavily limiting childcare support, degrading public education to the point that homeschooling is considered viable not because it makes actual economic sense for the families, but becuase moms tend to care more about their children's futures than their own current security. Limiting social security, upon which far more women than men still depend (because more women still work in jobs without nice 401K's), etc.
ALL of those things will very much make it far more difficult for women to continue to work.. or at least to work and have children.

[thegreekdog]

The rhetoric is largely irrelevant (at least to me). I do not support those that would put women back in the kitchen, or whatever we want to call it.

Yeah, I said that.. three times now.

I know you think this is a major issue right now, and I know the Democrats are trying to make it a major issue, but let's put that issue aside.

Like I said, he who ignores history....

The question I asked, from purely from a numbers perspective, is whether the inclusion of twice as many people in the workforce raised the supply of available employees which, in turn, lowered the price that such employees could be paid. That being said, I think I largely agree with your (1) and (2), although I haven't done enough research on the subject to know (to put it another way, your (1) and (2) make sense).

I answered that question.

In recent times, the blame has fallen on immigrants. That is pretty traditional as well. Blaming women is not as politically attractive, even though reading through the lines makes it hard to ignore that this would be the effect of various actions, no matter how much the supporters claim they are not attacking women.

Denying women the ability to make choices about their own reproductive healthy other than to not have sex, not get married at all; heavily limiting childcare support, degrading public education to the point that homeschooling is considered viable not because it makes actual economic sense for the families, but becuase moms tend to care more about their children's futures than their own current security. Limiting social security, upon which far more women than men still depend (because more women still work in jobs without nice 401K's), etc.
ALL of those things will very much make it far more difficult for women to continue to work.. or at least to work and have children.

Sorry, I wasn't asking you there. I'm asking Juan or someone else. I have read and understand your answer. I should have been clearer.

[Woodruff]

AND... it all began to end in the mid eighties. The election of Reagan began the return of childhood hunger (took a bit for the result to actually happen), etc, etc, etc.

Actually, I believe it's the progressives with their governmental mandates that are making children go hungry again by refusing to give them enough food:

Let me get this straight...the Republicans want to end food at school, yet you want to claim that it's the progressives that are not giving them enough food at school?

Does the cognitive dissonance ever become unbearable?

I have never once heard any Republican claim that serving food at school should be stopped. Where are your sources?

It has actually been stated in this very forum. I don't specifically recall the individual (it wasn't you or Phatscotty, but rather one of the other conservatives).

[Woodruff]

PLAYER, WAKE UP!!! These are federal government mandates that are limiting the amounts of calories that schools can serve to students, not the individual school districts!!

I've been in the schools. Limiting the amount of calories that schools can serve is a damn good idea. Obesity is a very serious problem in this country and even worse in our schools, driven by a combination of poverty and sedentarism. Poverty because high-calorie food is cheaper. Sedentarism because kids want to sit and watch television or play video games instead of getting exercise. I have no problem with limiting calories in school lunches, given that those school lunches are based on nutrition, rather than calories.

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

They're NOT making anyone unhealthy. They may be making a kid hungry in the afternoon, but if so, it is because that kid is used to taking in far more calories than is actually healthy.

[Night Strike]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

They're NOT making anyone unhealthy. They may be making a kid hungry in the afternoon, but if so, it is because that kid is used to taking in far more calories than is actually healthy.

Why does the government get to dictate what is healthy or not on a blanketed basis? I thought every person was supposed to have their own health and diet plans and not based on one-size-fits-all policies. There are some kids, especially those who play high-activity sports or simply have high metabolisms that have to have more food than the government allows them to have.

[warmonger1981]

as long as the food being served is deemed healthy and to suggested serving sizes thats all that the school should be required to do as long as they are the kid is subsidezed. as far as candy/soda machines go in the school , i dont believe that corporations should be in school soliciting products. pack a lunch and plan accordingly. peace im out with my 2 cents

[tzor]

The rhetoric is largely irrelevant (at least to me). I do not support those that would put women back in the kitchen, or whatever we want to call it. I know you think this is a major issue right now, and I know the Democrats are trying to make it a major issue, but let's put that issue aside. The question I asked, from purely from a numbers perspective, is whether the inclusion of twice as many people in the workforce raised the supply of available employees which, in turn, lowered the price that such employees could be paid. That being said, I think I largely agree with your (1) and (2), although I haven't done enough research on the subject to know (to put it another way, your (1) and (2) make sense).

No. Mind you it's not all that easy to prove. In the first place the workforce didn't quite double, in spite of women entering the workforce, women do not have the same working patterns that men had for a number of decades into the movement and their general professions were not the same as that of their male conterparts. Most companies generally keep with what they know even though a relatively unknown replacement might cost less overall. So the general result was that there was a greater competition for the various positions in the workforce and a lot of people were dissapointed. Note that the start of the movement in the late 70's also occured under stagflation where both unemployment and inflation were high at the same time, in direct violation of commonly understood (but wrong) economic theory at the time.

[Phatscotty]

Shocking Discovery!!!!!! Obama is rubbing off on America...

The U.S. Has Become More Religiously Intolerant & Socially Hostile

Religion, considering its mass appeal and prevalence, plays a key role in global and domestic events. Considering the fact that sociopolitical issues are often dictated or impacted by personal faith, new findings from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life are potentially concerning, specifically when it comes to faith in America.

The non-partisan research organization found that religious intolerance is on the rise across the globe. But — among the surprising data present within the study — Pew notes that the United States’ standing at both the governmental and societal level has devolved noticeably.

The report’s main emphasis is on governmental restrictions on religious beliefs and practices. Shockingly, the report finds that 75 percent of the world’s population (as of mid-2010) lives in nations “where governments, social groups or individuals restrict people’s ability to freely practice their faith.”

The latest results, which are certainly disconcerting for religious-freedom advocates the world-round, take into account the year ending mid-2009 to mid-2010. A previous report published in 2009 by Pew found that there were 31 countries with high or very high restrictions on faith; in the newest report, this number jumped to 37. While the U.S. government isn’t “high” on the list, it has officially moved from the low to the moderate level of religious restriction.

Here’s how Pew describes the changes in government restriction that have unfolded at the state and local level:

Based on the information in the sources consulted for this study, the U.S. score on the Government Restrictions Index rose from 1.6 in the year ending in mid-2009 to 2.7 in the year ending in mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the low category of restrictions to the moderate category for the first time in the four years studied. (GRI scores 2.4 or higher are categorized as moderate by this study, while scores 4.5 or higher are categorized as high.)

During the period from mid-2009 to mid-2010, a number of the sources used in the study reported an increase in the number of incidents at the state and local level in which members of some religious groups faced restrictions on their ability to practice their faith. This included incidents in which individuals were prevented from wearing certain religious attire or symbols, including beards, in some judicial settings or in prisons, penitentiaries or other correctional facilities. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice reported that it was pursuing a lawsuit in federal court against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and various California officials on behalf of a Sikh prison inmate who, in March 2010, had been ordered to trim his facial hair in violation of his religious beliefs. The Justice Department said the state’s inmate grooming policy “imposed a substantial burden” on the man’s ability to exercise his faith.

This isn’t the only measure worth noting. Equally troubling is America‘s score on Pew’s Social Hostilities Index, which measures some of the non-government related religious incidents that have unfolded.

In mid-2009 the U.S. was at 2.0 and, in 2010, the score ticked up to 3.4. Again, this represents a move from a low to a moderate range, with 3.6 serving as the lowest point in the “high” sphere. Pew explains some of the reasoning for this change:

A key factor behind the increase in the U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index was a spike in religion-related terrorist attacks in the United States in the year ending in mid-2010. In November 2009, for instance, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan – allegedly inspired by the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – gunned down and killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas. In December 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear while aboard a Detroit-bound aircraft. And in May 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born resident of Bridgeport, Conn., attempted to set off a bomb in New York’s Times Square.

Other forms of social hostilities involving religion also increased in the U.S. during the most recent year studied. In Murfreesboro, Tenn., for example, some county residents attempted to block the construction of a mosque in the spring of 2010 by claiming, as reported by the Justice Department, that Islam is a “political ideology rather than a religion” and that “mosques are political rather than religious in nature.” (The mosque officially opened in August 2012, but opponents are still challenging the mosque in federal court.)

These findings are anything but positive for a nation that prides itself on being a bastion for free speech and the free exercise of any and all religious beliefs. Furthermore, it points to negative societal patterns that may need to be addressed, specifically when it comes to intolerance and religiously-rooted violence.

http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Risi ... aspx#_ftn8

[BigBallinStalin]

(A) What are the chances that the title, "The U.S. Has Become More Religiously Intolerant & Socially Hostile," accurately reflects the summary of that study?

(B) And what are the chances that the article accurately reflects the results of the study?

____________________________________________________________________________________

(A) Equal to Symmetry's chances of engaging in a debate beyond his usual nitpicking.

(B) Equal to Woodruff's chance to answer questions which incurs the risk of making him look foolish.

[Phatscotty]

(A) What are the chances that the title, "The U.S. Has Become More Religiously Intolerant & Socially Hostile," accurately reflects the summary of that study?

(B) And what are the chances that the article accurately reflects the results of the study?

____________________________________________________________________________________

(A) Equal to Symmetry's chances of engaging in a debate beyond his usual nitpicking.

(B) Equal to Woodruff's chance to answer questions which incurs the risk of making him look foolish.

Looks on the rise to me, but I don't need a chart to notice that. I can barely go a day without hearing religious intolerance, and this place here is a festering bowl of religious intolerance


I wondered about that myself. I would say the chances are 50-50, but that is up to the reader to decide.

what do you think about it?

as for the Symmetry/Woodruff slant, I would probably tell them religious intolerance is on the rise because Marxism is on the rise, and as it related to this thread, because Progressives are no longer hiding and have come out in the open.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Risi ... aspx#_ftn8

The U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index also rose, from 2.0 as of mid-2009 to 3.4 as of mid-2010, moving the U.S. from the lower end of the moderate range of hostilities to the upper end of the moderate range. (Social Hostilities Index scores 3.6 or higher are categorized as high by this study.)

A key factor behind the increase in the U.S. score on the Social Hostilities Index was a spike in religion-related terrorist attacks in the United States in the year ending in mid-2010. In November 2009, for instance, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan – allegedly inspired by the U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki – gunned down and killed 13 people and wounded 32 others at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas.9 In December 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear while aboard a Detroit-bound aircraft.10 And in May 2010, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born resident of Bridgeport, Conn., attempted to set off a bomb in New York’s Times Square. 11

So, increasing Social Hostilities is reflected in increases in (essentially) terrorist attacks by these Islamic dudes?

Okay. An increase in the Social Hostilities Index has a different meaning than "The U.S. Has Become More... Socially Hostile."

Good captivating title, but it ain't true.


I'm not gonna deal with the other claim. One's enough for me.

[Woodruff]

Shocking Discovery!!!!!! Obama is rubbing off on America...

The U.S. Has Become More Religiously Intolerant & Socially Hostile

You're desperate to blame anything you can on Obama, aren't you? I guess you've almost come
to terms with the fact that Romney's going to lose the election?

I mean, seriously...this is just a stupid thing to say on your part.

[Woodruff]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

They're NOT making anyone unhealthy. They may be making a kid hungry in the afternoon, but if so, it is because that kid is used to taking in far more calories than is actually healthy.

Why does the government get to dictate what is healthy or not on a blanketed basis?

Because the government is the one providing the food.

I thought every person was supposed to have their own health and diet plans and not based on one-size-fits-all policies. There are some kids, especially those who play high-activity sports or simply have high metabolisms that have to have more food than the government allows them to have.

Then, being the vast exception to the rule, their parents should make certain they have additional calorie intake to support them. Or do you believe that lunch is the only time that a student can take in calories?

[Woodruff]

(A) What are the chances that the title, "The U.S. Has Become More Religiously Intolerant & Socially Hostile," accurately reflects the summary of that study?

(B) And what are the chances that the article accurately reflects the results of the study?

____________________________________________________________________________________

(A) Equal to Symmetry's chances of engaging in a debate beyond his usual nitpicking.

(B) Equal to Woodruff's chance to answer questions which incurs the risk of making him look foolish.

Looks on the rise to me, but I don't need a chart to notice that. I can barely go a day without hearing religious intolerance, and this place here is a festering bowl of religious intolerance

What a stupid statement. To say such a thing presents a clear lack of understanding of what actual intolerance is.

as for the Symmetry/Woodruff slant, I would probably tell them religious intolerance is on the rise because Marxism is on the rise, and as it related to this thread, because Progressives are no longer hiding and have come out in the open.

Marxism!!!! Soros!!!! Obama!!!! Progressives!!!!

(B) Equal to Woodruff's chance to answer questions which incurs the risk of making him look foolish.

As for this, well...I'll just say that frankly you're one of the worst individuals on this site as regards to not taking other individuals' perspectives and arguments into consideration, which is why I decided some time back that I no longer have any time for you. But thanks for the cheap shot anyway.

[Night Strike]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

They're NOT making anyone unhealthy. They may be making a kid hungry in the afternoon, but if so, it is because that kid is used to taking in far more calories than is actually healthy.

Why does the government get to dictate what is healthy or not on a blanketed basis?

Because the government is the one providing the food.

I thought every person was supposed to have their own health and diet plans and not based on one-size-fits-all policies. There are some kids, especially those who play high-activity sports or simply have high metabolisms that have to have more food than the government allows them to have.

Then, being the vast exception to the rule, their parents should make certain they have additional calorie intake to support them. Or do you believe that lunch is the only time that a student can take in calories?

And it's the kids/family paying for the food. They should be able to buy the amount of food they need/want.

[Woodruff]

Every person's body is different. The government can't just accurately dictate how much food every kid should be allowed to eat. And the students that were needing more food for any reason were already paying for that extra food. Today, the government doesn't allow that. Kids are getting hungry in their afternoon classes because they weren't allowed to eat enough at lunch. That's not only making kids unhealthy but also hindering their learning.

They're NOT making anyone unhealthy. They may be making a kid hungry in the afternoon, but if so, it is because that kid is used to taking in far more calories than is actually healthy.

Why does the government get to dictate what is healthy or not on a blanketed basis?

Because the government is the one providing the food.

I thought every person was supposed to have their own health and diet plans and not based on one-size-fits-all policies. There are some kids, especially those who play high-activity sports or simply have high metabolisms that have to have more food than the government allows them to have.

Then, being the vast exception to the rule, their parents should make certain they have additional calorie intake to support them. Or do you believe that lunch is the only time that a student can take in calories?

And it's the kids/family paying for the food. They should be able to buy the amount of food they need/want.

By that logic, any taxpayer should be able to walk into a school off the street and buy lunch there. That makes sense to you?

[Night Strike]

By that logic, any taxpayer should be able to walk into a school off the street and buy lunch there. That makes sense to you?

False logic. Those schools are serving food to students. If a student wants to pay money to get more food of the options available that day, why should the government dictate that they can't? This has nothing to do with serving outside people.