The Progressive Movement - A political history lesson

[Woodruff]

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.

Sure it does. Your argument was that the parent's/family of the student paid for that food, so they should get as much as they want. That taxpayer off the street has paid just as much in taxes to provide that food as the student's parents have. I am, in fact, pointing out why your logic/rationale is poor.

[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.

Sure it does. Your argument was that the parent's/family of the student paid for that food, so they should get as much as they want. That taxpayer off the street has paid just as much in taxes to provide that food as the student's parents have. I am, in fact, pointing out why your logic/rationale is poor.

How is my logic poor? You're the one talking about taxes paid. I'm the one talking about the actual out-of-pocket money a student has to pay when they buy their lunch.

[Woodruff]

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.

Sure it does. Your argument was that the parent's/family of the student paid for that food, so they should get as much as they want. That taxpayer off the street has paid just as much in taxes to provide that food as the student's parents have. I am, in fact, pointing out why your logic/rationale is poor.

How is my logic poor? You're the one talking about taxes paid. I'm the one talking about the actual out-of-pocket money a student has to pay when they buy their lunch.

I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

[Night Strike]

I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

[PLAYER57832]

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, we, as a society pay for the damage caused by unhealthy food.

That said, there is a definite limit. IN our country, freedom to advertise junk food, price supports for sugar and corn have helped artificially create the bad eating habits, so the government, the public has a role, a vested interest, in correcting it.

Note.. this is a real issue for us, because my family is naturally oriented toward a high BMI.. I was technically "overweight" by the "charts" when per my fat content, I was actually underweight. My son is now both "gifted"/"cursed" with that AND also overweight... but, a big reason he is overweight (I believe) is that he has gotten used to eating things like toaster sticks and "eggo-type" waffles in school, gets served tasteless fruit from the refrigerator and vegatables that are grossly overcooked to meet 1950's style "safety" standards. (and yes, I fully understand my parental responsibilities, but sometimes parents have to pick their battles.. and eating meals at school was one compromise I wound up regretfully making)

The part that bothers me the most is when the head of the school nutrition/food services declared in our local paper that he had no idea how to do a better job!

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?

I am on the fence here.

My experience is that most kids get far more than they can eat in the elementary schools, and that what they get is heavily oriented toward what I call "junk" food.

I have often talked of the time I did not get paid (by the STATE, not the feds!) because I fed my (childcare) kids baked chicken, 2 garden vegetables and boiled potatos (no butter.. they ate them that way just fine becuase I got good potatoes). Anyway, I was supposed to have given them bread. I did actually have bread on the table, but forgot to put it down. I told my physician about that... he rolled his eyes in disgust. Similarly, when we were qualified for WIC, one of the things we could get was cereal. Because its based on weight, a lot of sugary cereals (life, Cheerios, etc.) seem to be a better deal. I could get 3 or so boxes of those, compared with just one box of oatmeal.

HOWEVER, the problem with your arguments Nightstrike, is that you fundamentally ignore why those rules are as they are. Its not because there is this group of people called "government" that operate in back rooms and make these decisions in isolation to benefit themselves. Its because our government is run by and funded by active people with very specific interests. The bigger corporations have more money, are able to pay for better lobbies. Try to fight General MIlls, Kraft (Beatrice Foods) AND groups like Sysco, etc.... and you hit a major battle.

ALSO, you have a generation of adults who now basically don't know what good nutrition is. I can remember listening to another childcare provider also complain about the idiocy of the rules. Except, her complaint? That she could not serve yogurt. Why? Becuase it was not counted as fruit!!! I mean, while yogurst has a bit of fruit flavoring and sometimes a tiny bit of real fruit, I have no idea how any intelligent adult could consider a product made primarily of fermented milk to be fruit!!!

Just look at the recent fight over french fries, fried food in general. Certainly there are people who enjoy fried food. (note.. I am actually not against making specific foods "bad"... I think teaching kids moderation.. give them candy, just don't let them fill up on it.. give them REAL ice cream, but limit it...) HOWEVER, if you follow the money behind this, you find huge monetary interests. The real fight was not so much about nutrition, it was over money. In that case, the evidence was overwhelming enough that you did have a LOT of parents arguing for the changes, enough that legislators decided they had best listen to those who actually vote for them, rather than just those who fund their campaigns.

There are real problems with our food program, but your "answers", Nightstrike really don't address any of them. They just fit into your "do away with anything government" ideas.

[comic boy]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

[thegreekdog]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

Those are good analogies.

But let's stop with the sarcasm. If children want to buy and eat snickers at school the government should not have the authority to tell them they cannot. Certainly, if the government cannot tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, the government shouldn't be permitted to tell people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. Oh wait, they do that all the time.

[PLAYER57832]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

Those are good analogies.

But let's stop with the sarcasm. If children want to buy and eat snickers at school the government should not have the authority to tell them they cannot. Certainly, if the government cannot tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, the government shouldn't be permitted to tell people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. Oh wait, they do that all the time.

I disagree, simply because we are talking KIDS, in SCHOOLS. Children/parents have no real choice about sending their kids to schools. Kids are not mature enough yet to make proper decisions like eating broccoli instead of putting money in the candy bar or soda machine. Once the kids get home.. sure. However, as long as education is mandated, then food standards in school should be mandated as well. Nutrition, good eating are very much part of the education kids need to recieve.

Oh, yeah.. and there are roughly 10 other threads on abortion. No need to drive this one into that as well.

[thegreekdog]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

Those are good analogies.

But let's stop with the sarcasm. If children want to buy and eat snickers at school the government should not have the authority to tell them they cannot. Certainly, if the government cannot tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, the government shouldn't be permitted to tell people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. Oh wait, they do that all the time.

I disagree, simply because we are talking KIDS, in SCHOOLS. Children/parents have no real choice about sending their kids to schools. Kids are not mature enough yet to make proper decisions like eating broccoli instead of putting money in the candy bar or soda machine. Once the kids get home.. sure. However, as long as education is mandated, then food standards in school should be mandated as well. Nutrition, good eating are very much part of the education kids need to recieve.

I have no problem educating children about food. I have no problem if the cafeteria (if state run and funded) provides only "healthy" foods. If a kid brings a snickers bar to school, the school should not take it away.

[PLAYER57832]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

Those are good analogies.

But let's stop with the sarcasm. If children want to buy and eat snickers at school the government should not have the authority to tell them they cannot. Certainly, if the government cannot tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, the government shouldn't be permitted to tell people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. Oh wait, they do that all the time.

I disagree, simply because we are talking KIDS, in SCHOOLS. Children/parents have no real choice about sending their kids to schools. Kids are not mature enough yet to make proper decisions like eating broccoli instead of putting money in the candy bar or soda machine. Once the kids get home.. sure. However, as long as education is mandated, then food standards in school should be mandated as well. Nutrition, good eating are very much part of the education kids need to recieve.

I have no problem educating children about food. I have no problem if the cafeteria (if state run and funded) provides only "healthy" foods. If a kid brings a snickers bar to school, the school should not take it away.

I agree with that. (UNLESS, of course we are talking about a child on a special diet, etc.)

[Juan_Bottom]

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

If that's your argument then they can just buy the food that they need and bring their own lunches.

[Juan_Bottom]

Children cannot make their own diet decisions. They're stupid.

[Phatscotty]

Children cannot make their own diet decisions. They're stupid.

And there you have it...Progressivism

[Juan_Bottom]

OK, Children are less capable of making their own decisions than everyone but Phatscotty.

[Phatscotty]

Children cannot make their own diet decisions. They're stupid.

And there you have it...Progressivism

OK, Children are less capable of making their own decisions than everyone but Phatscotty.

oh no! There is no gettin out of this one! I got you! You let your guard down and admitted that you want government to control everything, all the way to what children eat, because they are stupid.

Of course Progressivism calls for the following move....

because the children are unbelievably stupid, they can not even know what is good for them, or what they are even eating! We should just feed them the cheapest gruel and tell them it's healthy, and we charge the parents and taxpayers top dollar for the "organic health packages" and we pocket the money! We won't get caught, because we are smart, and they are stupid. And hey, even if we do get caught, who are they going to complain to, the government? LMFAO WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!

[Phatscotty]

I disagree, because if it's progress then it is, by definition, an improvement.

Aye, mankind has made great progress in many areas. One in particular is the great strides forward we've made at killing each other.

We used to have to use spears, swords and stone to bash and hack each other to death. But, that's very labor intensive, inefficient and quite tiring. It seems a man can only bludgeon and stab but so many people before he is either cut down himself or falls exhausted.

But just look at us today! We can obliterate whole cities in the blink of an eye and all it takes is the push of a button. Why, I bet if we really wanted to, we could kill every single human being on the planet in a matter of hours!

Progress! Ain't it great?

I don't consider that progress, actually, though I suppose some do.

Whoa whoa now, let's look at your assertion (which is incorrect, by the way).
NS said that not all progress is inherently good, see-

Progress for the sake of progress is not inherently good.

to which your replied-

I disagree, because if it's progress then it is, by definition, an improvement.

Certainly, we have improved the way we kill people, have we not? I would say that type of progress is not inherently good.
Your view, (which happens to completely contradict your earlier statement)-

I don't consider that progress

So, we have improved our weaponry to the point we can kill all life on Earth. That's not progress? LMAO.

Of course it's progress, except it is not good progress at all.

Would you like to admit that all progress is not inherently good which is what you were disagreeing with NS about?

Or would you like to run some more logic circles and continue to contradict yourself?

You should take your own advice....

I'm just glad you've found all these conservatives to explain progressivism to you. That way, you won't have to actually think about it.

In other words...

[Juan_Bottom]

The government was already controlling what children eat. There's a simple logic gap there.

[Phatscotty]

The government was already controlling what children eat. There's a simple logic gap there.

You mean a Liberty gap, surely...

[Woodruff]

I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.

[Woodruff]

Who in their right mind seriously argues that it is a bad thing to serve balanced meals rather than let students eat as much crap as they want. This thread is truly amazing , do some of you truly believe that progress is a bad thing , would you be happier if we were all still living in caves and worshiping trees ?

Those are good analogies.
But let's stop with the sarcasm. If children want to buy and eat snickers at school the government should not have the authority to tell them they cannot. Certainly, if the government cannot tell a woman she cannot have an abortion, the government shouldn't be permitted to tell people what they can or cannot put in their bodies. Oh wait, they do that all the time.

I see a bit of a difference ONLY in that children MUST attend school, so they are a bit of a captive audience. No, that doesn't force them to buy the junk food, but I think that it does cause a significant shift in that area. After all, there's a reason why those junk food companies wanted to be there.

[Woodruff]

I have no problem educating children about food. I have no problem if the cafeteria (if state run and funded) provides only "healthy" foods. If a kid brings a snickers bar to school, the school should not take it away.

I certainly agree with this (our school doesn't do this).

[Woodruff]

The government was already controlling what children eat. There's a simple logic gap there.

You mean a Liberty gap, surely...

When you start actually caring about liberty, perhaps you'll get us to listen to your points about the subject.

[Symmetry]

And today Progressivism is turning the government into our masters by forcing half the population to work for the government while the other half depends on handouts from the government.

I'm guessing you're making this a US politics thread again. Which half are you in?

[Woodruff]

And today Progressivism is turning the government into our masters by forcing half the population to work for the government while the other half depends on handouts from the government.

I'm guessing you're making this a US politics thread again. Which half are you in?

He's in the third half that works independently of the government.

[Night Strike]

I was talking about taxes because that was the only way that all student families were paying for their student's lunches, so it seemed to me that must be what you were referring to.

Perhaps you're not acquainted with the school lunch system. A significant population of students pay nothing for school lunches. Yet those students who pay nothing for school lunches must be treated the same as those who are paying for their school lunches (or those among another significant population who pay a reduced amount for their school lunches).

If students are getting free or reduced lunches, then what they're eligible for is all they can get. But if a student needs more food that goes beyond the calorie limits, they should have the freedom to buy that food.

Students cannot be treated differently based on economic circumstances. I know those of you who support the rich people (against your own interests) don't understand that logic, but it is pretty basic.

BS. ALL people can be treated differently based on what they can buy. If I can't afford a meal at a 5-star restaurant, I don't have the right to demand they serve me anyway simply because my economic circumstances are less. The government does not have the authority to limit what legal products a person may buy. Even if that person is a student.

And today Progressivism is turning the government into our masters by forcing half the population to work for the government while the other half depends on handouts from the government.

I'm guessing you're making this a US politics thread again. Which half are you in?

The half that pays taxes. And when I wasn't paying taxes, it was while I was still a full time student.