Michelle Obama makes kids eat "Healthy" as her own children eat Real food

[BlindBoo]

1M kids stop school lunch due to Michelle Obama's food ...



www.washingtontimes.com/news/.../federal-audit-...





The Washington Times





Feb 27, 2014 - The federal government's changes to school lunch menus have been ... over time as students adjust to the new food items, and three noted the ... GAO investigators said 321 school districts dropped out of the school lunch program altogether in the previous year, and many did so to avoid the mandates.



good going leftard!!!

Actually it was a 1% drop in the participation rate for Full Paying student. There was an increase in the participation rates of Free and Reduced students.

 

[bedowin62]

the added costs arent funded; not even for the water requirement

keep trying "bro"

but that's what happens when you try to portray only half a story

keep trying

 

[bedowin62]

"I know a lot of my friends who are just drinking a jug of milk for their lunch. And they are not getting a proper meal," middle school student Samantha Gortmaker told Keloland.com.

Despite the fact that the new regulations have increased the cost of a lunch 20 to 25 cents per plate, it’s not pleasing students.

Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according to SouthCoastToday.com.

Nancy Carvalho, director of food services for New Bedford Public Schools, was quoted as saying that hummus and black bean salads have been tough sells in elementary cafeterias. That means even smaller children are going through the day fighting hunger pains, which can never be considered a good thing.

One government official tried to put the blame on the students.

 

[bedowin62]

the added costs arent funded; not even for the water requirement

keep trying "bro"

The added costs are cut in half by the $0.06/tray additional subsidy, and the added costs are a voluntary burden.

You can either adhere to the healthier guidelines or have your meals come out of your parents' money and not the taxpayers.

Sounds far to me.

sure dork; they're just saying its a burden to mess with your head

 

[bedowin62]

the added costs arent funded; not even for the water requirement

keep trying "bro"

The added costs are cut in half by the $0.06/tray additional subsidy, and the added costs are a voluntary burden.

You can either adhere to the healthier guidelines or have your meals come out of your parents' money and not the taxpayers.

Sounds far to me.

half-ass program; half ass subsidy

thanks

 

[BlindBoo]

the reason for the opposition to the program is it places unfunded mandates on local school districts

BUT; IF YOU cant debate a valid point like that; and you're a lib coward

pull out the you're picking on her because she's Black and a woman card

idiots and hypocrites

For schools that meet the new nutritional requirement there is an increase in the reimbursement rates. Furthermore, the reforms do not fall under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2013-25922.pdf

if they do no meet the guidelines.....do they lose ALL of the funding...or just give up the increase you refer to?

The answer was in the link under Section 201 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

 

[bedowin62]

the parents cant afford to pay for the school lunch out of their pockets; and the school board cant afford the new unfunded mandate

let them eat cake says the arrogant left

 

[bedowin62]

it's ok; i thought i heard you say you wanted to be taxed more!!!!!!


so goes the idiotic Left

 

[bedowin62]

As an opening, general comment, AASA is concerned by the Department’s willingness to make a conscious decision to shift local school district funds from instruction to the federal school nutrition program without engaging the public. When created, the National School Lunch Program was designed as a federal program that was locally implemented. While states and locals could contribute to the program, the federal program was federally funded. With this latest reauthorization we see a significant shift, with a clear assumption that this program is now, somehow, a partnership, with direct fiscal implications for state and local dollars that were previously available for state and local priorities. This is a sentiment we have articulated time and again as this bill moved through the legislative and now regulatory processes, and we are concerned that the shift in funding burden is being overlooked. School districts should not have to continue to financially subsidize the federal meals program at the expense of their primary responsibility, our students' educational program.
==============================

the above is what is really happening

left-wingers are losers who lie to everybody; even themselves

 

[Jarhead]

Lately, the School Nutrition Association, once an advocate for the new rules, has led criticism of the standards, saying that “plate waste” is piling up in school cafeterias and that local school nutritionists are having difficulty complying with the rules. The Agriculture Department has said that 90 percent of school districts are meeting the new standards — a statistic that the SNA disputes.

optional?


i dont think so leftard

yes, optional.

currently, you can opt out and lose federal lunch subsidy

republicans want you to be able to opt out, and still keep your subsidy

nuance isn't your thing, I know bro I know.....but don't cry itll be okay

and that supports my analogy.

To have auto insurance is a mandate unless you are willing to give up owning or leasing a car.

Lunch within federal guidelines is a mandate unless you are willing to give up the subsidy.

You see, Sparky, that is how an analogy works.

In this case....

You are not mandated to do one thing if you are willing to give up something in return.

 

[bedowin62]

read it and weep; the REAL truth

this isnt from Fox; i t's a letter to the federal governemnt from the national Associaation of Administers; a school organization

As written, the current law, proposed regulations and interim rule cause good nutrition policy to fail because the provisions make the program fiscally impossible in these tough economic times. Recent guidance issued by USDA, relating to lifting the cap requirements on whole grains and protein within the new meal pattern, is an excellent example of the problematic nature of the current law and its implementation as shaped by proposed/pending regulations and rules. The law and its regulations should not put LEAs in the position of having to choose between covering the federal funding shortfall and funding an instructional position. Little attention has been focused on the drain of local school district funds to pay for or offset the continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced-priced school meals, and AASA is concerned that this interim rule compounds this problem.

 

[bedowin62]

this is what the arrogant morons on the Left are not telling here:

School superintendents simply request that the role of the federal government as it relates to competitive foods in schools be proportional to the amount of resources it provides to support the regulations. As the federal government currently does not provide funds—and this regulation provides no resources—for competitive foods, there is not a role for federal policy to dictate competitive food policy in school districts. Either provide the resources required to cover the costs associated with the new competitive food regulations or refrain from imposing new federal requirements.

 

[bedowin62]

read it and weep; the REAL truth

this isnt from Fox; i t's a letter to the federal governemnt from the national Associaation of Administers; a school organization

As written, the current law, proposed regulations and interim rule cause good nutrition policy to fail because the provisions make the program fiscally impossible in these tough economic times. Recent guidance issued by USDA, relating to lifting the cap requirements on whole grains and protein within the new meal pattern, is an excellent example of the problematic nature of the current law and its implementation as shaped by proposed/pending regulations and rules. The law and its regulations should not put LEAs in the position of having to choose between covering the federal funding shortfall and funding an instructional position. Little attention has been focused on the drain of local school district funds to pay for or offset the continuing un-funded costs of the federal free and reduced-priced school meals, and AASA is concerned that this interim rule compounds this problem.

American Association of School Administraters

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

What a hypocrite.....must be nice to e part of the privileged political class

the prestigious Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., where the Obamas send their children to school, serves school lunches designed by chefs. This week, for example, they might enjoy meatball subs, BBQ wings and ice cream, in addition to chicken curry, deviled egg salad and the “Chef’s Choice.” Other options on the exclusive menu include:

Crusted tilapia
Herb roasted chicken
Pesto cream & garden-fresh marinara sauce
Roasted edamame & Shitake mushrooms
BBQ sliders
Pesto pasta
All-natural rosemary chicken
All-natural beef nachos
Baked three-cheese lasagna
Pepperoni flatbread pizza

While Public School Kids Eat ?Healthy Lunches,? Washington Elites Served Meatball Subs, Ice Cream…[141806]/0/

Oh for chrissake. You really have too much time on your hands.

"But long before the Obama girls, or even Chelsea Clinton and Albert Gore III, Sidwell boasted first-family headliners such as Julie and Tricia Nixon; Archie Roosevelt, son of Teddy Roosevelt; William Henry Harrison, descendant of two presidents; and Herbert Hoover's son Allan. (Even Nancy Reagan attended lower school there.)"""

Story of Prominent Private School, Sidwell
Read more at Story of Prominent Private School, Sidwell

Would you like to see a list of where previous POTUS's children attended school while in D.C.?

 

[bedowin62]

yes, optional.

currently, you can opt out and lose federal lunch subsidy

republicans want you to be able to opt out, and still keep your subsidy

nuance isn't your thing, I know bro I know.....but don't cry itll be okay

and that supports my analogy.

To have auto insurance is a mandate unless you are willing to give up owning or leasing a car.

Lunch within federal guidelines is a mandate unless you are willing to give up the subsidy.

You see, Sparky, that is how an analogy works.

In this case....

You are not mandated to do one thing if you are willing to give up something in return.

Your analogy sucks/fails because neither is a mandate, they are BOTH voluntary.

And it sucks further, in that the school is still gunna have to provide lunch subsidy or not.

you are an idiot; "bro"

not very voluntary if you have to surrender your whole lunch subsidy if you cant comply

 

[bedowin62]

read the real story here:


American Association of School Administrators



aasa.org/aasablog.aspx?...




American Association of School Administrators





Apr 9, 2013 - The federal child nutrition law and its implementation must ensure that ... AASA is opposed to the unfunded mandate this proposed rule represents ... cap requirements on whole grains and protein within the new meal pattern, ...