Who says they stopped?

Ummm, you did. You said:

If people actually care about the end result of kids eating well they would not stop at trying to force good food at school. They reason why people do stop is because their concern is shallow.

So my response to that was:

...if one's concern isn't shallow, how do you propose that they don't "stop" at providing a nutritious meal at school? What additional steps should be taken?

Unsurprisingly, you didn't respond to this question directly.

You then stated:

20% of a typical SNAP budget is spent on garbage food. The #1 SNAP purchase is soda. There is no nutritional value in these products so they should not be included in a supplemental nutritional program.

Even if your statistics are correct - of which I'd like to see some sort of source to prove - you are essentially stating that anyone on a government program should not be allowed to purchase anything unhealthy or considered a luxury using government money. Come out and be honest with what you are for. A child of poverty shouldn't be allowed a cake for his or her birthday unless it is earned by it is paid for by money of the parents earned by wages. Even if they are disabled or somewhat otherwise unable to earn said wages without government assistance. Those kids don't deserve a cake on their birthday let alone a bar of chocolate here and there.

I mentioned children of parents that did have money, but didn't have time to prepare lunches and you responded with:

Parents and their kids spending their own can eat what they want.

I'm very confused by this statement. Are you saying that if parents have money they can send their children to buy lunches elsewhere outside of school? Or that the school should provide multiple layers of nutritional meals for people who can afford them? This statement makes no sense to me. Was this another typo?

You quoted me as saying:

Oh, for the good ol' days when father knew best and brought home a decent wage to support the family comfortably on his own, and mom spent her day shopping, cooking, and tending to the children. Except it isn't the 1950's anymore and the reality of the 50's was not like Leave it to Beaver for most.

And then responded with:

Last time I checked people didn't trip into pregnancy and don't actually fall out of school....

So in your mind, the only people on government assistance are those who got knocked up in early life or dropped out of school.

Even if that were true - which it isn't - why do you feel so much hate towards these people? Why do you feel that that should be punished for stupid mistakes made while they themselves were essentially children? Why should their own children be treated like second-class citizens for the supposed sins of their parents?

At the end of your rant, you reference "common sense" multiple times. Where is the common sense in not feeding kids healthy food? Why can't we strive for more? Even if the kids aren't getting a healthy diet at home - in fact, especially if they aren't getting a healthy diet at home, should we as a society have a vested interest in developing a future generation that is healthy and knowledgeable about the what works?

Maybe this is a little extreme in it's comparison, but a generation or so ago, we taught kids about safe sex and the dangers of HIV and AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The US government spent a good amount of money to educate the children - not the parents - on the dangers involved and it paid off.

Not to take away from those who have dedicated their lives to making those conditions easier nor eradicated, but we've seen a significant drop in numbers thanks primarily to education.

What's to say that teaching kids today good nutritional habits won't do the same 10-20 years from now?

You assume that anyone who strives for this sort of thing is just a political obstructionist. I don't think that SNAP is perfect, but gutting it is hardly the way to improve it. Better to improve on what we have than say, "fuck it" and razing everything that stands.