So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Knowing actual poor people. Being actually poor.

Census data seems like kind of a weird source to draw these broad conclusions. People who work 60+ hours per week aren’t home to answer the door. Plus, it doesn’t account for the people who work 40 hours per week across three different jobs, at all hours of the day and night, taking multiple busses or commuting hours to get to them. 40 hours of work might take 60-70 hours of total effort.

Next time you’re in your posh suburban grocery store, ask the clerk how long it takes to get there from where they live.

If you’re dismissing Census data, then you’re the one pulling things from wherever.

There is also no data that they have longer commutes. Maybe you missed all the people that moved to Frederick and such places during Covid. They are now clogging up 270 for all the tradesmen also coming from Frederick. You’re Walmart workers are probably from Germantown.

What you are left with is that the poorest actually have poor executive functioning. Which requires quite a different solution than throwing junk food at them.

Im sure throwing NO food at them will do the trick

That is the GOP plan. They don't even want to allow healthy food. I think you never mention that there is only one side who cares if food is cut off.

You are just here to keep us busy

It’s pretty obvious at this point that SNAP isn’t working. The numbers just keep going up and up.

So does the obesity number. The two seem related.

Scaling back SNAP is one of the few ethical things the Administration is actually doing. Change is hard, especially changes that are good for you.

Correlation doesn't prove causation. We have an affordability crisis that gets worse every year. You what also keeps going up every year? Wealth inequality. The 1% are robbing all of us blind. And you're on here spewing venom at benefits for the poorest Americans.

[Anonymous]

Study the Cura Annonae in the days of Imperial Rome. See how it worked and how it didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems from this thread that MAGA is excited for SNAP to end this weekend and fully supports the GOP government closure to achieve this policy goal.

Jesus is watching, folks, and he’s keeping score.

Think about that when you clutch your ostentatious cross necklaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Knowing actual poor people. Being actually poor.

Census data seems like kind of a weird source to draw these broad conclusions. People who work 60+ hours per week aren’t home to answer the door. Plus, it doesn’t account for the people who work 40 hours per week across three different jobs, at all hours of the day and night, taking multiple busses or commuting hours to get to them. 40 hours of work might take 60-70 hours of total effort.

Next time you’re in your posh suburban grocery store, ask the clerk how long it takes to get there from where they live.

If you’re dismissing Census data, then you’re the one pulling things from wherever.

There is also no data that they have longer commutes. Maybe you missed all the people that moved to Frederick and such places during Covid. They are now clogging up 270 for all the tradesmen also coming from Frederick. You’re Walmart workers are probably from Germantown.

What you are left with is that the poorest actually have poor executive functioning. Which requires quite a different solution than throwing junk food at them.

Im sure throwing NO food at them will do the trick

That is the GOP plan. They don't even want to allow healthy food. I think you never mention that there is only one side who cares if food is cut off.

You are just here to keep us busy

It’s pretty obvious at this point that SNAP isn’t working. The numbers just keep going up and up.

So does the obesity number. The two seem related.

Scaling back SNAP is one of the few ethical things the Administration is actually doing. Change is hard, especially changes that are good for you.

The only correlation that matters is the number of billionaires that is going up and the number of SNAP recipients that is going up.

. People are starving because billionaires are gorging. Tax ‘em or eat em.

It's the K-shaped economy. The rich are getting richer and the working class is getting poorer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems from this thread that MAGA is excited for SNAP to end this weekend and fully supports the GOP government closure to achieve this policy goal.

Jesus is watching, folks, and he’s keeping score.

Think about that when you clutch your ostentatious cross necklaces.

You really think Jesus wants people to get fat off microwave burritos? Gluttony and sloth are both sins.

Jesus is watching you feast while you starve children, including the children you insisted He wanted to see born. Jesus wanted you to share your bread, not tell the poor to get off their asses and work harder.

But hey, it’s your eternity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems from this thread that MAGA is excited for SNAP to end this weekend and fully supports the GOP government closure to achieve this policy goal.

Jesus is watching, folks, and he’s keeping score.

Think about that when you clutch your ostentatious cross necklaces.

You really think Jesus wants people to get fat off microwave burritos? Gluttony and sloth are both sins.

People get fat for a number of reasons. Calling it gluttony and sloth is as unscientific as it is bigoted. Also, not all poor people are fat. Please stop spewing hatred.

[Anonymous]

If you are a good person, consider putting a basket of ramen, microwave Mac and cheese cups, soup cups, pretzels, apples, or similar items for those who may be facing food insecurity. Half of snap recipients are children. Candy bars are fun- but they need food. Thru cannot change the situation they are in.
Have a heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Pretty sure 42 hours a week is full time. You insinuated there was some huge discrepancy in hours worked for poor people. You cited a source showing that isn't true, and still doubled down. Why do you hate poor people?

I'll summarize for you since it can be hard to keep up with all the anons. Many people posted the assumption, without any data, that poor people worked more than non-poor. I posted data showing otherwise.

One caveat of the source I posted is that it was for only full time workers. That means anyone working less than 35 hours was not in that chart. Many of the working poor fall into that category. I would hope everyone here would agree that people working less than 35 hours a week should have time to cook an actual meal.

So in summary, it is not a time issue keeping poor people from making healthy meals. It is usually an issue with executive functioning, which is why we give then SNAP instead of just giving them an envelope full of cash.

You posted an analysis drawn from Census data, which has flaws that have been pointed out to you. Go back and read the responses. People who are working are not at home to answer the door.

Your anecdotes and assumptions don’t make inconvenient data disappear. There is no systematic undercounting of work hours by the poor. We could bring IRS data and other sources in as well. The pattern will hold.

The poor have time, they choose to use it for other things.

You assume people that are working less than 35 hours a week do so and then have the rest of their time free. Some people work PT because they are disabled. Sometimes they are a caregiver to a senior person or a disabled person or to children.

Why are reactionary people so narrow minded, uninformed, and lacking creativity. You are just so certain that poor people are somehow uniquely deficient, such as to assure yourself it could never be you. You aren't special. Under the same circumstances, you'd likely struggle in a similar way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Pretty sure 42 hours a week is full time. You insinuated there was some huge discrepancy in hours worked for poor people. You cited a source showing that isn't true, and still doubled down. Why do you hate poor people?

I'll summarize for you since it can be hard to keep up with all the anons. Many people posted the assumption, without any data, that poor people worked more than non-poor. I posted data showing otherwise.

One caveat of the source I posted is that it was for only full time workers. That means anyone working less than 35 hours was not in that chart. Many of the working poor fall into that category. I would hope everyone here would agree that people working less than 35 hours a week should have time to cook an actual meal.

So in summary, it is not a time issue keeping poor people from making healthy meals. It is usually an issue with executive functioning, which is why we give then SNAP instead of just giving them an envelope full of cash.

You posted an analysis drawn from Census data, which has flaws that have been pointed out to you. Go back and read the responses. People who are working are not at home to answer the door.

Your anecdotes and assumptions don’t make inconvenient data disappear. There is no systematic undercounting of work hours by the poor. We could bring IRS data and other sources in as well. The pattern will hold.

The poor have time, they choose to use it for other things.

Yes. To commute. To attend doctors appointments. To care for disabled family members. To care for children. To care for elderly family members. To attend school. To work odd jobs under the table. This idea that poor people are somehow rich in time is not supported by data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will happen?
Food banks will be overwhelmed. They feed one family for every 9 that snap feeds. So expect 10 x the normal amount of people needing food. Please consider donating to your local one. Money is best.
Half of people on snap are children, the other half are mostly elderly.

Trump also cut $500M to food banks in March.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Pretty sure 42 hours a week is full time. You insinuated there was some huge discrepancy in hours worked for poor people. You cited a source showing that isn't true, and still doubled down. Why do you hate poor people?

I'll summarize for you since it can be hard to keep up with all the anons. Many people posted the assumption, without any data, that poor people worked more than non-poor. I posted data showing otherwise.

One caveat of the source I posted is that it was for only full time workers. That means anyone working less than 35 hours was not in that chart. Many of the working poor fall into that category. I would hope everyone here would agree that people working less than 35 hours a week should have time to cook an actual meal.

So in summary, it is not a time issue keeping poor people from making healthy meals. It is usually an issue with executive functioning, which is why we give then SNAP instead of just giving them an envelope full of cash.

You posted an analysis drawn from Census data, which has flaws that have been pointed out to you. Go back and read the responses. People who are working are not at home to answer the door.

Your anecdotes and assumptions don’t make inconvenient data disappear. There is no systematic undercounting of work hours by the poor. We could bring IRS data and other sources in as well. The pattern will hold.

The poor have time, they choose to use it for other things.

Yes. To commute. To attend doctors appointments. To care for disabled family members. To care for children. To care for elderly family members. To attend school. To work odd jobs under the table. This idea that poor people are somehow rich in time is not supported by data.

Show your data that they have less time.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7688061/

https://www.fodmapeveryday.com/the-growing-problem-of-time-poverty-in-america/

https://www.bls.gov/tus/home.htm

[Anonymous]

Sounds like someone needs to do the 2025 update on Nickel and Dimed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken. Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories. They’d be better off taking the apples. Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them. Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them. No one takes the vegetables either, just saying

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor.

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real.

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?

Pretty sure 42 hours a week is full time. You insinuated there was some huge discrepancy in hours worked for poor people. You cited a source showing that isn't true, and still doubled down. Why do you hate poor people?

I'll summarize for you since it can be hard to keep up with all the anons. Many people posted the assumption, without any data, that poor people worked more than non-poor. I posted data showing otherwise.

One caveat of the source I posted is that it was for only full time workers. That means anyone working less than 35 hours was not in that chart. Many of the working poor fall into that category. I would hope everyone here would agree that people working less than 35 hours a week should have time to cook an actual meal.

So in summary, it is not a time issue keeping poor people from making healthy meals. It is usually an issue with executive functioning, which is why we give then SNAP instead of just giving them an envelope full of cash.

You posted an analysis drawn from Census data, which has flaws that have been pointed out to you. Go back and read the responses. People who are working are not at home to answer the door.

Your anecdotes and assumptions don’t make inconvenient data disappear. There is no systematic undercounting of work hours by the poor. We could bring IRS data and other sources in as well. The pattern will hold.

The poor have time, they choose to use it for other things.

Yes. To commute. To attend doctors appointments. To care for disabled family members. To care for children. To care for elderly family members. To attend school. To work odd jobs under the table. This idea that poor people are somehow rich in time is not supported by data.

Show your data that they have less time.

I am someone that argued that SNAP recipients ought to make better food choices BUT time is a luxury that only the well off have. 90% of my staff level employees have 80-90 minute commute one way, it is extremely hard to eat well once you spend that much time on the road. I don’t know what is the solution but current American lifestyle is not sustainable.

Their choice.

You are dumb.

[Anonymous]

Trump found $20 billion in taxpayer funds to prop up the Argentine currency, while he leaves tens of millions of poor Americans to freeze/starve.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/27/us/politics/trump-shutdown-snap-food-stamps-aid.html

Hunger and Cold Loom as Shutdown Imperils Funding for Antipoverty Programs
Within days, tens of millions of low-income Americans may lose assistance for food, child care and utilities if the federal government remains shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wake up, Republicans. This shit ain't a good look.

You are aware that the ballroom was privately funded, right? Private funds means no taxpayer money. You cannot expect them to divert funds donated to the ballroom, and redistribute the money to random Americans.

Really? Who donated $500 million for a ballroom?