Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

I don’t know that this is a particularly helpful way of thinking about it? It would be good if even people who are not particularly good at functioning could live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. At the moment, a lot of them can’t. Half this thread is people saying “oh it’s just because their material circumstances are so bad” and that’s false, but saying “too bad, sucks to suck” is also lousy.

But let’s stop saying they are being held to a higher standard. They clearly are not. They are functioning at an extremely low standard and many are coming up with any and every excuse imaginable to explain it, no matter how absurd. Like they live in dirt hovels with no running water, electricity, or a pot to pee in. That’s just not true in the US.

Oh agreed. That wasn’t me! And to the later commenter who talked about tent cities — yeah, drug addiction is a terrible thing. But let’s be real, in America you have to be severely mentally ill or intensely abusing substances to wind up in a “no really it is literally impossible to cook healthy food” situation. I’m not denying that it’s harder, even much harder, if you’re poor — pretty much everything is harder if you’re poor! But if you refuse to recognize that people are actively making bad choices, whether because they’re focusing on the now or they don’t understand the long term consequences or they simply can’t get their acts together, you’re not going to be able to ameliorate anything. And frankly it’s not any nicer to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m curious, and serious. I make pots of things like lentils with spinach or black eye peas seasoned with sausage. I’ve never had anything that I would call a stew. If you’re still reading this thread, would you include a recipe or two? Or a link to the types of recipes that you’re referring to? The things that I make that are budget friendly become so because I already have lots of spices and chicken broth in the freezer, so I’m willing to try the types of foods that you’re describing— if you’re willing to suggest a resource for recipes.


FWIW, I have a few vegetarian and “world” cookbooks. Many of them use ingredients that are actually quite expensive in the areas where I’ve lived, and even more so when I add in transportation costs.

Look up the good and cheap cookbook. It started as someone’s masters thesis and it’s specifically dedicated to helping people on snap eat well on 4 per day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

I don’t know that this is a particularly helpful way of thinking about it? It would be good if even people who are not particularly good at functioning could live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. At the moment, a lot of them can’t. Half this thread is people saying “oh it’s just because their material circumstances are so bad” and that’s false, but saying “too bad, sucks to suck” is also lousy.

But let’s stop saying they are being held to a higher standard. They clearly are not. They are functioning at an extremely low standard and many are coming up with any and every excuse imaginable to explain it, no matter how absurd. Like they live in dirt hovels with no running water, electricity, or a pot to pee in. That’s just not true in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

I don’t know that this is a particularly helpful way of thinking about it? It would be good if even people who are not particularly good at functioning could live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. At the moment, a lot of them can’t. Half this thread is people saying “oh it’s just because their material circumstances are so bad” and that’s false, but saying “too bad, sucks to suck” is also lousy.

But let’s stop saying they are being held to a higher standard. They clearly are not. They are functioning at an extremely low standard and many are coming up with any and every excuse imaginable to explain it, no matter how absurd. Like they live in dirt hovels with no running water, electricity, or a pot to pee in. That’s just not true in the US.

Honestly? You’ve never seen a tent city? Do you know how many people live in their cars? In motels? In shelters? In a house but don’t want to use utilities because of the expense? Couch surfing? People who rent a room with a bunch of others in a big house that may have utilities, but no actual access to those because they’re sleeping in the halls? Migrant workers who live in portables and the like? People who may have utilities but work 18 hours a day?

For an educated group here, it’s shocking how absolutely ignorant some of you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

I don’t know that this is a particularly helpful way of thinking about it? It would be good if even people who are not particularly good at functioning could live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. At the moment, a lot of them can’t. Half this thread is people saying “oh it’s just because their material circumstances are so bad” and that’s false, but saying “too bad, sucks to suck” is also lousy.

But let’s stop saying they are being held to a higher standard. They clearly are not. They are functioning at an extremely low standard and many are coming up with any and every excuse imaginable to explain it, no matter how absurd. Like they live in dirt hovels with no running water, electricity, or a pot to pee in. That’s just not true in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

Do my tax dollars directly — directly— pay for Tim’s stent placement when he has an occluded artery due to Takis and chik-fil-a, if Tim’s HHI is $300k and he has BCBS through his job at a trade association?

No, no they don’t.

My insurance premiums, possibly, but in that case at least Tim is paying his own co-pay and premiums, along with his employer.

Poor Doris with the clogged arteries happily accepts 100% medicaid subsidy for her stent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

I don’t know that this is a particularly helpful way of thinking about it? It would be good if even people who are not particularly good at functioning could live happy, healthy, and fulfilling lives. At the moment, a lot of them can’t. Half this thread is people saying “oh it’s just because their material circumstances are so bad” and that’s false, but saying “too bad, sucks to suck” is also lousy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

So it’s not a higher standard at all but an acknowledgment they can’t even meet the minimum standard.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m curious, and serious. I make pots of things like lentils with spinach or black eye peas seasoned with sausage. I’ve never had anything that I would call a stew. If you’re still reading this thread, would you include a recipe or two? Or a link to the types of recipes that you’re referring to? The things that I make that are budget friendly become so because I already have lots of spices and chicken broth in the freezer, so I’m willing to try the types of foods that you’re describing— if you’re willing to suggest a resource for recipes.


FWIW, I have a few vegetarian and “world” cookbooks. Many of them use ingredients that are actually quite expensive in the areas where I’ve lived, and even more so when I add in transportation costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP. I am sorry I wasn't clear. My point was that I keep hearing that poor people can't afford to eat healthy, but it can be done. It just involves planning, and cooking, and accepting that you may eat the same meals several days in a row.

Not always. Thanks for your singular data point.

Name some typical circumstances why it couldn’t e done, then. I can’t think of any reason why the same poor person could easily obtain for themselves Takis and Mountain Dew but not a can of pinto beans.

Because most convenience stores don’t have pinto beans?

Because more people than you think don’t have the means to cook a can of pinto beans.

Because they are hungry, it is 9 at night and they just want something in the stomach.

Because Takis and a MD taste better than a can of plain pinto beans.

Convenience stores sell lots of foods. It’s clear you’re just making things up and don’t actually know how, when, where or why people shop. You’re just a contrarian.

Sure they sell all kinds of things. It’s a convenience store after all. But who is actually eating just a can of pinto beans? Plus, that can of beans is probably inflated in price for the convenience of it. You’re the one who is out of touch if you think I’m making things up.

So, if you think I’m making things up - give yourself $275 this month to shop at only your local convenience store (which is probably better than any inner city one already). You must only use the ingredients you buy during this time (including spices, oil, margarine, etc.) - no using what you have in house already as most people don’t have extra money to build up a pantry. You can only shop and cook 630-9pm and must not use your car. You’re limited to only use 1 burner to replicate a typical allowed hot plate element in many small apartments or rental units, plus a toaster oven, kettle, and small microwave (a lot of people don’t have those either). You can only use 1 pot. Any leftovers and purchased fresh food can only go in the crispers of your fridge, to replicate the size of a bar fridge, which again, is all many people have. Anything above and beyond that you need to cook that is a normal consumable- foil, containers to store, etc. have to come from your budget.

I suspect you’ll survive and feed yourself, but maybe you’ll learn something. If it feels pretty easy, keep going and see how you feel about your single can of pinto beans for dinner.

I think it depends where you live how common it is that people only have a hot plate to cook on.

As to the $275 - again, food stamps are not intended to cover a family’s entire grocery budget. They never were.

Did it occur to you that the intent is not the point - that living this way the reality for many people?

And it’s nice that you think many people don’t just have a hot plate. Do you know how many people DO? Or are living in motels that may not even have that?

Rents are only going up. People are having to do with much less to even have a roof over their heads. Many people, especially young people, are couch surfing. Many people don’t qualify for benefits as they have no documentation or no real address. Some people look like they make a fair amount of money, but most of their money goes to shelter and maybe a car. If you think there’s no food insecurity in your nice neighborhood, you’re probably wrong.


It’s interesting who is being contrary now. I imagine most people on here have never actually lived under the conditions that necessitate some of the choices many people have to make, or make for so many reasons. This isn’t an organic vs. Regular food, or nanny vs. Daycare debate.

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m curious, and serious. I make pots of things like lentils with spinach or black eye peas seasoned with sausage. I’ve never had anything that I would call a stew. If you’re still reading this thread, would you include a recipe or two? Or a link to the types of recipes that you’re referring to? The things that I make that are budget friendly become so because I already have lots of spices and chicken broth in the freezer, so I’m willing to try the types of foods that you’re describing— if you’re willing to suggest a resource for recipes.


FWIW, I have a few vegetarian and “world” cookbooks. Many of them use ingredients that are actually quite expensive in the areas where I’ve lived, and even more so when I add in transportation costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's SO weird to me that people in poverty are expected to hold themselves to a high standard when it comes to food choices, but nobody freaks out when rich people to eat the Takis and Mountain Dew.

America has this weird belief that people in poverty, single moms, BIPOC are all supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard than the average middle class white dude.

I don't think they have to hold themselves to a higher standard. They just also have a choice to eat healthy or not - same as anyone else. They aren't eating unhealthy due to circumstance but by choice.

There are circumstances where it’s really hard to make good choices. But if we want people to make better choices, we need to be realistic about why it’s hard for them, and lack of access to healthy options is not high on the list.

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of poor people have kitchens and running water and access to grocery stores. Stop it with your “what if you have no arms and live in a box, then eating junk food is your only option!” Most people who eat a lot of junk food have other options available to them and are making the choice to do that. Building grocery stores in poor areas or giving them more money will not actually solve the problem.