Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

I am literally arguing that telling people to try harder is stupid, because people who *can* do better will. Manifestly there are a lot of people who can’t. But it’s not due to food deserts and tent cities.

DP, but c’mon. How many kids of parents on this board have had their whole lives more or less engineered for them so they don’t have to do better - they’re already starting better?

Sure, there are scholarships and bursaries for the tiny fraction of disadvantaged kids who are actually able to set themselves about. The bulk of post secondary education is for those who can pay. So yeah, unless you can be the 0.1 % who are eligible for specific financial awards, that money is going to the kids who had tutors and activities and all kinds of advantages that allow them to shine already- and for parents that probably could pay.

This is not about pledging to the right sorority. It’s about many things not being attainable at all.

Pp you’re replying to. You’re right, a lot of things are not realistically attainable. But look a little lower than the DCUM UMC lifestyle and think, like, a plumber or an xray tech — that’s very attainable for pretty much anyone who can show up on time and work. And yet a lot of people can’t manage to get or keep jobs like that.

Honestly, I think the greatest advantage of the children of the kind of people who post on these boards is just that they’re the offspring of the kinds of people who post on these boards — conscientious, organized, driven. (Neurotic!) And a lot of that is super heritable. They’d probably turn out fine regardless. It would be nice if our society also worked for people who were none of those things.

Do you think that there is no tuition or reduced pay to become a plumber or x-ray tech? These are skilled trades / apprenticeships. That there isn’t a need for these students to
Pay for shelter and food during their education, even if it’s a year or two? A plumber needs to buy their own tool kit. I mean, how many parents here, who are paying for tuition and housing already, expect their post secondary student to also hold a job? Where do you think this magical tuition is coming from, plus no actual income during that time period?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

I am literally arguing that telling people to try harder is stupid, because people who *can* do better will. Manifestly there are a lot of people who can’t. But it’s not due to food deserts and tent cities.

DP, but c’mon. How many kids of parents on this board have had their whole lives more or less engineered for them so they don’t have to do better - they’re already starting better?

Sure, there are scholarships and bursaries for the tiny fraction of disadvantaged kids who are actually able to set themselves about. The bulk of post secondary education is for those who can pay. So yeah, unless you can be the 0.1 % who are eligible for specific financial awards, that money is going to the kids who had tutors and activities and all kinds of advantages that allow them to shine already- and for parents that probably could pay.

This is not about pledging to the right sorority. It’s about many things not being attainable at all.

Pp you’re replying to. You’re right, a lot of things are not realistically attainable. But look a little lower than the DCUM UMC lifestyle and think, like, a plumber or an xray tech — that’s very attainable for pretty much anyone who can show up on time and work. And yet a lot of people can’t manage to get or keep jobs like that.

Honestly, I think the greatest advantage of the children of the kind of people who post on these boards is just that they’re the offspring of the kinds of people who post on these boards — conscientious, organized, driven. (Neurotic!) And a lot of that is super heritable. They’d probably turn out fine regardless. It would be nice if our society also worked for people who were none of those things.

Do you think that there is no tuition or reduced pay to become a plumber or x-ray tech? These are skilled trades / apprenticeships. That there isn’t a need for these students to
Pay for shelter and food during their education, even if it’s a year or two? A plumber needs to buy their own tool kit. I mean, how many parents here, who are paying for tuition and housing already, expect their post secondary student to also hold a job? Where do you think this magical tuition is coming from, plus no actual income during that time period?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

I am literally arguing that telling people to try harder is stupid, because people who *can* do better will. Manifestly there are a lot of people who can’t. But it’s not due to food deserts and tent cities.

DP, but c’mon. How many kids of parents on this board have had their whole lives more or less engineered for them so they don’t have to do better - they’re already starting better?

Sure, there are scholarships and bursaries for the tiny fraction of disadvantaged kids who are actually able to set themselves about. The bulk of post secondary education is for those who can pay. So yeah, unless you can be the 0.1 % who are eligible for specific financial awards, that money is going to the kids who had tutors and activities and all kinds of advantages that allow them to shine already- and for parents that probably could pay.

This is not about pledging to the right sorority. It’s about many things not being attainable at all.

Pp you’re replying to. You’re right, a lot of things are not realistically attainable. But look a little lower than the DCUM UMC lifestyle and think, like, a plumber or an xray tech — that’s very attainable for pretty much anyone who can show up on time and work. And yet a lot of people can’t manage to get or keep jobs like that.

Honestly, I think the greatest advantage of the children of the kind of people who post on these boards is just that they’re the offspring of the kinds of people who post on these boards — conscientious, organized, driven. (Neurotic!) And a lot of that is super heritable. They’d probably turn out fine regardless. It would be nice if our society also worked for people who were none of those things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cut the holier than thou crap. About 12% of Americans are on SNAP. Only .1% of Americans are homeless. Do you know what you’re talking about?

See, you have no desire to understand the problem. Many of the situations I described above would in no way be described as homeless, which is a very distinct definition that in no way predicts access to food or the actual living conditions of many people. A fixed address, even if you live in a hall, with 12 other people in a house means you are not homeless. If you live in a motel room with a bed and a bathroom, you are not homeless. Aside from that, we are discussing poverty in relation to food insecurity, and even food insecurity isn’t the issue at hand if it’s deemed people have “access” to food. Your statistic about Being on SNAP is not always an indicator of food insecurity, because you have to qualify to be included in that stat, and not everyone does.

Being able to access and cook nutritious food is also not the same as food insecurity, where it is an issue of having enough food at all.

You want to understand the problem as you want to understand it, which in your mind is a very small percentage of people. You really are out of touch with what many people are living, even if outwardly it doesn’t look that way. It’s sad.

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.

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.

That's because the US government refuses to implement universal health care like every other developed country, and instead has set society up for consumerism to keep people consuming unhealthy things so they can pay for medical care later on.

That's not on poor people. That's on politicians. And conservatives who will happily fork over 50% of their money in taxes but freak out if someone poor gets any benefits. Blame the people who are actually at fault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

I am literally arguing that telling people to try harder is stupid, because people who *can* do better will. Manifestly there are a lot of people who can’t. But it’s not due to food deserts and tent cities.

DP, but c’mon. How many kids of parents on this board have had their whole lives more or less engineered for them so they don’t have to do better - they’re already starting better?

Sure, there are scholarships and bursaries for the tiny fraction of disadvantaged kids who are actually able to set themselves about. The bulk of post secondary education is for those who can pay. So yeah, unless you can be the 0.1 % who are eligible for specific financial awards, that money is going to the kids who had tutors and activities and all kinds of advantages that allow them to shine already- and for parents that probably could pay.

This is not about pledging to the right sorority. It’s about many things not being attainable at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cut the holier than thou crap. About 12% of Americans are on SNAP. Only .1% of Americans are homeless. Do you know what you’re talking about?

See, you have no desire to understand the problem. Many of the situations I described above would in no way be described as homeless, which is a very distinct definition that in no way predicts access to food or the actual living conditions of many people. A fixed address, even if you live in a hall, with 12 other people in a house means you are not homeless. If you live in a motel room with a bed and a bathroom, you are not homeless. Aside from that, we are discussing poverty in relation to food insecurity, and even food insecurity isn’t the issue at hand if it’s deemed people have “access” to food. Your statistic about Being on SNAP is not always an indicator of food insecurity, because you have to qualify to be included in that stat, and not everyone does.

Being able to access and cook nutritious food is also not the same as food insecurity, where it is an issue of having enough food at all.

You want to understand the problem as you want to understand it, which in your mind is a very small percentage of people. You really are out of touch with what many people are living, even if outwardly it doesn’t look that way. It’s sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

I am literally arguing that telling people to try harder is stupid, because people who *can* do better will. Manifestly there are a lot of people who can’t. But it’s not due to food deserts and tent cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And look, there have definitely been times that I couldn’t get my act together. For whatever reason, sometimes you reach the point where you can’t even and the McDonald’s drive-through is your best bet. Most of us here have a higher than normal ability to even, an American society increasingly demands a higher ability to even in all walks of life, not just food.

I have been depressed before. It’s easier and cheaper to throw a russet potato in the microwave and make a “baked potato” than it is to hop in your car and drive to McDonald’s.

Anonymous wrote:And look, there have definitely been times that I couldn’t get my act together. For whatever reason, sometimes you reach the point where you can’t even and the McDonald’s drive-through is your best bet. Most of us here have a higher than normal ability to even, an American society increasingly demands a higher ability to even in all walks of life, not just food.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Another PP, my mom cooked a lot of porridge with millets or quinoa (protein grain) and we used to eat that for breakfast. Veggies is a combo of potato, onions and carrots (they stay long in the fridge therefore reduce waste associated cost), and meat is usually chicken thigh ($1 to $5 for the fancy pastured chicken) in a stir fry with onions. Occasionally she buys beef and simmer it with pepper and salt for an hour or so, the cut it up to eat them plain.

We never bad eggs in fridge and we didn’t know how to handle seafood hah.

Thanks PP! I’ve never tried millet — so I’ll look forward to that. I don’t usually make dishes with white potatoes, so I’ll have fun trying them in various ways as well. Thank you for those suggestions!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's so nice when rich people empathize 'I know it's harder! But you just don't understand the CONSEQUENCES like I, as an educated person, do! You just have to try harder!" *sips on their Chardonnay*

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.

Another PP, my mom cooked a lot of porridge with millets or quinoa (protein grain) and we used to eat that for breakfast. Veggies is a combo of potato, onions and carrots (they stay long in the fridge therefore reduce waste associated cost), and meat is usually chicken thigh ($1 to $5 for the fancy pastured chicken) in a stir fry with onions. Occasionally she buys beef and simmer it with pepper and salt for an hour or so, the cut it up to eat them plain.

We never bad eggs in fridge and we didn’t know how to handle seafood hah.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cut the holier than thou crap. About 12% of Americans are on SNAP. Only .1% of Americans are homeless. Do you know what you’re talking about?