Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.

So your proposal is that in America, the supposed greatest country on earth, where we have enough resources to feed and house everyone if we had the political will, should allow children to go hungry because they happen to be number 3 or 4 in the birth order?

And if you had any idea of the hoops and means testing that goes into qualifying for benefits. There is no huge percentage of people collecting benefits that don't need it. Quite the opposite. The systems are so poorly constructed and so complex, a lot of people aren't getting benefits they absolutely should qualify for.

I truly hope you never find yourself in poverty. You're so dumb and misinformed, I doubt you could survive it.

Someone people are not willing to help themselves and they don’t deserve help. If don’t have a full time job and they aren’t disabled they should not get assistance at all. I used to be like you and sympathize with people, but after volunteering at places to help these people, I realized many of them just make bad decisions.

I'm talking about the children you want to punish because you don't like the choices their parents made.

And you opinion means nothing in the face of mountains of research and studies that have proven that poverty is caused by systemic issues NOT individual choices.

Of course the “research” proves that nothing is ever poor peoples fault. Because god forbid people actually make responsible decisions and take care of themselves. I don’t buy this argument at all. The people conducting this research are usually in academic fields with very subjective research and a low bar for entry. Sociology professors and social workers don’t conduct rigorous empirical research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

We all know WHY people are filling their carts with sodas and other junk: Because they can. Because we are paying for it and it’s quick and easy. But as others have pointed out, we then are forced to pay for their insulin and leg amputations and everything else when they are obese with diabetes because we are allowing it. We should be making it easier for them to make better decisions by simply not buying this damaging food FOR THEM. If they want to spend their own money on it, go ahead. But we shouldn’t be buying it FOR THEM. I honestly cannot understand what is remotely controversial about that.

I hate to break it to you but most of these poor people as you call them will no doubt take less from the system as you term it… because they will die statistically early deaths and no doctors will offer heroic and expensive end of life care to extend their lives… nor will they receive expensive treatments along the way that might actually delay or prevent the onset of serious illness.

You most likely will however have $100s of thousands of medicare dollars spent on life extending treatments that will maybe net you an extra 3-6 months, or a year or 2 at most. Or you will drag your pops in for open heart surgery at 72, $100+k easily, make him suffer, and then he kicks off anyway in a year or two but not before he too racks of $300k in end of life care.

This will repeat over and over until your final farewell where you too will really sock it to the taxpayers to the tune of about $300K… for a few weeks of care because your kids who deem your life so valuable won’t want to let you go.

To the tax paying youth, who are supplementing the last 10-20 years of your life, via medicare and SS, you are a non productive suck of resources, entirely non productive in anyway that helps them. After all old women bare no fruit!

At least those poor people are raising future revenue generators to pay for your future of expensive healthcare that will produce diminishing returns.

Oh and aren’t you sucking up insurance benefits that in one way or another we all pay for? You just don’t see it that way. Because after all your life is more valuable. Knee and hip replacements because you refused to believe that running will ruin your hips and knees, or therapy because navel gazing happens when you have time to waste, or that expensive treatment that your kid needs because they inherited a genetic disorder or were a preemie, or you couldn’t conceive naturally but you really wanted a mini me, so you did IVF, and now nature being nature your kids are developmentally delayed and they suck up an inordinate amount of school resources that we all pay for.

Do you think that money goes to poor kids whose parents don’t have the resources to work the system.

So those poor people of whom you speak of with such derision aren’t nearly the collective drain that you think they are, and you aren’t at all the individual gift to society that you think you are. You’re a cog in the machine and a whiny, entitled, dull and not very useful cog at all really.

And no arguments about how you paid into the system so you are entitled! That’s b.s., as explained above, you’ll suck out way more than you ever put in.

So since you will be and are sucking up my money shouldn’t I have a say in how you use it? It’s a free for all so let’s all jump on the most vulnerable. That may include you and yours at some point. So DNA tests for all. If you have any issues that may cause the taxpayers burden then sterilize or euthanize.

So do us all a favor when you turn 68 throw yourself off of a cliff into the sea, make sure your family knows no taxpayer money is to be spent on recovery efforts. That would definitely save all of the remaining productive and useful taxpayers a ton of money. And be good for the environment too.

My kids don’t have a
have a genetic disorder because I screened for this during IVF. The premature birth issue for IVF is mostly attributable to multiple embryo transfers, when you control for number of embryos transfers the risk difference is minimal. I pay a lot more taxes than people on welfare do and the social security payment formula only replaces 15% of lifetime earnings above a certain cutoff. I am contributing much more in taxes than I collect in benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.

So your proposal is that in America, the supposed greatest country on earth, where we have enough resources to feed and house everyone if we had the political will, should allow children to go hungry because they happen to be number 3 or 4 in the birth order?

And if you had any idea of the hoops and means testing that goes into qualifying for benefits. There is no huge percentage of people collecting benefits that don't need it. Quite the opposite. The systems are so poorly constructed and so complex, a lot of people aren't getting benefits they absolutely should qualify for.

I truly hope you never find yourself in poverty. You're so dumb and misinformed, I doubt you could survive it.

Someone people are not willing to help themselves and they don’t deserve help. If don’t have a full time job and they aren’t disabled they should not get assistance at all. I used to be like you and sympathize with people, but after volunteering at places to help these people, I realized many of them just make bad decisions.

I'm talking about the children you want to punish because you don't like the choices their parents made.

And you opinion means nothing in the face of mountains of research and studies that have proven that poverty is caused by systemic issues NOT individual choices.

Of course the “research” proves that nothing is ever poor peoples fault. Because god forbid people actually make responsible decisions and take care of themselves. I don’t buy this argument at all. The people conducting this research are usually in academic fields with very subjective research and a low bar for entry. Sociology professors and social workers don’t conduct rigorous empirical research.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.

So your proposal is that in America, the supposed greatest country on earth, where we have enough resources to feed and house everyone if we had the political will, should allow children to go hungry because they happen to be number 3 or 4 in the birth order?

And if you had any idea of the hoops and means testing that goes into qualifying for benefits. There is no huge percentage of people collecting benefits that don't need it. Quite the opposite. The systems are so poorly constructed and so complex, a lot of people aren't getting benefits they absolutely should qualify for.

I truly hope you never find yourself in poverty. You're so dumb and misinformed, I doubt you could survive it.

Someone people are not willing to help themselves and they don’t deserve help. If don’t have a full time job and they aren’t disabled they should not get assistance at all. I used to be like you and sympathize with people, but after volunteering at places to help these people, I realized many of them just make bad decisions.

I'm talking about the children you want to punish because you don't like the choices their parents made.

And you opinion means nothing in the face of mountains of research and studies that have proven that poverty is caused by systemic issues NOT individual choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.

So your proposal is that in America, the supposed greatest country on earth, where we have enough resources to feed and house everyone if we had the political will, should allow children to go hungry because they happen to be number 3 or 4 in the birth order?

And if you had any idea of the hoops and means testing that goes into qualifying for benefits. There is no huge percentage of people collecting benefits that don't need it. Quite the opposite. The systems are so poorly constructed and so complex, a lot of people aren't getting benefits they absolutely should qualify for.

I truly hope you never find yourself in poverty. You're so dumb and misinformed, I doubt you could survive it.

Someone people are not willing to help themselves and they don’t deserve help. If don’t have a full time job and they aren’t disabled they should not get assistance at all. I used to be like you and sympathize with people, but after volunteering at places to help these people, I realized many of them just make bad decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

We all know WHY people are filling their carts with sodas and other junk: Because they can. Because we are paying for it and it’s quick and easy. But as others have pointed out, we then are forced to pay for their insulin and leg amputations and everything else when they are obese with diabetes because we are allowing it. We should be making it easier for them to make better decisions by simply not buying this damaging food FOR THEM. If they want to spend their own money on it, go ahead. But we shouldn’t be buying it FOR THEM. I honestly cannot understand what is remotely controversial about that.

I hate to break it to you but most of these poor people as you call them will no doubt take less from the system as you term it… because they will die statistically early deaths and no doctors will offer heroic and expensive end of life care to extend their lives… nor will they receive expensive treatments along the way that might actually delay or prevent the onset of serious illness.

You most likely will however have $100s of thousands of medicare dollars spent on life extending treatments that will maybe net you an extra 3-6 months, or a year or 2 at most. Or you will drag your pops in for open heart surgery at 72, $100+k easily, make him suffer, and then he kicks off anyway in a year or two but not before he too racks of $300k in end of life care.

This will repeat over and over until your final farewell where you too will really sock it to the taxpayers to the tune of about $300K… for a few weeks of care because your kids who deem your life so valuable won’t want to let you go.

To the tax paying youth, who are supplementing the last 10-20 years of your life, via medicare and SS, you are a non productive suck of resources, entirely non productive in anyway that helps them. After all old women bare no fruit!

At least those poor people are raising future revenue generators to pay for your future of expensive healthcare that will produce diminishing returns.

Oh and aren’t you sucking up insurance benefits that in one way or another we all pay for? You just don’t see it that way. Because after all your life is more valuable. Knee and hip replacements because you refused to believe that running will ruin your hips and knees, or therapy because navel gazing happens when you have time to waste, or that expensive treatment that your kid needs because they inherited a genetic disorder or were a preemie, or you couldn’t conceive naturally but you really wanted a mini me, so you did IVF, and now nature being nature your kids are developmentally delayed and they suck up an inordinate amount of school resources that we all pay for.

Do you think that money goes to poor kids whose parents don’t have the resources to work the system.

So those poor people of whom you speak of with such derision aren’t nearly the collective drain that you think they are, and you aren’t at all the individual gift to society that you think you are. You’re a cog in the machine and a whiny, entitled, dull and not very useful cog at all really.

And no arguments about how you paid into the system so you are entitled! That’s b.s., as explained above, you’ll suck out way more than you ever put in.

So since you will be and are sucking up my money shouldn’t I have a say in how you use it? It’s a free for all so let’s all jump on the most vulnerable. That may include you and yours at some point. So DNA tests for all. If you have any issues that may cause the taxpayers burden then sterilize or euthanize.

So do us all a favor when you turn 68 throw yourself off of a cliff into the sea, make sure your family knows no taxpayer money is to be spent on recovery efforts. That would definitely save all of the remaining productive and useful taxpayers a ton of money. And be good for the environment too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

We all know WHY people are filling their carts with sodas and other junk: Because they can. Because we are paying for it and it’s quick and easy. But as others have pointed out, we then are forced to pay for their insulin and leg amputations and everything else when they are obese with diabetes because we are allowing it. We should be making it easier for them to make better decisions by simply not buying this damaging food FOR THEM. If they want to spend their own money on it, go ahead. But we shouldn’t be buying it FOR THEM. I honestly cannot understand what is remotely controversial about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.

So your proposal is that in America, the supposed greatest country on earth, where we have enough resources to feed and house everyone if we had the political will, should allow children to go hungry because they happen to be number 3 or 4 in the birth order?

And if you had any idea of the hoops and means testing that goes into qualifying for benefits. There is no huge percentage of people collecting benefits that don't need it. Quite the opposite. The systems are so poorly constructed and so complex, a lot of people aren't getting benefits they absolutely should qualify for.

I truly hope you never find yourself in poverty. You're so dumb and misinformed, I doubt you could survive it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

We all know WHY people are filling their carts with sodas and other junk: Because they can. Because we are paying for it and it’s quick and easy. But as others have pointed out, we then are forced to pay for their insulin and leg amputations and everything else when they are obese with diabetes because we are allowing it. We should be making it easier for them to make better decisions by simply not buying this damaging food FOR THEM. If they want to spend their own money on it, go ahead. But we shouldn’t be buying it FOR THEM. I honestly cannot understand what is remotely controversial about that.

I'm not disagreeing with you that soda and junk is not what we want people to be eating. Where I disagree with you is HOW to address the issue. Your solution is focused on the individual and only serves to make their lives more difficult and miserable. I'm instead suggesting that we look to addressing the SYSTEMIC issues that make junk food so cheap and accessible, that make it such that people with full time jobs need food stamps, that housing has gotten so expensive people are living in squalor without the basic kitchen equipment needed to even have a chance to store and prepare healthy food, that Americans are so miserable and despairing that we turn to food to fill the void of comfort and joy in our lives.

I don't think you fix these problems by being punitive or more control on poor people because I do not genuinely believe they choose this life. It's thrust upon them by a broken system, and the choices they make, while not ideal, make perfect sense given the full picture of the challenges they face and the privileges they lack that you and I take for granted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

We all know WHY people are filling their carts with sodas and other junk: Because they can. Because we are paying for it and it’s quick and easy. But as others have pointed out, we then are forced to pay for their insulin and leg amputations and everything else when they are obese with diabetes because we are allowing it. We should be making it easier for them to make better decisions by simply not buying this damaging food FOR THEM. If they want to spend their own money on it, go ahead. But we shouldn’t be buying it FOR THEM. I honestly cannot understand what is remotely controversial about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Junk food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. Work from there.

Chips and soda are not cheap! Frozen pizzas are not cheap! What junk food do you think is cheap?

Exactly. Growing up, we couldn’t afford that stuff.

dp This is 2024, not 1974. A 2 liter bottle of soda is cheaper than a half gallon of milk.

I also remember soda being expensive when I was younger. We only started getting it when my dad started making more when I was a teen. McD was also not that relatively cheap.

This is not the case today.

A little carton of fresh strawberries cost $4.99 (and sometimes $6.99). It's not much of a snack to last a week, and actually, it wouldn't even last week because it would start to get moldy. A bag of chips is $2.99 and can last a week.

A bag of chips doesn’t last a week. Chips cost between $6-$7 if not more per bag. Show me $2.99 chips.

You're not comparing like for like in terms of size.

A small carton with a dozen strawberries is $5. A small bag of chips that has more than a dozen chips is $2.99.

Fresh frozen strawberries are much cheaper than fresh and nutritious.

Apples
oranges
celery
carrots

what’s wrong with cucumbers and tomatoes and dressing as a side?

Your privilege is showing.

Fruit is very perishable. Most low income people cannot go to the grocery store more than once per week.

^Bloated government worker?

I'm the "fruit is very perishable" poster. I don't know if you're referring to me, but I work in the private sector, in tech. I've never worked for the government.

I eat fresh fruit almost every morning with my oatmeal, which takes like 30min to slow cook. Fruit is pretty expensive. We don't normally have chips in the house; the only soda we have is ginger ale, and a few small coke bottles for guests who want it. I wfh; I live a nice umc life. But, I didn't always. I grew up lower income, immigrant family.

I think so many of you live in a privileged bubble and have zero clue on what it's like to grow up in a low income, urban household, many with single working moms.

Now tell us you had soda and chips for supper. --Also from hard working immigrant family. We could never afford soda or chips. Ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

If they didn’t want to live this way, they wouldn’t.

For better or worse, our society maximizes freedom. This includes the freedom to make poor choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is not even close to the same. People on food stamps spend substantially less on vegetables and fruit. More on frozen food, desserts and sweetened beverages. Their diet is even more terrible than the typical American and taxpayers are subsidizing bad behavior.

And the reason for that has already been explained many times. Fresh fruit and vegetables don't keep, they take time, skill, and a stocked kitchen to prepare, and many low income people use food as pleasure/entertainment since they cannot afford additional activities.

You're being willfully obtuse. Why us it easier for you all to believe a whole contingent of the population chooses to act entirely illogically, than it is for you to believe the mechanics of our society are broken in such a way that their unfortunate choices are the result of them trying to survive that broken system? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts believe that people WANT to live this way?

“Wanting to live this way” and willing to make positive changes to improve your lifestyle are not synonymous. There needs to be a a cutoff somewhere because right now too many people are getting welfare that don’t deserve it. Of course there are some people that genuinely come on hard times, but the % of SNAP recipients taking advantage of the system and getting benefits is too high. I especially have a problem with giving more benefits to people that continue to have children they can’t afford. There should be a two or 3 child limit for welfare benefit calculation purposes. Anything above this threshold and no additional money.