The Lazy Poor

[koshergrl]

Plus they should accomodate whatever disabilities they all have.

 

[koshergrl]

And overlook the fact that nobody has worked in decades.

 

[Againsheila]

"Let me make sure that I understand you correctly," I inquired of the welfare caseworker as I presented her with my pregnancy confirmation note from a doctor. "All I have to do for you to send me $465 a month, $176 worth of food stamps, and 100% free medical and dental assistance is keep this baby. As long as I don't have a bank account, find a job, or get married, I qualify for aid? Where do I sign up?"

$641 a month for a a single mom to take care of a newborn baby???

Doesn't seem like a lot of money to me for two people, Daycare costs would probably run the same.

Women are cut off medicaid after the child is born, it does not mention anything about housing.

Doesn't sound like the high living life to me.

What year did this take place nowadays the department of workforce services requires people to work in community service programs in some states.

Bill Clinton also reformed the welfare policy in which a person can only get assistance for a certain length of time and previous to that people lived on it for a lifetime.

Most Christians would rather the woman keep her baby over having an abortion.

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

 

[Foxfyre]

$641 a month for a a single mom to take care of a newborn baby???

Doesn't seem like a lot of money to me for two people, Daycare costs would probably run the same.

Women are cut off medicaid after the child is born, it does not mention anything about housing.

Doesn't sound like the high living life to me.

What year did this take place nowadays the department of workforce services requires people to work in community service programs in some states.

Bill Clinton also reformed the welfare policy in which a person can only get assistance for a certain length of time and previous to that people lived on it for a lifetime.

Most Christians would rather the woman keep her baby over having an abortion.

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

Again, government policy should not be based on unusual situations, but should be a general policy for the larger good. Responsible parents do what they have to do to feed their kids, however unpleasant the work. And if the government is going to help in times such as this, the parent should still have to get out and do community service for that government check, whether that is picking up trash along the roadways or scrubbing graffiti off walls, or whatever.

There should be no right to have others support us. If the national culture is that no self respecting person EXPECTS to receive charity, there will be a whole lot less poor to deal with and many of those, as Ben Franklin put it, can be led or driven out of it which, all things considered, is the compassionate approach.

A compassionate society takes care of the truly helpless. A compassionate society does not promote policy to make people believe they are helpless.

 

[Michelle420]

"Let me make sure that I understand you correctly," I inquired of the welfare caseworker as I presented her with my pregnancy confirmation note from a doctor. "All I have to do for you to send me $465 a month, $176 worth of food stamps, and 100% free medical and dental assistance is keep this baby. As long as I don't have a bank account, find a job, or get married, I qualify for aid? Where do I sign up?"

$641 a month for a a single mom to take care of a newborn baby???

Doesn't seem like a lot of money to me for two people, Daycare costs would probably run the same.

Women are cut off medicaid after the child is born, it does not mention anything about housing.

Doesn't sound like the high living life to me.

What year did this take place nowadays the department of workforce services requires people to work in community service programs in some states.

Bill Clinton also reformed the welfare policy in which a person can only get assistance for a certain length of time and previous to that people lived on it for a lifetime.

Most Christians would rather the woman keep her baby over having an abortion.

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Sure I understand your points of view. I just don't think Jesus would condemn anyone who made a mistake and found themselves wanting to keep there child ad not abort but temporarily need to seek assistance and help with there child.

I think most christians I know would prefer a person to abstain from sex get married and support their family and pay their own way without ever needing help, seems reasonable.

That said, I also believe in compassion and mercy, and I think temporary help is fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

$641 a month for a a single mom to take care of a newborn baby???

Doesn't seem like a lot of money to me for two people, Daycare costs would probably run the same.

Women are cut off medicaid after the child is born, it does not mention anything about housing.

Doesn't sound like the high living life to me.

What year did this take place nowadays the department of workforce services requires people to work in community service programs in some states.

Bill Clinton also reformed the welfare policy in which a person can only get assistance for a certain length of time and previous to that people lived on it for a lifetime.

Most Christians would rather the woman keep her baby over having an abortion.

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Sure I understand your points of view. I just don't think Jesus would condemn anyone who made a mistake and found themselves wanting to keep there child ad not abort but temporarily need to seek assistance and help with there child.

I think most christians I know would prefer a person to abstain from sex get married and support their family and pay their own way without ever needing help, seems reasonable.

That said, I also believe in compassion and mercy, and I think temporary help is fine.

So give temporary help out of your own pocket like everybody else does who feels compassion. Compassion is not shrugging off your personal responsibility by allowing government to do it much more poorly, at much greater cost, and creating more poverty along the way.

Jesus had the harshest criticism for anybody who would cause a child to stumble or who would bring harm to a child. Parents who bring children into the world that they are unwilling to support do that. As does a government that not only implements policy making it much harder for society to produce jobs for all, but actually discourages people from trying to support themselves.

 

[High_Gravity]

$641 a month for a a single mom to take care of a newborn baby???

Doesn't seem like a lot of money to me for two people, Daycare costs would probably run the same.

Women are cut off medicaid after the child is born, it does not mention anything about housing.

Doesn't sound like the high living life to me.

What year did this take place nowadays the department of workforce services requires people to work in community service programs in some states.

Bill Clinton also reformed the welfare policy in which a person can only get assistance for a certain length of time and previous to that people lived on it for a lifetime.

Most Christians would rather the woman keep her baby over having an abortion.

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why would someone who isn't working need daycare?
Women are not cut off of medicaid after they give birth, that is a lie. The only way they lose coverage is if they don't re-apply and let it lapse, or if their income is over the income standard.

Clinton did sign in reforms, and they had a hugely positive effect.

And Obama got rid of them.

Try again.

Someone has to watch the kids during happy hour.

When my friend was unemployed, all she wanted was daycare. They offered her all kinds of programs but she said "no." She was living with her parents at the time, but her parents weren't very good babysitters so all she asked for was daycare so she could look for work and enough money for gas so she could drive to her interviews. They finally gave it to her.

It didn't take her long to find a job. Of course that was many years ago and things are different today. I don't think most of you understand just how different it is.

Oh I was unemployed for 6 months when the company I worked for shut down in Virginia, I understand you completely.

 

[High_Gravity]

I understand, so of course sheila's offended by that, and going to ignore me, lol.

Daycare is still available for working parents, and also for parent on TANF who are looking for work.

But we don't just pay daycare for people because they want a break from the kids. They are, after all, your kids. It's not the responsibility of taxpayers to give you a break from them.

No happy hour?

 

[Foxfyre]

Someone has to watch the kids during happy hour.

When my friend was unemployed, all she wanted was daycare. They offered her all kinds of programs but she said "no." She was living with her parents at the time, but her parents weren't very good babysitters so all she asked for was daycare so she could look for work and enough money for gas so she could drive to her interviews. They finally gave it to her.

It didn't take her long to find a job. Of course that was many years ago and things are different today. I don't think most of you understand just how different it is.

Oh I was unemployed for 6 months when the company I worked for shut down in Virginia, I understand you completely.

But that is what unemployment insurance is for and that is one program I really don't object to all that much though it does interfere with free market concepts but not oppressively so. I think it would be better if it was paid by employees instead of employers, however, as that would remove one facet of corruption built into almost all government 'do gooder' programs.

Welfare, that pays people a living forever if they space their kids out efficiently enough, is something entirely different. And is not the way to reduce poverty.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't know about most Christians, but this Christian wants people to educate themselves and prepare themselves to support a family and get married to a responsible person BEFORE they have kids.

I don't know about most Christians, but as much as possible, this Christian wants kids to grow up in a home with role models of a mom and dad who teach positive values including education and who promote personal accountability, responsibility, and push their kids to accomplish their potential.

I don't know about most Christians, but I want kids growing up watching a least one parent get up and get cleaned up and properly dress every morning and going out to work for a paycheck.

I don't know about most Christians, but I don't want kids growing up watching their parent live fairly adequately via government charity and seeing that as an option rather than doing the hard job of educating themselves, learning a trade, and working for a living.

I don't know about most Christians, but I think if parents aren't willing to feed, clothe, educate, and love their kids, those kids should be placed with people who are willing to do that for them. This is what the general rule should be across the board. The inevitable anecdotal exception should not be the catalyst for making policy for the whole.

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

 

[koshergrl]

I've known since Obama became prez, though, that we were heading towards a lot more *real* hunger in this country. And we are. I hear the same thing from everybody..."I'm having to really budget for food" "We run out of food at the end of the month" "We have to eat like we ate when I was a kid..."

 

[Foxfyre]

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

When we were just starting out, there was a lot of times all we had was pinto beans with a little ground beef in them--both were very cheap back then. Maybe a side of fried potatoes and home grown fruit or something out of the garden. We have made do with nothing but oatmeal to eat for a day. That was also very cheap. But we didn't go hungry. And though by today's standards we were dirt poor, we didn't feel like it. Nobody told us, but we just instinctively knew that we were paying our dues in our entry level jobs and things would get better.

And the day came when we were able to afford a small used black and white TV and things like pork chops and chicken became common on our dinner table. We felt very rich indeed then.

Now kids expect to start out with as much as we had after working for 25 years. And the definition of poverty is very different now than it was when we started out.

 

[High_Gravity]

Most of the unemployed people I'm talking about don't have kids. I really believe this is another great depression. How can it be otherwise? We just don't have enough jobs for people and the few we do have don't pay enough.

And then there are the people who had jobs when they had kids and then lost them. What are we suppose to do, take those kids away from their parents? I have no problems saying a girl who has a baby expecting to go on welfare should lose that child, but I have completely different feelings for people who had kids when times were better and they could support them.

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

That was my first time making lasagna I never thought it was so expensive, buying all the cheese and sauces really adds up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

That was my first time making lasagna I never thought it was so expensive, buying all the cheese and sauces really adds up.

Is it a BYOB thing?

 

[kwc57]

Things are more expensive too, I went to the store to buy the items for lasagna once and the total was like $45, for like 4 or 5 items for fucking lasagna? who can afford to eat anymore smgdh.

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

When we were just starting out, there was a lot of times all we had was pinto beans with a little ground beef in them--both were very cheap back then. Maybe a side of fried potatoes and home grown fruit or something out of the garden. We have made do with nothing but oatmeal to eat for a day. That was also very cheap. But we didn't go hungry. And though by today's standards we were dirt poor, we didn't feel like it. Nobody told us, but we just instinctively knew that we were paying our dues in our entry level jobs and things would get better.

And the day came when we were able to afford a small used black and white TV and things like pork chops and chicken became common on our dinner table. We felt very rich indeed then.

Now kids expect to start out with as much as we had after working for 25 years. And the definition of poverty is very different now than it was when we started out.

I'm almost 56 and one of my favorite meals still is pinto beans and fried potatoes. I grew up on them. Throw in some cornbread and that's some mighty fine eating right there!

 

[Foxfyre]

See here's the thing...people didn't used to eat things like lasagna, and chicken marsala and stir fry every night for dinner. We've become so accustomed to having so much of everything, that now we expect it.

People live just fine eating the same boring crap day after day...beans and rice, stews, hamburgers, fried fish, cabbage...those used to be American staples...people live just fine on meals which consist of a half dozen ingredients (potatoes, meat or fish or some sort of stew/soup, salad or veggie). But we've gotten accustomed to these meals that in the old days were only consumed for *special* occasions.

Spaghetti in my household was a rarity. I don't think I ever had real pizza until I was a teenager. We ate the same thing for days running...but we'd put everything on the table, and serve it as a meal...so we'd have a ham on the weekend, then ham and beans all week, until maybe thursday, then we'd have ham and beans and maybe mom would fry some round steak or venison. And there were always veggies and bread on the table...and potatoes.

You're right that nobody can afford to eat lasagna every day. That's why you stick with staples and save that stuff for company.

In my house it's chicken, beef in various forms (very little burger, I just can't stand the cheap stuff it grosses me out), pork...and potatoes, cabbage, beans, peas, green beans, corn, eggs, tortillas, cheese. I mean, that's about it. We have pickles, olives, fruit...but those are our staples. I make a lot of my own bread to dress up what are very, very plain meals. And that's the way the poor live and eat. We're just so used to excess that we've forgotten.

When we were just starting out, there was a lot of times all we had was pinto beans with a little ground beef in them--both were very cheap back then. Maybe a side of fried potatoes and home grown fruit or something out of the garden. We have made do with nothing but oatmeal to eat for a day. That was also very cheap. But we didn't go hungry. And though by today's standards we were dirt poor, we didn't feel like it. Nobody told us, but we just instinctively knew that we were paying our dues in our entry level jobs and things would get better.

And the day came when we were able to afford a small used black and white TV and things like pork chops and chicken became common on our dinner table. We felt very rich indeed then.

Now kids expect to start out with as much as we had after working for 25 years. And the definition of poverty is very different now than it was when we started out.

I'm almost 56 and one of my favorite meals still is pinto beans and fried potatoes. I grew up on them. Throw in some cornbread and that's some mighty fine eating right there!

Except that now it that kind of fare is redneck gourmet food. The days of 15 cents per pound pinto beans, 10 cents per pound potatoes, and 25 cents per pound ground beef are long gone. And you can't buy a watermelon for little or nothing anymore either.

 

[High_Gravity]

A pack of pork chops cost me $11 the other day.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

A pack of pork chops cost me $11 the other day

Yuck. They probably came from a CAFO too. I won't buy that toxic crap. No industrialized raised meat for me, thank you. Full of antibiotics, growth hormones, GMO laden corn, chicken house waste - all standing in 3 feet of their own feces. Gross.

 

[High_Gravity]

So what are we supposed to eat?