"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
news
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> True. And at least they aren't buying into the suggestion that her
>> daughter have a kid. For what? A few more welfare bucks? You still
>> have to feed the child. If they think they're starving *now* why
>> would anyone suggest they add another mouth to the mix?
>
> I don't understand it, either, but it seems to open up a whole
> new world of benefits for people.
>
> So, if they are complaining they can't afford meat, go
> vegetarian. Lots of people cut down on meat when times are
> tough. I don't think my mother served fried rice so often because
> there was a roast beef sitting in the refrigerator. Not that you want to
> eat fried rice all the time, but there are many vegetable
> dishes they could make.
> Not piling on, there are plenty of people knocking them, just thinking
> they need a change of mindset if they are complaining
> about meat.
>
> nancy

I think it's a sad commentary that people are so quick to judge, and so
quick to hate, but that's just me. I'm not talking about you, at all,
Nancy...I mean the people on that board. It never seems to occur to them
that part of the reason these two women appear the way they do (other than
genetics, which would appear to be a factor) is the statement about them
eating lots of starches because they're cheap.

This is a real issue in this country today, if you ask me. Part of the
reason for this epidemic obesity is that the foods that are readily
available to those with limited means are foods like pasta and potatoes, and
processed gunk. Along with eating more vegetables like you suggested, I'd
wager these two would benefit from buying less potatoes and pasta and
spending that money on whatever chicken or fish was on sale that week.

kimberly