Food Stamps

[Curious George]

Growing up, my mother spent less than $400/month on groceries for a family of four. I remember this because I always went with her, and would be shocked if we went over $200. This would also include non-food items, like toilet paper, shampoo, dishsoap, etc. We grocery shopped approximately every two weeks. Our food wasn't fancy, but we had enough, including fruits and veggies.

I'm 27, so this wasn't that long ago.

Well, in 1995 that would be $335. If your mother never spent over $400 is not comparable to 489 of today. Rather, it would be comparable to the $335 of '95. Now, she only went shopping once a month? But you would be shocked if your mother spent over 200 dollars (for the month or for that shopping trip). 200 dollars in 95 is 306 dollars in today's money. So, if you think you can shop for a family of 4 for necesary food and toiletries I will gladly look at your list. But honestly, I would assume that your mother made two shopping trips a month and that the amount she spent was probably over 335. But even so, the food wasn't that fancy and that then should be the amount necessary for a family.

 

[Cephus]

There are very few reasons as to why it cannot be. It's a matter of personal choice not the amount benevolence of those who give charitably.

That's my position. It is very possible to eat well on food stamps, it's hardly our fault that many people are irresponsible and, well, sometimes downright stupid. It's their job to spend wisely, think about what they're buying and stick to a budget. It can be done and, as you yourself prove, it can be done consistently.

Amazing how many people would rather believe it's impossible and you're an outlier than to accept the fact that most people on food stamps have serious problems that they, themselves, have to solve.

 

[Curious George]

That's my position. It is very possible to eat well on food stamps, it's hardly our fault that many people are irresponsible and, well, sometimes downright stupid. It's their job to spend wisely, think about what they're buying and stick to a budget. It can be done and, as you yourself prove, it can be done consistently.

Amazing how many people would rather believe it's impossible and you're an outlier than to accept the fact that most people on food stamps have serious problems that they, themselves, have to solve.

I certainly do not think eating off of food stamps is impossible. I think that surviving off way less than what food stamps offers is an unreasonable expectation of greedy, selfless people who like to delude themselves into thinking the problem is poor people rather than our system.

 

[Curious George]

That's my position. It is very possible to eat well on food stamps, it's hardly our fault that many people are irresponsible and, well, sometimes downright stupid. It's their job to spend wisely, think about what they're buying and stick to a budget. It can be done and, as you yourself prove, it can be done consistently.

Amazing how many people would rather believe it's impossible and you're an outlier than to accept the fact that most people on food stamps have serious problems that they, themselves, have to solve.

Average food stamps for a family of four in 2011= $489

This amounts to 4.08 cents per person per day. So lets hear the meal plan that costs 4.08 per person that provides for 3 meals a day. Yes, that is luxury alright. That is fancy-pants dining! We should cut that down. People don't need that much. They can make 3 meals off of 2.00 instead of 4.00 or better yet, they shouldn't get 3 meals. they should be forced to eat less- and they should have to make everything from scratch- real scratch (make their own bread etc.) those people that live without stoves or refrigerators- well they shouldn't eat at all. Let them starve. And then when crime spikes, when theft increases, when jails fill, when health costs escalate, we should complain even more because it is not our fault- sure we could have prevented this, but the blame rests solely on the poor. Yep. Great attitude.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, in 1995 that would be $335. If your mother never spent over $400 is not comparable to 489 of today. Rather, it would be comparable to the $335 of '95. Now, she only went shopping once a month? But you would be shocked if your mother spent over 200 dollars (for the month or for that shopping trip). 200 dollars in 95 is 306 dollars in today's money. So, if you think you can shop for a family of 4 for necesary food and toiletries I will gladly look at your list. But honestly, I would assume that your mother made two shopping trips a month and that the amount she spent was probably over 335. But even so, the food wasn't that fancy and that then should be the amount necessary for a family.

I did indicate that we shopped every two weeks, which would be twice a month. So total groceries would be less than $400/month. This really doesn't seem to me that crazy. As a single person today I spend ~$175/month, which is certainly more than I need to spend to eat enough and healthfully (I have the luxury of spending more on frivolous foods or in less-than-thrifty ways).

Also, could you link where you are getting your conversions from?

 

[Ingledsva]

Average food stamps for a family of four in 2011= $489

This amounts to 4.08 cents per person per day. So lets hear the meal plan that costs 4.08 per person that provides for 3 meals a day. Yes, that is luxury alright. That is fancy-pants dining! We should cut that down. People don't need that much. They can make 3 meals off of 2.00 instead of 4.00 or better yet, they shouldn't get 3 meals. they should be forced to eat less- and they should have to make everything from scratch- real scratch (make their own bread etc.) those people that live without stoves or refrigerators- well they shouldn't eat at all. Let them starve. And then when crime spikes, when theft increases, when jails fill, when health costs escalate, we should complain even more because it is not our fault- sure we could have prevented this, but the blame rests solely on the poor. Yep. Great attitude.

Uhmmm! That is $4.075 - not 4.08 cents.

That would be $16.30, - sixteen dollars and thirty cents per day for a family of four in 2011.

More then enough for - for instance, - hamburger, buns, corn on the cob, and a bag of potatoes - per day.

*

 

[Curious George]

Uhmmm! That is $4.075 - not 4.08 cents.

That would be $16.30, - sixteen dollars and thirty cents per day for a family of four in 2011.

More then enough for - for instance, - hamburger, buns, corn on the cob, and a bag of potatoes - per day.

*

So is that potatoes for breakfast, corn for lunch and hamburgers for dinner? I am not so sure your meals are nutritionally sound.

 

[Curious George]

I did indicate that we shopped every two weeks, which would be twice a month. So total groceries would be less than $400/month. This really doesn't seem to me that crazy. As a single person today I spend ~$175/month, which is certainly more than I need to spend to eat enough and healthfully (I have the luxury of spending more on frivolous foods or in less-than-thrifty ways).

Also, could you link where you are getting your conversions from?

CPI Inflation Calculator

 

[Falvlun]

So is that potatoes for breakfast, corn for lunch and hamburgers for dinner? I am not so sure your meals are nutritionally sound.

I think your over-exaggerations are hurting your cause more than helping.

Yes, it may not be easy to feed a family on a tight budget. But it is not as impossible as you are making it out to be. By acting as if it were impossible, you are just going to make more people roll their eyes at the real struggle some families face.

There are many websites and blogs dedicated to feeding your family nutritious, easy meals on a tight budget. Peruse some of these, and maybe get your rhetoric a little more reasonable.

Stirfry, chili, pasta, Mexican, and soups can all be filling and relatively cheap to make. You can buy frozen vegetables for cheap-- they hover around $1.25, and often go on sale for a buck, and the taste and texture is more similar to fresh than canned, and you get more of it. Buy chicken and ground beef when it's on sale and freeze it; can be used in many different meals. You can buy butter and cheese when it's on sale and freeze that too. Living on a tight food budget may be hard, but it's not that hard.

 

[Falvlun]

CPI Inflation Calculator

Thanks. I found it a little unbelievable that inflation went up by 50%-- $1 right now is presently equal to ~$1.50 from 15 years ago. But the calculator seems legit, so I can't complain.

 

[Revoltingest]

5. Something like Revoltingest's communistic food depot would be great, but you know as will as I do that it won't survive in the USA. The Salvation Army's food banks are the closest we have to such.

I know it would never gain acceptance. It's more of a thought experiment to explore shared
goals of having kids well fed with a low taxpayer burden & minimal bureaucracy.

 

[Ingledsva]

So is that potatoes for breakfast, corn for lunch and hamburgers for dinner? I am not so sure your meals are nutritionally sound.

Those items obviously cost less then that amount.

The bag of Potatoes for instance, at a dollar something per bag - would serve a lot of French fries, mashed, bakers, cubes for stews, and hash-browns.

That is around 122 dollars per week. More then enough to plan a weeks worth of meals in 2011 - obviously - because the government averages it out to come up with the amounts.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

i know it would never gain acceptance. It's more of a thought experiment to explore shared
goals of having kids well fed with a low taxpayer burden & minimal bureaucracy.

I know it is unpopular here in the USA, but I like some of the ideas of the Nordic Socialist Democracies. All people are expected to work at something. A large chunk of money comes off the top of the pay check - but - it covers you from birth to death. medical is paid for, daycare, education including college, senior services, burial, etc. They don't have a problem with poor people.

We need to take a closer look at those countries and figure out how we could make those systems work better for us.

*

 

[Curious George]

I think your over-exaggerations are hurting your cause more than helping.

Yes, it may not be easy to feed a family on a tight budget. But it is not as impossible as you are making it out to be. By acting as if it were impossible, you are just going to make more people roll their eyes at the real struggle some families face.

There are many websites and blogs dedicated to feeding your family nutritious, easy meals on a tight budget. Peruse some of these, and maybe get your rhetoric a little more reasonable.

Stirfry, chili, pasta, Mexican, and soups can all be filling and relatively cheap to make. You can buy frozen vegetables for cheap-- they hover around $1.25, and often go on sale for a buck, and the taste and texture is more similar to fresh than canned, and you get more of it. Buy chicken and ground beef when it's on sale and freeze it; can be used in many different meals. You can buy butter and cheese when it's on sale and freeze that too. Living on a tight food budget may be hard, but it's not that hard.

I agree that living on a tight budget is hard- but not That hard. The question is what is a tight budget? $489 dollars a month is a tight budget for a family of four. That is the average benefit in 2011. So, when someone suggests they could survive on way less, I question it. I know that doing so is not impossible. My life is an example of the possibility. But, the assumption- "oh people just need to make better choices" is ridiculous. With constant coupon cutting, with purchasing on sale items, with hunting and gathering, the hard becomes easier. There is a spectrum. But, let us not forget that there are still people without stoves, without fridges, without fishing tackle or hunting supplies, without homes. So, let's just give them some hamburger, buns, corn and potatoes? Yeah, that works. Get real Favlun. give me a shopping list. Show me a meal plan that is nutritionally sound. you are telling me that you only spend $5.83 on food and drinks a day? Sure, I believe that it is possible, but that sure ain't "much less" than food stamps. Show me three meals a day for a month for four people for $489. People do it all the time. But cutting the program down. Or complaining about someone squeezing in a candy bar?

I am really not asking much- let's look at a meal plan

Breakfast (Total=.57)
(egg & toast- no sauce, jam or butter- with banana and milk)
(1) Banana .20
(1) Egg .12
(1) piece of worst bread .08
(1) Cup of milk (8oz) .17

Lunch (Total= 3.22)
(cheese sandwich no sauce,soup, yogurt, carrots and an apple no drink)
(1) apple .80
(1) yogurt .74
(1) serving of frozen carrots .25
(2) slices of that same bread .16
(2) 1oz. slices of cheese .50
1/4 family size cambell soup .77

Dinner (Total= 1.26)
Spaghetti and green beans (no Seconds!)
(1) serving green beans .25
(1) 1/4 package of spaghetti .50
(1) 1/4 canned pasta sauce (Cheapest at Albertson's) .34
(1) cup of milk .17

Daily total=5.05

Now you tell me that is too much to ask? That we are giving too much? That if a parent does cut coupons, shop for deals, hunts or fishes for their own food that they shouldn't be able to buy a candy bar? We can serve just macoroni & cheese or top Ramen for breakfast lunch and dinner- that will prevent people from starving- is that our goal? just to prevent people from starving? I agree that the meal plan I have listed could be cheaper. I agree that it is possible to spend less than 4.00 a day per person for food. However, If people think that those on food stamps are just lapping up the luxury they are ignorant. If people think that we are giving too much- they are ignorant. if people think that some of the people who get food stamps do not need them, they are right- but those individuals are outweighed by both the people that do need them and the people who need them and do not receive them. I am not hurting the cause- if anyone can not open their eyes and do simple math- then they want to hate and blame the poor. There is far too much propaganda out there advertising that somehow the poor are taking more than they need, living it up and basking in luxury while everyone else slaves away. This is crap. Not only is it false, but it is hate speech directed toward people of a lower class who have little to no political voice.

Open your eyes. We can make meal plans all day long and some would be cheaper than the average benefits received, but not by much. And if it was considerably less- the nutritional value would be considerably less than needed to maintain good health.

There are consequences to ignoring the poor. there are consequences to ignoring the hungry. There are consequences to selfishness. The sooner people realize this and stop grasping at the pennies the better.

 

[Curious George]

Those items obviously cost less then that amount.

The bag of Potatoes for instance, at a dollar something per bag - would serve a lot of French fries, mashed, bakers, cubes for stews, and hash-browns.

That is around 122 dollars per week. More then enough to plan a weeks worth of meals in 2011 - obviously - because the government averages it out to come up with the amounts.

*

you really think that a diet wholly consisting of potatoes, corn and beef is healthy?

More than enough? I am not so sure I agree with that sentiment. I do agree that it is enough. I do agree that people on food stamps do not need more food stamps. However, I would like to see more outreach, more education, and more counseling which would cost more money. And that I think we should pay for. I do not think we should cut the money, or complain about candy bars.

 

[Curious George]

Uhmmm! That is $4.075 - not 4.08 cents.

That would be $16.30, - sixteen dollars and thirty cents per day for a family of four in 2011.

More then enough for - for instance, - hamburger, buns, corn on the cob, and a bag of potatoes - per day.

*

yes, I said "4 dollars and 08 cents (i rounded up to give to make it look like we give the poor more) and wrote 4.08 and typed "cents" I should have just written $4.08 I think that other posts I have wrote reflected that.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks. I found it a little unbelievable that inflation went up by 50%-- $1 right now is presently equal to ~$1.50 from 15 years ago. But the calculator seems legit, so I can't complain.

Well just think of it like this. Now, you can tell kids- that candy bar used to cost ... in my day and they will find it unbelievable too.

 

[idea]

The Republican-controlled House just today voted to reduce Federal food-stamp expenditures by $4 billion, and I just have to question the basic morality of that decision. But before my getting in to it, I wonder what you think? Please indicate your opinion in terms of your religious affiliation as I'm more interested in covering it from that angle

I believe that the best form of welfare is through volunteer organizations rather than federal aid - That those in need should first go to their friends and family for help, then to local church groups and volunteer organizations, and then as a last resort to the government (first local, then fed).

I agree with helping people out who need it - I disagree that the government is the best organization ... if you have extra cash, would you donate it to the government? or to a different charity organization?

... kids well fed with a low taxpayer burden & minimal bureaucracy.

imo, "minimal bureaucracy" = leave welfare to volunteer groups, instead of the gov. I think most people are mostly good - if the gov stops providing welfare, communities will step up to the challenge and take care of one another.

 

[Curious George]

Those items obviously cost less then that amount.

The bag of Potatoes for instance, at a dollar something per bag - would serve a lot of French fries, mashed, bakers, cubes for stews, and hash-browns.

That is around 122 dollars per week. More then enough to plan a weeks worth of meals in 2011 - obviously - because the government averages it out to come up with the amounts.

*

I would guess that you are talking about the smallest bag (3lbs) and that would not serve a whole lot of french fries, mashed, bakers, cubes, and hashbrowns. Depending on your definition of "a lot" it might serve "a lot" of any one of those items. But I am guessing that a 3lb bag of potatoes which costs about 2.00 would be one of the cheaper things one could buy. It would last a family of four 2 meals. with between 8-10 potatoes. A 5 lb bag would cost more. and the potatoes would be cheaper per potato. But a potato from a 3lb bag at 1.50 per bag would still be about .18 cents per potato. We of course want our shoppers to spend with thrift so let us assume that they would buy the 10 lb bag for 3.00. A ten lb bag has roughly 25 potatoes so that is .12 per potato

Hamburger can be pricey. Let us forget for now that you are worried about health and assume that they will need to buy the cheapest hamburger- the chub (comes in a tube). A 3lb chub costs between 8 and 9 dollars. So that means a 1/4 lb burger (which will be very small with this type of meat) costs about .69

buns can very in price but cheap buns cost about 1.50. These come in packs of 8 so that means that each bun costs about .18 (rounding down to make it cheaper).

Breakfast (.41)
(1) potato (hashbrowns) .12
(1) egg .12 *
(1) glass of milk .17 *

Lunch (.99)
(1) potato baked (.12)
(1) hamburger .69
(1) bun .18

Dinner (1.41)
(1) hamburger .69
(1) bun .18
(1) serving frozen corn .25
(1) glass of milk .17 *
(1) potato mashed .12

* (I took the discretion to add at least milk and an egg to your suggested diet. This increased the price by a total of .46 cents)

So living of just hamburgers (never cheese, no ketchup, no mayo, no mustard), potatoes (no butter, no seasoning), corn, milk and eggs we get a total of $2.81

Now let us ignore for a moment that we bought the cheapest foods, have no fruits, have no greens and rounded down, So we can calculate the cost per month.

$2.81 per day per person yields 337.20. I do not believe that this is a healthy diet and I do not believe that this works. But even so- I do not see 337.20 as greatly less. But hey there are some people out there cheating the system. they are obviously living in luxury if we are paying more than this. if people are not subsisting off less than minimal health standards then that is luxury.

 

[Curious George]

I believe that the best form of welfare is through volunteer organizations rather than federal aid - That those in need should first go to their friends and family for help, then to local church groups and volunteer organizations, and then as a last resort to the government (first local, then fed).

I agree with helping people out who need it - I disagree that the government is the best organization ... if you have extra cash, would you donate it to the government? or to a different charity organization?



imo, "minimal bureaucracy" = leave welfare to volunteer groups, instead of the gov. I think most people are mostly good - if the gov stops providing welfare, communities will step up to the challenge and take care of one another.

If volunteer groups were handling the need, then we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place. Look at the Walmart family- how much do they give. I would much rather force everyone to pay their share for the support since they share in the benefits.