The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/greg-stanton-phoenix-mayor-food-stamps_n_1915608.html

The mayor of Phoenix, Greg Stanton, spent a week on food stamps (or, more precisely, on a food stamp budget of $29 per week) as part of the SNAP Experience during Hunger Awareness Month.  He reported that he was barely able to meet nutritional needs and lost four pounds.  Here are some of his experiences (from his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/notes/greg-stanton/snap-awareness-week-my-food-diary-what-its-like-to-live-on-food-stamps-for-29wee/484143658270276)):

Day 1
    In thinking about this exercise, I did some homework.  In July of this year, there were 1.1 million Arizonans on SNAP, about twice as many as there were before the downturn in 2007, according to the Community Action Association. Ginny Hildebrand from the Arizona Association of Food Banks told me that 1 in 4 Arizona kids are food insecure, and 1 in 5 households in Arizona struggled to put food on the table last year. The Phoenix metro area is ranked the 34th worst, in terms of hunger- out of the 100 largest metro areas.  We’ve got a lot of families fighting to get by here.

Day 2
    Part of this challenge is to try and eat healthy, not just survive.  I looked at the USDA’s recipe book and tips and there are some good shopping hints, but not all the meals look healthy to me, especially for kids.  One suggested breakfast was orange juice, hash brown potatoes, and biscuits with margarine. Another day suggests OJ, cooked rice cereal and toast. There’s no protein in that meal and the “fruit” is juice- that’s not going to stick with you.  Kids have to be well nourished to pay attention in school- I’m concerned about struggling families being able to send their kids to school well-fed and “ready to learn.”

Day 3
    I wonder how folks with health problems get by on SNAP.  An individual with diabetes has got to stay away from too many simple carbs, and have protein at every meal to maintain level blood sugar.  By far the cheapest food items are potatoes, noodles, tortillas and white bread.  But these are empty calories that fill you up without really nourishing you.  And they send your blood sugar spiraling if you don’t have something more substantial along with them, like meat, fish, eggs or peanut butter.  A colleague taking this challenge cannot eat grains or dairy.  She’s getting by, but it’s difficult since starches and milk are the bargains and fresh fruits and vegetables are the “splurge” items on this budget."

Day 4
    OK- ran out the door today with no time to scramble eggs or even make a sandwich.  So I’m surviving on an apple and handful of peanuts, and the coffee I took to the office until dinner.  I’m tired, and it’s hard to focus. I can’t go buy a sandwich because that would be cheating- even the dollar menu at Taco Bell is cheating. You can’t use SNAP benefits at any restaurants, fast food or otherwise. I’m facing a long, hungry day and an even longer night getting dinner on the table, which requires making EVERYTHING from scratch on this budget.  It’s only for a week, so I’ve got a decent attitude.  If I were doing this with no end in sight, I probably wouldn’t be so pleasant.

Day 5
    Identifying, in a concrete way, with struggling families is an important exercise for any leader. By walking in the shoes of those who depend on the SNAP program, I certainly feel like I’ve gained critical perspective as a policymaker.  From a broader perspective, I’m starting to think about all the other challenges families on food stamps (SNAP) must face at the same time they are stretching their food benefit. Census data in 2010 showed Arizona had the second highest poverty rate in the nation with 21.2% of its citizens living in poverty. The national figure was 14.3 percent. We’ve improved since then, but we’re still in the 10-poorest states category.  Worse, women raising children alone here aren’t doing well.  More than 45% of mothers raising children by themselves are in poverty.  That’s why turning this economy around is so important.  The best “program” for any struggling family is a job that pays a living wage.  That’s what I’m focusing on for every Phoenix family.

--

The idea that food stamp recipients have this plush life is as silly as it ever was.  I challenge anyone to plan a healthy diet (consisting of 7 x 3 = 21 meals) for $1.38 a meal.

Please listen to this. No one has said anyone is living a "plush" life off of food stamps. I even pointed this out already. People are complaining about those who abuse the system of having the government (us) pay for them. It doesn't have anything to do with helping those who need it nor does it have anything to do with a luxurious lifestyle of your standards.

If I had a hat, I would take it off to the mayor of Phoenix.  Maybe we all need to live like derilicts for a week so we can truly appreciate what we have.

Are you kidding me?  Not all people on food stamps are derelicts.  That's about the most offensive thing you've ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

One of the primary arguments of those in favor of slashing these programs is, "Why would someone even want to find work when they can just sit at home and collect gov't money for nothing?"

This article answers that question: the life that you live off of gov't benefits is a harsh one.  Nobody living on $4 worth of food per day is sitting around thinking, "Man, this is a sweet setup... I'm going to ride this train as long as I can!"

Go back and re-read my post.  I never stated that all people who are on food stamps are derilicts. 

I read your post.  The mayor lived on food stamps and you said "we should all have to live like derelicts."

Either your thought is completely out of left field and disjointed from the topic, or you think food stamps = derelict.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Being a derilict is worse than living on food stamps.  So maybe someone like myself who has a nice house on the water, a good paying job, a nice car, and a boat should live like a derilict for a week so I can appreciate what I have. 

A couple of thoughts.

1. The SNAP program usually gives close to 200.00 a month. Not sure how the Mayor only got 29.00 for a week.

2. The SNAP program, like Social Security is not meant to be a sole source way of eating. Where I live, the local soup kitchens serve hundreds of meals daily and even have food leftover.

3. I salute the Mayor for keeping in touch with reality, if it was not meant for political reasons. I remember years ago in FL., then Gov. Bob Graham would work a normal job 1 day a month to show he was a common man. I always admired that and he had my vote every election.

I would be willing to bet the Obama could not tell you the cost of a loaf of bread, gallon of gas or a pair of jeans.     

From where did you get that information?

^^^^^ No kidding. The maximum amount for a household of 1 is $200. If you have a full time job at $8/hr, you make too much to qualify. It reminds me of when I struck out on my own, living off of $30/wk for food.  Wasn't easy. Wasn't fun. So, I applaud the mayor for doing what he did. If I had a family then, I don't know how we would've survived that.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm

Avg benifit per person in AZ is $128.70 per month.  Works out to about $30 per week.   

Thanks for the link, Hoodie.  Now it makes sense: if the most food-expensive state in the nation (Hawaii) gives $200 in food stamp benefits, then food stamps "usually give $200 in benefits."

edit: Hoodie's link is not properly clickable.  Try this instead. (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm)

I can't open Hoodie's link. Well, actually it's coming up 404 so I googled and this came up.


i wasn't sure what qualified as a household so I looked and this is what I found.

This doesn't include WIC that's also available. 

A family of 4 getting $668 for groceries is pretty good to get by if you want to beat the system. I'll use a relative I know for example. Babysit out of your house, clean houses, or some other under the table job and never marry your baby daddies to get child support. This doesn't include the new live in boyfriend taking care of you.  Life may not be lush but it's also not too bad in the redneck sector.

I have to say when I see someone like this going on vacations while I'm struggling to pay my bills it's hard to feel all rosy about the lack of oversight in the system.

CF Dolfan, at the start of this thread, you took great pains to point out that, "No one has said anyone is living a 'plush' life off of food stamps."

And then you follow that by stating that food stamps are "pretty good to get by if you want to beat the system."

See what I mean?

And finish what I said. "Life may not be lush but it's also not too bad in the redneck sector." Many people are perfectly happy to live below the standards of what you and I may set for ourselves.

Whether or not you actually use the word "plush," the fundamental idea is the same:  people living on food stamps can have a comfortable life, comfortable enough that the prospect of working is unattractive.

The purpose of posting this article is to show that such claims are ridiculous and, at best, represent only the extreme outliers; on an average food stamp budget, this mayor was frequently going hungry and could not afford a decently healthy diet.

So yeah, if you don't mind going hungry for long periods of time while you scrounge by on the cheapest food you can find, living on food stamps is "not too bad."

From what I've seen the majority of the time around here, the boyfriend is the "baby daddy" and not paying support. He usually has a job and vehicle(s) and lives in the household but isn't reported as living there. The female usually has an under the table or cash job or doesn't work at all.

$668 for a family of 4, that's $167 a week. I live in a family of 4 and don't spend $167 a week and eat healthy, and probably more than I should be. We spend between $100-120 per store visit, and that's not even every week. Sometimes when the food builds up in the freezer or pantry every 4-6 weeks we skip a week at the store. So in all actuality, they eat better than me, my GF, and her kids. And we both work, pay income taxes, and pay for health care. Things most of these people don't do. WIC and TANF is received by a good majority of these people also. $668 is entirely too much money for a family of 4 !!!


Your article assumes assistance is based only on a one person household. I will assume that there are more 4 family households on assistance than single person households. Furthermore, the $29 limit in your article assumes that those are the only funds available for food. SNAP =  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Supplemental is the key word here.

 And here's the point y'all are missing. $668 is the MAX amount for the benefit for a family of four. There isn't a person here would trade places for that. Gaming the system for food is a problem I can live with. There's no reason for anyone to go hungry in this country.

And that is more than I spend on food a month. Ok, I get it. You want to give people free food. Any other point you are trying to make ?

It is average per person.  You keep multiplying that number by a 4 person household and acting as if it's now a huge sum.  Tell me, how can you make a healthy meal for a family of four with $5.52?  Because that's the number you arrive at when you multiply $1.38 by four.

No, it presumes that you're actually living off of your food stamp benefits, which is the point.

You have been (repeatedly!) claiming that food stamp benefits alone result in a comfortable eating lifestyle.  In this very thread, you are proclaiming that food stamp enrollees eat "better than you do."  I'm not interested in discussing what the hypothetical maximums are; Hoodie's link showed the ACTUAL AVERAGE benefit per person.  So please explain how all these people are living good on the gov't dole, when the facts show that they still have serious food insecurity and can barely afford anything but the cheapest foods.

Seriously? You spend less than $167 per month per person on food?  Are you sure?  How often do you eat out?  Are you counting in buying a container of milk and a loaf a bread at the convience store?

It is certainly possible to buy that little groceries or even less per week if you are only eating some of your meals at home and the rest at resturants and not counting the resturants towards your total.  Or maybe you live on a farm and get half your calories from food you grow. 

But I find it very doubtful you are feeding yourself on $167 per person per month. 

No, you questioned his statements and he clarified them. And yet you continue to ignore his clarification, twist his words, and make shit up to fit your agenda . Too funny...

It doesn't take that much math. Very simply took the $668 for a family of 4 and divided it by 4 weeks and that equals $167 per week to spend.


And when they run out they can spend some of their income.  SNAP =  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Adj.   1.   supplemental - functioning in a supporting capacity
secondary - being of second rank or importance or value; not direct or immediate, a secondary source; a secondary issue; secondary streams.

         2.    supplemental - added to complete or make up a deficiency.

SNAP or  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is for a secondary source of nutrition. Otherwise I would speculate that it would be called PNAP for Primary Nutrition Assistance Program.




Again, your grasp of simple terms is lacking. You are not interested in discussing the "hypothetical" maximums because those are not "hypothetical" maximums, they are actual maximums that are listed on the previous page. I haven't looked up those numbers, so I am assuming that they are correct. The correct use of the term "hypothetical" would be - If a person on food stamps spends more a month on groceries than I do, then "hypothetically" they are eating better than me.

I live in a household of 4. I consistantly spend between $100-120 a week. Usually, have to buy milk again on Tuesdays or Wednesdays, so add $5 a week. We eat out maybe 2-3 times a month, which in reality shouldn't make much difference since there is enough food stored up after 4-6 weeks to skip a week at the grocery store. So that's a wash. So yes, I feed Me, my GF, and her 2 kids for less than $167 a week. Maybe you people should watch your diets and grocery bills with the impending crash of the dollar and inflation on the way...

Sure, no problem.....

You also fail to realize that buying for one person is more expensive than for buying for 4-6 people due to being able to buy more in bulk and having more variations in the diet. I would rather feed 4 people on $120 a week than feed 1 on $30 a week. Let's see $30 for one person in a week, shouldn't be hard at all. I don't think that they charge tax on EBT, so correct me if I'm wrong. All prices are from the best of my memory and rounded up to the next 50¢ increment.

Dozen eggs - $2.00
Apples - $2.00
8 Pack of instant grits or oatmeal - $2.00
Gallon of milk - $4.50
Peanut Butter - $2.00
loaf of bread - $1.00
Lunch meat - $2.50
3 cans of tuna - $2.00
Bag of frozen chicken breasts - $7.50
Bag of rice - $1.50
6 cans of vegetables @ 3 for 2.00 - 4.00

Grand Total - $31.00 with no taxes added.

Could live on that easily for 7 days. Hell with the exception of a few items, that looks a lot like the menu I use for cutting up for summer. There are plenty of alternate foods that could be swapped out on that list for virtually the same money and endless combinations. Also, due to rounding the prices up the total should be a $1-2 dollars less.

Right and I am sure you eat chicken breast and plain white rice with canned lima beans every SINGLE night.  A bag of frozen chicken breasts has at most 12 breasts in it.  for 4 people, that lasts 3 days.  Then what?

No, I never said that is what I eat. The food I listed is was for one (1) person for a week, try to keep up. I simply demonstrated that $30 dollars a week is enough to easily feed one (1) person for that week. Which is the same scenario that the article in the OP suggested. It would be much easier to feed four (4) people on $120 for a week. You bleeding heart liberals twist everything make shit sound so bad. You listed chicken breast, plain rice, and lima beans every night. When in fact you could have had a lunch meat sandwich, chicken sandwich, tuna sandwich, peanut butter sandwich, chicken or ham omelet, or any number of recipes that you could make. Canned vegetables doesn't only include lima beans either, there is a very wide selection. So I demonstrate how simple it is to feed one (1) person on a $30 a week budget, now you guys complain that the menu variety is not up to par for someone that eats for free. OK, then take $60 and buy 2 weeks worth of food and add variety, how simple was that ? What the hell is wrong with you people ?

Here is the link for AZ. http://www.azfoodbanks.org/index.php/food-stamps-information/


If you go in and put in your info, it will tell you what and how much you qualify for. Not only SNAP, but all the other programs.

Why are you using the maximum possible benefit instead of the actual average?  You have absolutely no idea what the requirements are to qualify for the maximum.

Then why do you continue to insist that people can live comfortably on food stamp benefits alone?  The next three messages you posted do exactly that!

The maximums are not what is hypothetical.  It is your presumption that those maximum benefits are the typical benefit distribution (in the face of the provided factual average) that is hypothetical.

I'm curious since I know that pretty much everyone knows someone, or has been them self, unemployed. Does anyone know of any single person who has not received the maximum for unemployment? I don't and I know some low income people and before you say how the heck would I know ... it's been my experience that the less money you make the more you like to share your financial issues with everyone else.

Yes.

It's what was listed on the table on the first page. You fail to realize that it's a moot point. Even at that rate, it is on the upper end of what I spend weekly. So people who get free food eat as good or better than me. Great....


If they get as much or more than I spend a month, they do live comfortably on food stamps. What about that don't you understand ? Round and round we go courtesy of the freeloader sympathizer dan.


Well then it wouldn't be "hypothetical" maximums, it would be "hypothetical" scenario. Thanks for trying....

A bag of frozen chicken breasts is $7.50?  Heck, I've seen chicken breast at about $4 per pound at the supermarket.  If you really want to stretch that budget, buy bone-in thighs, drumsticks, or whole chickens for about a buck per pound.  And my wife can make a really good soup from the bones.

I think that is for a 2.5 or 3 lb bag of frozen chicken breasts. I know that the whole chickens would save money, but I was buying what I would buy. I usually only like breasts when it comes to chicken, but I guess if it was free I couldn't complain too much.

badger6, do you buy your own food?  And by that, I mean: are you the person who physically purchases the majority of groceries that are consumed in your household?

Just want to be clear on this point.

Since you are laboriously clinging to this point of grammar, let me address it directly:

Are you talking about an actual, specific person or family who is receiving that exact maximum benefit?
No?
Then that maximum is hypothetical.

Note that the title of the page you are referencing is (emphasis added), "How Much Could I Receive?"  Could is inherently a hypothetical question.

Just get to your point. You do a good job of twisting shit and changing the subject.


Not clinging to anything, just pointing out the errors you make in your haste to be "smarter than everyone". So, in rebuttal, I was referring to the maximum amount of EBT that a family of 4 could receive. So while the family of 4 may be hypothetical, hence, "hypothetical situation", the maximum amount is not hypothetical. The maximum is regulated and set by the government and not up for debate. You yourself said that I was using the maximum amount. There is no ambiguity in the maximum amount of benefits available to someone who qualifies for them. The maximum amount of $668 is not hypothetical, it is fact.

Why do we have 3 different threads now of people arguing with badger about food stamps and welfare?  Ugh.

I'm just popular, lol. And the funny part is that I didn't start any of the threads, ha ha ha. Around here, certain people just like to argue with me and others to help with their self esteem issues. No worries though, I find it hilarious and entertaining.

Without mayo?
 
Note the more popular "peanut butter and jelly" sandwich is not an option with this grocery list

You will never get it out of the frying pan unless you are also buying butter, oil or pam.  The only thing you can do with these eggs is boil them.

And what are you doing with the chicken.  You can't fry it, no oil nor flour.  You have no BBQ sauce so BBQ chicken is out.  Can't do shake and bake.  I guess you could boil it.  But if you do that it will be pretty bland too bad you have no mustard to add some spice.  And if you do boil it might as well make soup, but without any soup ingredents that is not going to happen.

Point is your list is incomplete.  Granded you don't need to buy BBQ sauce, oil, salt and pepper or mustard every week.  But you do need to account for their use and periodic replacement. 

LMFAO, really ???

Yes, really.  You made a shopping list that is completely unrealistic. 

I have a daughter who doesn't like peanut butter and jelly. As well I cook eggs, either scrambled or fried, in a nonstick pan which doesn't require any butter or oil.
 

Unrealistic, ha ha. Seeing how food stamps are issued by the month, that would give you $120 for the month. Spend $5 dollars out of the monthly allotment and buy whatever the fuck you want to put on your chicken. Problem solved. If you are an adult, you sir, should be embarrassed !!!

Making up random psychological diagnoses about the people you are debating with really doesn't make you look any better to the casual observer... it just makes you look petty and insecure in your position. Just my 2 cents though...toss the coins out the window if they don't shine in your hand.

And, for the record...if I were in this argument, I'd likely be leaning toward your side of it. When I got out of the military and moved back to AZ, money was damned tight, and I once went 6 months where I lived on a $4/day food budget. No food stamps...just a tight-tight-tight budget. Granted, that was back in '88, and the diet was not the healthiest, but I survived. Lots of smack ramen, lots of frozen microwaveable burritos, lots of "whatever was in the clearance bin" at the grocery store (random veggies, applesauce, etc...). I drank kool-aid with minimal sugar and literally didn't buy chocolate or any dessert type food for the entire 6 months.

I am not embarrassed that you failed the exercise.  You should be embarrassed.  $5 isn't going to cover all the holes you left. 

Really could care less if I "look any better" to anyone here, much less the casual observer. The point is, there are people here that have to always be right, be smarter than everyone, and argue about anything non stop. That my friend is a self esteem issue any way you slice it. Anyhow, there are plenty of people around here that agree with me. Maybe not the way I come across, but that's just who I am. Most of them have learned that it's not worth it to entertain or engage in the non stop agendas and "evil white man" games.   


I'll take that as you likely kind of agree with me. Even if it is an insecure position, lol....

Can you point those holes in basic nutrition out for us ?

???

^^^i already did.  go back and read

Well, I went back and read your post again just to make sure that I didn't get it wrong. And, I didn't. It is sad to me to see a fully grown adult try to argue that Jelly, butter, BBQ sauce, and mustard are staples of a healthy diet. You sir, should still be embarassed, I pity you.