Phoenix mayor lives on a food stamp budget for a week

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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."

[badger6]

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.

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 !!!

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."

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.

[el diablo]

 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.

[badger6]

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 ?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

Furthermore, the $29 limit in your article assumes that those are the only funds available for food.

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

$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 !!!

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. 

[badger6]

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."

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...

[badger6]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[badger6]

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. 

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...

[badger6]

  I challenge anyone to plan a healthy diet (consisting of 7 x 3 = 21 meals) for $1.38 a meal.

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.

[Brian Fein]

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?

[badger6]

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 ?

[Fins4ever]

From where did you get that information?

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.