Posted by elise d faber on February 23, 2009, 1:28 pm
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:02:24 -0500, clams_casino
>Just saw a couple whining on CNN that it was hard making it through the
>month on just $580/mo of food stamps. Granted, they were a family of
>four vs. the two of us, but the children appeared to be early grade
>school age, not teenagers. Furthermore, aren't most kids getting free
>breakfast and lunch at school these days (especially those in food stamp
>families)?
>The two of us have averaged less than $400/mo for the past ten (+) years
>($365/moin 07 and $398/mo in 08). I'm not sure what food stamps
>include, but our $400 / mo includes all paper products, over the counter
>drugs (aspirin, vitamin pills, etc), cleaning chemicals, personal
>products (toothpaste, soap, razor blades, etc) as well as the cost of
>the newspaper (I include its yearly subscription since its cost is
>essentially covered by the coupons against groceries). We also tend to
>eat primarily fresh foods (rarely frozen or canned), including fresh
>seafood at least twice / mo and typically don't freeze much as
>leftovers. That also includes our liquor costs, but that is typically
>only about 4 bottles of wine / year. We include all items one might
>pick up at a grocer, even if bought at fruit stands, Walmart, etc.
> Point is, I'm sure we could cut much more, if need be. How could a
>young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?
they don't know how to cook. buying ingredients to cook from scratch
is not that expensive even if you go organic. i am also on food stamps
and get $100/mo for myself only. this is always enough even though i
shop at whole foods and trader joes. but i don't eat much meat. i buy
it on sale and then freeze it. i also cook soups and stews etc and
freeze them.
the expensive grocery items are the cereal [even plain store brand
stuff costs a lot], juice box type drinks [if you drink this stuff, go
for koolaid. it's cheaper], frozen dinner type stuff [pizzas and so
forth] and candy/cookietype things. most of these can be made from
scratch for a lot less.
elise
Posted by Napoleon on February 24, 2009, 8:39 am
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:28:04 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
wrote:
>they don't know how to cook. buying ingredients to cook from scratch
>is not that expensive even if you go organic. i am also on food stamps
>and get $100/mo for myself only. this is always enough even though i
>shop at whole foods and trader joes. but i don't eat much meat. i buy
>it on sale and then freeze it. i also cook soups and stews etc and
>freeze them.
Exactly. For a family of two (we're not on Food Stamps) we spend
around $180 a month - which includes all food, paper products,
cleaning supplies and pet food. I stretch out grocery shopping to
every three weeks.
I cook almost all meals from scratch and save half the meals for the
next day or freeze them for later. I cook all deserts from scratch and
usually can eat them for at least a week to a week and a half. We make
our own beer and wine, and don't drink coffee. Water from the tap is
my preferred drink.
I also make my own bread and freeze that as well.
>the expensive grocery items are the cereal [even plain store brand
>stuff costs a lot], juice box type drinks [if you drink this stuff, go
>for koolaid. it's cheaper], frozen dinner type stuff [pizzas and so
>forth] and candy/cookietype things. most of these can be made from
>scratch for a lot less.
Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
Kids can drink Koolaid mixed up from a packet. I NEVER buy frozen
dinners. I make my own pot pies and pizzas.
The reason why most people don't cook is because they don't know how,
and it requires them to spend the extra time cleaning the dishes
later. That cuts into TV time. Also, alot of people refuse to eat
leftovers.
-Napoleon
Posted by Napoleon on February 24, 2009, 3:20 pm
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefaber@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
wrote:
>but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
>shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
>really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.
We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
an improvement!
Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.
Napoleon.
Posted by BigDog1 on February 24, 2009, 4:25 pm
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefa...@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
> wrote:
> >but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
> >shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
> >really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.
> We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
> But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
> males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
> an improvement!
Yeah, I remember that. We had "home ec" at my high school in the
early sixties. But it was an out growth of the days when married
women were stay at home moms, and a middle class family could
comfortably live on a single income. That was, I believe, the
beginning of the end of that era. Not to say that class didn't teach
valuable skills that are completely relevant today. But since they
were populated almost exclusively by women, I think they were done
away with for the very reason you stated.
Of course, there's no reason why these skills shouldn't have been
taught at home, except that many parents were/are just too damned lazy
to do it. When my son was growing up he had all sorts of age
appropriate "chores" he was responsible for around the house,
including helping to prepare meals and cleanup afterwards. By the time
he was in high school he was responsible to get dinner on the table on
his own two days a week. Sometimes it would have been easier to just
do it ourselves, but what would that have taught him? During his
bachelor days his place was neat as a pin, and he ate quite well,
within his budget, without relying on restaurants or take out. Now
that he's a family man I'm seeing some of the same discipline at his
house that he grew up with.
By the way, after their second kid came along, they stopped. They
decided that was how many they could afford to feed, clothe and
educate. Imagine that, socially and economically responsible family
planning!
> Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
> Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.
> Napoleon.
Posted by suds macheath on February 24, 2009, 7:10 pm
BigDog1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, ediefa...@yahoo.com (elise d faber)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> but i completely agree that to get the food stamps, a course on smart
>>> shopping and basic cooking should be required. a lot of these people
>>> really don't know that they could be eating better at a lower cost.
>> We used to have that. It was called Home Economics class in school.
>> But then I guess that was too sexist and they got rid of it. Now both
>> males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
>> an improvement!
>
> Yeah, I remember that. We had "home ec" at my high school in the
> early sixties. But it was an out growth of the days when married
> women were stay at home moms, and a middle class family could
> comfortably live on a single income. That was, I believe, the
> beginning of the end of that era. Not to say that class didn't teach
> valuable skills that are completely relevant today. But since they
> were populated almost exclusively by women, I think they were done
> away with for the very reason you stated.
----Schools still teach Home Ec.....
>
> Of course, there's no reason why these skills shouldn't have been
> taught at home, except that many parents were/are just too damned lazy
> to do it. When my son was growing up he had all sorts of age
> appropriate "chores" he was responsible for around the house,
> including helping to prepare meals and cleanup afterwards. By the time
> he was in high school he was responsible to get dinner on the table on
> his own two days a week. Sometimes it would have been easier to just
> do it ourselves, but what would that have taught him? During his
> bachelor days his place was neat as a pin, and he ate quite well,
> within his budget, without relying on restaurants or take out. Now
> that he's a family man I'm seeing some of the same discipline at his
> house that he grew up with.
>
> By the way, after their second kid came along, they stopped. They
> decided that was how many they could afford to feed, clothe and
> educate. Imagine that, socially and economically responsible family
> planning!
>
>
>> Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
>> Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.
>>
>> Napoleon.
>
XML site map
>month on just $580/mo of food stamps. Granted, they were a family of
>four vs. the two of us, but the children appeared to be early grade
>school age, not teenagers. Furthermore, aren't most kids getting free
>breakfast and lunch at school these days (especially those in food stamp
>families)?
>The two of us have averaged less than $400/mo for the past ten (+) years
>($365/moin 07 and $398/mo in 08). I'm not sure what food stamps
>include, but our $400 / mo includes all paper products, over the counter
>drugs (aspirin, vitamin pills, etc), cleaning chemicals, personal
>products (toothpaste, soap, razor blades, etc) as well as the cost of
>the newspaper (I include its yearly subscription since its cost is
>essentially covered by the coupons against groceries). We also tend to
>eat primarily fresh foods (rarely frozen or canned), including fresh
>seafood at least twice / mo and typically don't freeze much as
>leftovers. That also includes our liquor costs, but that is typically
>only about 4 bottles of wine / year. We include all items one might
>pick up at a grocer, even if bought at fruit stands, Walmart, etc.
> Point is, I'm sure we could cut much more, if need be. How could a
>young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?