food stamps
clams_casino
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?
elise d faber
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
Dave Garland
> How could a
> young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?
>
Seems like a lot to me, but I didn't see the show.
A few possibilities are, poor choices, special needs (allergies etc.)
living in a rural area (everything costs more and there isn't much
competition), living somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii, living in an
inner city without a car (corner stores are very expensive).
Dave
Evelyn Leeper
Add not having a big refrigerator/freezer.
(If both parents are working, then food prep time may be an issue,
leading to more convenience stuff, but then they would have more than
just the food stamps for food, right?)
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Nobody believes the official spokesman ... but everybody
trusts an unidentified source. -Ron Nesen, 1977
Marsha
> Dave Garland wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>> How could a
>>> young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?
>>>
>>
>> Seems like a lot to me, but I didn't see the show.
>>
>> A few possibilities are, poor choices, special needs (allergies etc.)
>> living in a rural area (everything costs more and there isn't much
>> competition), living somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii, living in an
>> inner city without a car (corner stores are very expensive).
>
> Add not having a big refrigerator/freezer.
>
> (If both parents are working, then food prep time may be an issue,
> leading to more convenience stuff, but then they would have more than
> just the food stamps for food, right?)
>
Even if both parents are working, it shouldn't be a problem. Crockpots
are great for those who are time challenged. Weekends can be put to use
by making a whole week's worth of meals. Most of the people I see using
food stamps have a whole bunch of expensive, unhealthy convenience foods
in their cart. $580/month is a lot for just groceries. If they're
complaining, it's because they ignorant or lazy, IMO.
Marsha
hchi...@hotmail.com
In emailed conversation with the fellow who had the shopping
comparison website, he stated that the cost of food in Hawaii is
roughly 3 times that of stateside.
Food is an area where you often pay now or pay later. A store
recently had bologna on sale for $1 a package. I tried it with
mustard, I tried it fried, I tried it smothered, and I still ended up
throwing it out. I hate to think of the processed chicken joints that
I was eating.
Marsha
If I'm not mistaken, food stamps are proportionate to the cost of living
in your area. If you live in a high-cost area, you get more.
Marsha
NotMe
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gnvm87$l8i$1...@news.datemas.de...
Some areas mandate what you can 'buy'. As example in the foster family
program they get 10 gal of milk per month per kid, regardless if the kid or
anyone in the family can tolerate milk. By the same token if the kid
requires a special diet such as soy milk you're SOL. Don't even think about
special (read expensive) baby formula.
They get pounds of cheese as well, which is useless if the kids have
allergies to milk products.
Right now peanut butter is a mandated item but also on the recall list, so
go figure.
Bob F
For food stamps???????
Are you sure????
This sounds a lot more like a food bank thing.
Napoleon
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
clams_casino
>
>
>Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>
>
>
I'm not sure why so many are down on cereals. I have shredded wheat
(mix one unsweetened biscuit half/half with Miniwheats) and my wife
likes either Cherrios or Special K several days/week. With 1% Milk at
about $2/gallon at Aldies, it's a very economical breakfast (or
occasionally supper) at less than 50 cents/ meal, especially with
coupons that are frequently available.
Dave Garland
> NotMe wrote:
>> Right now peanut butter is a mandated item but also on the recall
>> list, so go figure.
Only peanut butter (or any product containing peanuts or PB) made from
Peanut Corp. of America peanuts, which doesn't include any national
consumer brands of PB as far as I know.
Does that mean I'd trust a Brand X peanut butter that's not on the
list? Probably not.
>
> For food stamps???????
>
> Are you sure????
>
> This sounds a lot more like a food bank thing.
Or WIC (a mother/child nutrition program), which does specify
particular foods. I agree that this doesn't describe food stamp
programs that I'm familiar with. Perhaps NotMe would like to tell us
what state he's talking about.
Dave
Evelyn Leeper
There are a lot of people living in small apartments with minimal
cooking facilities, minimal cooking utensils, and so on. Low-income
apartments these days often have "mini-kitchens" that have a microwave
but no stove. This does not make cooking cheap nutritious meals easy.
Let me repeat that--many of these people may not have any cooking
facilities other than a microwave oven.
That said, the food stamp program would work better if it came with a
course on preparing inexpensive meals and a start-up budget to allow the
purchase of basic cookware and utensils. I can't find a reference, but
I could swear I heard that during the Depression, Mayor LaGuardia read a
recipe for pasta e fagioli over the radio as an example of a cheap
nutritious meal.
elise d faber
an even more serious problem than few cooking facillities is lack of
security for your pantry. if your brother/sister or whomever is going
to raid your pantry, itis certainly a disincentive to stock up on
food. this can be a real problem if your relative brings their kids
over and says 'they are hungry.'and you know it's true even if you
also know that it's because the parents spent the food money on other
things.
but the cooking facilities problem can be solved at salvation army or
somesuch. a hot plate, crock pot and minimal pots and pans can be
gotten there cheaply. even if you can't cook to freeze, at least you
can make hot cereal and inexpensive meals.
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.
elise
Napoleon
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.
clams_casino
>On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, edie...@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!
>
>
>
Equal opportunity education.
BigDog1
wrote:
I wish I could get $580.00 a month in food stamps. That would keep my
wife and I and our dog fed, with enough left over to sell on the black
market to keep my gas tank full, and plenty of beer in the 'fridge.
BigDog1
> 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!
suds macheath
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, edie...@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!
----They still have it here (Fl).
suds macheath
> On Feb 24, 1:20 pm, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> 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.....
BigDog1
> BigDog1 wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 1:20 pm, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net> 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.....
No......SOME schools still teach Home Ec. I'm guessing of course, but
I'd bet that MOST don't. I know three school districts scattered
across the country (NE, mid-Atlantic, Northern Plains) that don't and
haven't for years (decades).
The course ought to be renamed Household Management, moved from the
Industrial Arts Dept to the Social Studies Dept, and be made a
mandatory for all students. At least then, when they go on welfare
and can't manage to feed a family of four on almost 600 tax dollars a
month, no matter where they live, or in what circumstances, we'll know
they're stupid and lazy, not simply uneducated.
metspitzer
I have seen idiots on court TV that owe that much to the cell phone
company.
Marsha
> That said, the food stamp program would work better if it came with a
> course on preparing inexpensive meals and a start-up budget to allow the
> purchase of basic cookware and utensils.
>
I think that would be mostly a waste of time...you can lead a horse,
yada yada yada. IMO, it's not that they don't know how to cook, it's
that they're too lazy.
Marsha
h
"Napoleon" <ana...@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:jfl8q492a7v70beff...@4ax.com...
They still have it (upstate NY). It's now called "Home and Careers" and it
covers basic cooking, sewing, and yes, how to balance a checkbook. Also, all
kids are required to take it, not just the girls.
Joe Negron
> Napoleon wrote:
>
>>Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>>
Probably because it's expensive for what it is. We have it, but eat it
mostly when time is at more of a premium than cost.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dreaming permits each and every one of us to be quietly and safely
insane every night of our lives.
--Charles William Dement
War is good for business - invest your son.
--antiwar bumper sticker from the 1960s
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Negron from Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, NY, USA
Evelyn Leeper
> On 2009-02-24, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> Napoleon wrote:
>>
>>> Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>>>
>> I'm not sure why so many are down on cereals. [...]
>
> Probably because it's expensive for what it is. We have it, but eat it
> mostly when time is at more of a premium than cost.
>
Someone once figured out that many brand-name cereals cost more than steak.
Realizing that Passover cereal is not a good metric, I'll still note I
just paid $2.99 for 5.5 ounces of cereal for a friend of mine. That
works out to almost $9 a pound (and about 60 cents a serving).
Last time I check Wheaties was a while ago, but they were almost $5 a
pound (not on sale), or 30 cents a serving.
Oatmeal, on the other hand is very cheap--about 6 cents a serving. Even
the packets are only about 15 cents a serving.
The most economical dry cereals are store and Malt-O-Meal brands in bags
on sale.
Rod Speed
> Joe Negron wrote:
>> On 2009-02-24, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>> Napoleon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain
>>>> oatmeal.
>>> I'm not sure why so many are down on cereals. [...]
>>
>> Probably because it's expensive for what it is. We have it, but
>> eat it mostly when time is at more of a premium than cost.
> Someone once figured out that many brand-name cereals cost more than steak.
You only get a silly result like that by using the weight.
You dont get anything like that with the price per serve.
> Realizing that Passover cereal is not a good metric, I'll still note I
> just paid $2.99 for 5.5 ounces of cereal for a friend of mine. That
> works out to almost $9 a pound (and about 60 cents a serving).
The per serve cost is what matters.
> Last time I check Wheaties was a while ago, but they were almost $5 a pound (not on sale), or 30 cents a serving.
The per serve cost is what matters.
> Oatmeal, on the other hand is very cheap--about 6 cents a serving. Even the packets are only about 15 cents a serving.
Sure, but some prefer to pay more for what they prefer.
Plenty do that with steak instead of eating just the cheapest meat they can find.
clams_casino
> Joe Negron wrote:
>
>> On 2009-02-24, clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Napoleon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cereal is outrageous. I buy the cheap puffed wheat or plain oatmeal.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure why so many are down on cereals. [...]
>>
>>
>> Probably because it's expensive for what it is. We have it, but eat it
>> mostly when time is at more of a premium than cost.
>>
>
> Someone once figured out that many brand-name cereals cost more than
> steak.
>
> Realizing that Passover cereal is not a good metric, I'll still note I
> just paid $2.99 for 5.5 ounces of cereal for a friend of mine. That
> works out to almost $9 a pound (and about 60 cents a serving).
>
> Last time I check Wheaties was a while ago, but they were almost $5 a
> pound (not on sale), or 30 cents a serving.
>
That does seem expensive to me, but the shredded wheat, Miniwheats &
Special K we typically consume are under $2.50/ lb (sometimes as low as
$2/lb) - typically purchased with coupons via Walmart and or on sale at
the conventional grocer. With milk at $2/gallon (at Aldi's &
Cumberland Farms - not Walmart) , a cereal breakfast is typically
cheaper than a piece of fruit. Steak is cheaper?. I can't find
hamburger that cheap, assuming I'd want to face a burger in the
morning. Than again, I'd be concerned about $2.00/lb hamburger any time
of the day.
Vic Smith
<PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>That does seem expensive to me, but the shredded wheat, Miniwheats &
>Special K we typically consume are under $2.50/ lb (sometimes as low as
>$2/lb) - typically purchased with coupons via Walmart and or on sale at
>the conventional grocer. With milk at $2/gallon (at Aldi's &
>Cumberland Farms - not Walmart) , a cereal breakfast is typically
>cheaper than a piece of fruit. Steak is cheaper?. I can't find
>hamburger that cheap, assuming I'd want to face a burger in the
>morning. Than again, I'd be concerned about $2.00/lb hamburger any time
>of the day.
Aside from personal taste in cereal, which can't be helped, there are,
or at least were, wide differences in nutritional value of cereals.
When I was a kid I liked Sugar Corn Pops, but sometimes found myself
wanting Cheerios, even though I didn't much care for them.
I think it was in the 70's Consumer Reports did a test of cereals
using rats.
As I recall they had groups fed cereal with milk, and cereal alone.
The only "cereal alone" that the rats thrived on was Cheerios.
Didn't really surprise me, as my body had told me the same thing years
before that.
CR speculated something about it being the protein in the oat flour.
The wheat cereals did very poorly, as did the sugared stuff.
--Vic
The Real Bev
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:05:32 GMT, edie...@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.
I had to take that. I learned to make creamed chipped beef on toast and a
fluffy omelet, both of which were close to inedible. I also learned that it is
ESSENTIAL to wash dishes from left to right, no exceptions. And I made a
gathered skirt. Definitely worth spending time on.
> Now both
> males and females are clueless about cooking and keeping a home. What
> an improvement!
Guys had to take that class too, and both girls and boys had to take shop. I
made a wood number-plate for my house and printed something I set with type from
the California job case. Again, useful skills.
Yes, I jest.
> Oh, and a basic class on balancing a checkbook would be nice for all
> Americans, included politicians and CEOs of banking institutions.
If they ever see the need, they'll have minions to do that for them.
--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================
"Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion."
JonK
Zackly right!
I'd cut their rations in half. Let em fast toward the end of the month.
wilm...@gmail.com
> Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> > Joe Negron wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
With a little imagination, one can get much more value out of a box
of cereal. At my home we use everything from a box except the crunch.
First, make sure you buy the type of cereal that has a prize inside.
Take out the prize before the brats get a hold of it. The prize can be
put away and then wrapped and given away for birthdays and Christmas.
The inside Sta-Fresh bag can be used as a book cover to keep the
little monsters' school books clean and tidy. They can also be re-used
(after proper washing) to keep fruits and vegtables fresh.
The boxes themselves can have a hole cut in the front and used as
household slippers. My hubbie loves them.
The art work on some boxes are truely art. I cut out the front and
frame and hang. The rec room is full of Wheaties sports art, the one
who is just like his father has his room decorated with Count Chocula
and Frankenberry, and my little tramp-to-be just loves the princess
pictures we've hanged.
The boxtops usually have a coupon that when collected can be redeemed
for Betty Crocker merchandise. Ony 35,483 more coupons and we will
have enough to get that spoon that matches the fork we already have.
My dear husband (as long as he has the life insurance paid up) says
nothing beats Luck Charms boxes to fill the holes in the bottom of his
shoes, thus saving a fortune in socks.
Speaking of Lucky Charms, my family has spent many a holiday season
around the Christmas tree stringing up the marshmellow charms to drape
around the Yule tree. And they don't go to waste 'cause the little
delinquents have a special X-Mas morning treat of marshmellow
omelettes after they have opened their presents of decoder rings and
Disney keychain collectables.
Seerialmom
wrote:
> 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 $580 groceries / mo?
Food stamps are good for only edible items. Unfortunately this also
includes candy, soda, chips and other items of questionable nutrition
value. Depending on where you live and the proximity to a regular
grocery store will make a difference. Buying at the local mom/pop
store or 7-11 is considerably higher than buying at WinCo. But I'm
sure it's more about "what" is being bought. Unfortunately we
probably have a whole generation that has no idea how to cook from
scratch, too. If you can't throw it in the microwave for 20 minutes
it's too hard to do.
Seerialmom
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remember an outreach program when my kids were toddlers where
someone from the local USDA office (it was some county thing, the same
office handled the 4-H), came around in my neighborhood and offered
hints, tips and guides about budget shopping/cooking. Some of the
things they suggested included buying "bulgar". I had no idea what
that was, never ate it in my life but the tips were fine...but they
were preaching to the choir since I had been shopping frugally since I
got my first apartment. The guide was similar to this updated one:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/MiscPubs/FoodPlansRecipeBook.pdf
Seerialmom
> "Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in messagenews:gnvm87$l8i$1...@news.datemas.de...
> : hchick...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> : > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:39:51 -0600, Dave Garland: > <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
> : >: >> clams_casino wrote:
>
> : >>> How could a
> : >>> young family of four not live relatively well on $580 groceries / mo?
> : >> Seems like a lot to me, but I didn't see the show.
> : >>
> : >> A few possibilities are, poor choices, special needs (allergies etc.)
> : >> living in a rural area (everything costs more and there isn't much
> : >> competition), living somewhere like Alaska or Hawaii, living in an
> : >> inner city without a car (corner stores are very expensive).
> : >>
> : >> Dave
> : >
> : > In emailed conversation with the fellow who had the shopping
> : > comparison website, he stated that the cost of food in Hawaii is
> : > roughly 3 times that of stateside.
> : >
> : > Food is an area where you often pay now or pay later. A store
> : > recently had bologna on sale for $1 a package. I tried it with
> : > mustard, I tried it fried, I tried it smothered, and I still ended up
> : > throwing it out. I hate to think of the processed chicken joints that
> : > I was eating.
> :
> : If I'm not mistaken, food stamps are proportionate to the cost of living
> : in your area. If you live in a high-cost area, you get more.
> :
> Some areas mandate what you can 'buy'. As example in the foster family
> program they get 10 gal of milk per month per kid, regardless if the kid or
> anyone in the family can tolerate milk. By the same token if the kid
> requires a special diet such as soy milk you're SOL. Don't even think about
> special (read expensive) baby formula.
>
> They get pounds of cheese as well, which is useless if the kids have
> allergies to milk products.
>
> Right now peanut butter is a mandated item but also on the recall list, so
> go figure.
Are you sure you're not confusing foodstamps with "WIC"? WIC requires
specific purchases of milk, cereal, cheese, orange juice and peanut
butter and it's to supplement the diet of at-risk children
(nutritional).