Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

There is no evidence that meat, especially pork, causes hypertension directly. Either treated or undertreated. Cardiovascular disease is a complex disease with mutant genes, environment and poor habits. Consuming processed porcine products occasionally will not hurt someone. People only choose not to eat these products due to beliefs or lifestyle.

Ok...to clarify AKA....it's not directly...what many practicioners have found is it's not the PORK that will kill u...it's processing of...LOL...

Now here is the kicker and I am so glad you brought this up:


Consuming processed porcine products occasionally will not hurt someone.

That is very very true and part of why I have cut back on how much pork I eat is that most of the pork that is cooked has such a high salt content, it's crazy.

I worked for a Nephrology Dept for 7 years (Kidney specialists) and one thing that has been found and is always being reinforced among the African American community who have been patients, is that in order to decrease the rate of hypertension and diabetes and kidney failure, cut out the fried foods...pork chops pork rinds, pickled pigs feet and so on...are so cheap to buy and so high in preservatives that because it's eaten in such high quatities, by the time most people are tested and treated, they are already in bad shape.

And to clarify also, it's not just us, it's prevalent among other nationalities also and there are many reasons why the rate is extremely high among the African American community....and a lot of those folks don't have adequate insurance to cover treatment (meds, dialysis, possible transplant) either.

BTW....did anyone know that a lot of insurances either don't cover (at 100% anyways) or have special provisions set up for those who are in need of organ transplant?

[JWithers]

This is a bit OT, but since y'all brought it up, ITA with the poor quality of affordable foods in supermarkets.

My husband and I began studying nutrition a few years ago as part of lowering his cholesterol. It was horrifying when we discovered the garbage that many readily available, inexpensive, prepared foods are loaded with. (And lots of it was in our pantry!)

Even boneless, skinless chicken breasts (a mainstay in most heart-healthy diets) are often 'enhanced' with a sodium solution and don't get me started onthe hormones.

A box dinner of say, red beans and rice, a fave in our family, in some brands contains over 1000 mg of sodium per serving(plus a bu++load of preservatives and flavorings). You know, "healthy" rice and beans! If you didn't read carefully, you would think it was a bargain, and good for you, too.

Fresh veggies can get expensive, so many on budget go for the frozen varieties. But there again, often times salt and flavorings are added, and of course the longer a veggie is away from the soil, the less nutrition it provides.

The reason, IMHO, for obesity in the poorest people is carbohydrate consumption. Processed white flour and bread. White rice. Potatoes. Seasoned with fatty meats, salt, butter. All of which can be bought on so little money. Over-processed foods with little of no nutritive value.

THEN...the extra weight a person carries around from the empty calories can lead to diabetes, heart disease, liver failure, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc. And who has money for prescription medications or the healthful diet the doctor prescribes?

I stand by my position on education(not going there, no-no), but for the poorest people, buying healthy food is out of their reach. The health problems caused by their poor diets are a even greater burden, again, out of their reach to fix with no health insurance.

I suppose that technically a person who maintains a high enough calorie consuption isn't starving, but you don't have to starve to die from poor nutrition.

It has cost our family a ton (and that's with careful shopping and coupon clipping) more on our grocery bill to eat foods without additives, or prepared, processed foods. It takes more time to prepare and cook now. I thank God I have both the money and the time to feed my family decent food.

But what if you don't? I am kind of tempted to take the $21 challenge and see what I can buy, even at Aldi.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by JWithers

Fresh veggies can get expensive, so many on budget go for the frozen varieties. But there again, often times salt and flavorings are added, and of course the longer a veggie is away from the soil, the less nutrition it provides.

Aaaaactually, flash frozen veggies retain more nutrients than fresh veggies.

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

What is the income threshold to qualify for food stamps? I guess I'm lucky that I never had to find out.

Here's some info from a few pages back:

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Throwing statistics out there...

I did a brief search to see what we're dealing with here. There is always a lag in statistical data related to the overall population of the U.S. and many predictions are based on the last census in 2000. With that said:

1) In 2005, there were 37 million people in poverty (12.6 percent of the population). Though I couldn't readily find more current data, I'd venture to say that the percentage hasn't moved much...if anything, it has increased.

2) The current unemployment rate is 5.4 percent.

3) The 2007 poverty guidelines allow for $10,210 for a single person (in the contiguous 48 states).

So, the statistics back what a number of people have said in this thread. Most of the people in poverty are working.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Aaaaactually, flash frozen veggies retain more nutrients than fresh veggies.


Here's some info from a few pages back:

I appreciate your calling my attention to it, but it doesn't really explain at what point a person qualifies and for how much in food stamps. Is it the single person making less that 11,000 who qualifies for the $21 bucks a week? So even such a person would have some limited about of money to supplement the stamps.

I'm not saying it's enough, but the congressional stunt is silly.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I appreciate your calling my attention to it, but it doesn't really explain at what point a person qualifies and for how much in food stamps. Is it the single person making less that 11,000 who qualifies for the $21 bucks a week? So even such a person would have some limited about of money to supplement the stamps.

I'm not saying it's enough, but the congressional stunt is silly.

I'm not sure they would have much more to spend on food. $10,000 a year is $833 a month. One of my mom's friends who is looking to move into a section 8 apartment makes about that. The rent for his apartment is going to be $375 a month plus all utilities. Figure $100 for heat, electricity and water each month. Add some money for a phone.. $30 minimum. He has a car that is paid for, so he only has to pay car insurance.. about $50 a month for the minimum required by law in Michigan. His medicare premium is $60 a month and he pays about $200 a month for prescriptions. That's $835 and he hasn't bought toilet paper, napkins, shampoo or hygiene products, etc. The $21 a week in food stamps only pays for actual food, none of those other things. He hasn't done laundry yet or bought gas for his car. That's a pretty minimal amount of money to live on.

I don't think it's silly for the congressman to get a taste of how some people live.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm not sure they would have much more to spend on food. $10,000 a year is $833 a month. One of my mom's friends who is looking to move into a section 8 apartment makes about that. The rent for his apartment is going to be $375 a month plus all utilities. Figure $100 for heat, electricity and water each month. Add some money for a phone.. $30 minimum. He has a car that is paid for, so he only has to pay car insurance.. about $50 a month for the minimum required by law in Michigan. His medicare premium is $60 a month and he pays about $200 a month for prescriptions. That's $835 and he hasn't bought toilet paper, napkins, shampoo or hygiene products, etc. The $21 a week in food stamps only pays for actual food, none of those other things. He hasn't done laundry yet or bought gas for his car. That's a pretty minimal amount of money to live on.

I don't think it's silly for the congressman to get a taste of how some people live.

Oh, if they really got a taste of it, it wouldn't be silly. But I don't really think that's what's happening here.

I certainly don't think that people are living well and getting food stamps, but they aren't living like congress lives except for $21 dollar for food.

It's the artificial nature of what they are doing that offends me about it. It's just a publicity stunt. (And I think it's only four people total, right?)

If your mom's friend disabled in some way? (I don't mean that in an insulting way; I'm just wondering what his circumstances are.)

It's hard to talk about this issue without making it sound like I feel 21 dollars is enough and I don't think that it is. On the other hand, what would be the right amount per person to give out weekly for food? How much money should a person have to earn to feed oneself? Is the answer that a person should not have to earn any money? That "enough" money for food should be provided by the government for able bodied adults?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Oh, if they really got a taste of it, it wouldn't be silly. But I don't really think that's what's happening here.

I certainly don't think that people are living well and getting food stamps, but they aren't living like congress lives on except for $21 dollar for food.

It's the artificial nature of what they are doing that offends me about it. It's just a publicity stunt.

If your mom's friend disabled in some way? (I don't mean that in an insulting way; I'm just wondering what his circumstances are.)

Yes, he is disabled and his income is his Social Security Disability. The VA and Worker's Comp both say the other should pay for stuff and it's a big mess. He had old war injuries that weren't debilitating at the time but then after working a physically demanding job for a couple decades, his hips and back and majorly screwed up and he should have hip replacements. It's a pretty major mess. He can't get his pension benefits for another 10 years or so either.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I appreciate your calling my attention to it, but it doesn't really explain at what point a person qualifies and for how much in food stamps. Is it the single person making less that 11,000 who qualifies for the $21 bucks a week? So even such a person would have some limited about of money to supplement the stamps.

I'm not saying it's enough, but the congressional stunt is silly.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html

Also check out the pre-screening tool: www.foodstamps-step1.usda.gov

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html

Also check out the pre-screening tool: www.foodstamps-step1.usda.gov

Thanks! I'm trying to play with the site to figure out what the level of benefits are.

[UGAalum94]

I didn't even read the whole thread, so I apologize in advance:

What is the income threshold to qualify for food stamps? I guess I'm lucky that I never had to find out.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that a person on food stamps would have no other income to be spent on food? I mean, I know you're not going to be rich and be on food stamps, but are all 26 million people trying to live on the food stamps alone?

$21 a week plus 25 to 50 dollars more you earned would still required a lot of planning, but it wouldn't be quite what living on only the stamps would do you.

Are the bottom ten or twelve percent of income earners in the US (which is what I'm figuring the 26 million is out of the 300 million of us total) people who have no income at all?

I think poor people may need more money for food, particularly for healthy food; I'm not really prepared to dispute that. But is what these congressional yahoos are doing really representative of what people on food stamps face? Wouldn't the real situation of surviving on X income total with $21 dollars in food stamps be bad enough without these self aggrandizing jerks pretending to face the same conditions?

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I didn't even read the whole thread, so I apologize in advance:

What is the income threshold to qualify for food stamps? I guess I'm lucky that I never had to find out.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that a person on food stamps would have no other income to be spent on food? I mean, I know you're not going to be rich and be on food stamps, but are all 26 million people trying to live on the food stamps alone?

$21 a week plus 25 to 50 dollars more you earned would still required a lot of planning, but it wouldn't be quite what living on only the stamps would do you.

Are the bottom ten or twelve percent of income earners in the US (which is what I'm figuring the 26 million is out of the 300 million of us total) people who have no income at all?

I think poor people may need more money for food, particularly for healthy food; I'm not really prepared to dispute that. But is what these congressional yahoos are doing really representative of what people on food stamps face? Wouldn't the real situation of surviving on X income total with $21 dollars in food stamps be bad enough without these self aggrandizing jerks pretending to face the same conditions?

Good point. It was kind of a dog-and-pony show.

It seems to me that with the epidemic of diet-related health issues, it would be a priority to make healthy foods less expensive, or increase the supplement for WIC and food stamps. That's just good business sense for old Govco. Damage control. Paying for sick people with no insurance is a lot more expensive.

When my grandparents went through the depression, there were a lot of truly poor and hungry people. But this country was still a very rural one and many people had access to foods grown and raised on their own farms in in their backyards. They may not have had much but at least it wasn't nutritionally bankrupt. Those aren't real options in today's world. At least not for most of us.

So that $21 is a big part of a family's total grocery budget (hopefully not the entire budget). I am sure most families have some other means, but I will bet it's not much.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by JWithers

Good point. It was kind of a dog-and-pony show.

It seems to me that with the epidemic of diet-related health issues, it would be a priority to make healthy foods less expensive, or increase the supplement for WIC and food stamps. That's just good business sense for old Govco. Damage control. Paying for sick people with no insurance is a lot more expensive.

When my grandparents went through the depression, there were a lot of truly poor and hungry people. But this country was still a very rural one and many people had access to foods grown and raised on their own farms in in their backyards. They may not have had much but at least it wasn't nutritionally bankrupt. Those are real options in today's world. At least not for most of us.

So that $21 is a big part of a family's total grocery budget (hopefully not the enitre budget). I am sure most families have some other means, but I will bet it's not much.

with all thats being said in this thread...if we keep things up...in order for us to get totally healthy food we may hasve to start hunting and growing our own food again...heh

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

with all thats being said in this thread...if we keep things up...in order for us to get totally healthy food we may hasve to start hunting and growing our own food again...heh

Right? I am sure my neighbors wouldn't mind if I tore up my back yard and put in some beans and tomatoes! BTW, I meant to post "AREN'T real options".....

[UGAalum94]

I don't know that for sure, but it seems to me that we've been in need of reviewing how the gov't subsidizes food for low income people for a while.

In previous, less sedentary days, (when kids would have been involved in active play, teenagers in manual labor, and adults in manual labor plus maybe walking more for transportation), school lunches and food stamps and WIC funds were all set up to guarantee a lot of calories. High fat foods were an easy way to do that.

Now, we live very differently, and our big problem isn't starvation as much as obesity and nutritionally empty calories. It seems like "they" have started to review this with school lunches, so maybe, they will follow through with food stamps and other forms of food aid.

About politics, here's the thing as I see it: I think it's possible to conclude that the government is never going to successfully make everything equal. The societies that have made economic equality the most important government function haven't, in my opinion, worked out that well. On some level, you have to try to take care of all people, but you can't ever make it so good for people who can't or don't work that not working becomes as attractive as working. We have a moral duty to our fellow man, but the government may be the least effective and most destructive way to deliver on that duty.

So, maybe the government keeps you from starving, and if you will stay off drugs and avoid violence and take your medicine for mental illness, should help you find basic shelter. Maybe the gov't should provide basic preventative care, so we cut down on the expenses for emergency services later. But we can't really set up a system where the gov't provides everything for everyone or the whole thing will go under. And we can't keep treating people who continually make destructive decisions as if they aren't responsible for those decisions because what they do hurts other people. Kevin sounds mean spirited in these debates, but some of the rest of you seem downright delusional about what the gov't can actually do for people.

[JWithers]

I agree that often times, poor personal choices put people in the position to need assistance for food, etc.

However, children are not responsible for those choices made by their parents. But if the only food that these kids are fed is laced with chemicals, preservatives, sodium, fat and zero vitamins and minerals, nor dietary fiber, these kids will perform poorly at school, have more health problems (and frankly, taxpayers like myself so not want to pay for their medical bills) and fall behind in general.

All moral obligation to fellow man aside, it just seems like if I were running a company(hello; government?), I would want my employees happy and healthy and productive. It would save me money in the end to prevent a problem, rather than fix it once it occurs.

Again, people see this obesity epidemic and think that we are the best-fed country in the world. Well, most caloric intake does not = best fed. Some of these kids are fat maybe, but certainly not healthy or well fed. I guess the same for adults in the lowest SE groups.

I agree with Kevin on personal choice leading to a rough life. But children shouldn't have to pay that price and as a taxpayer, I would like to see my dollars go for nutrionally sound food programs, not for 'how much cheap crap can I buy" WIC programs.