• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Limosine Liberal Gwyneth Paltrow Fails Food Stamp Challenge

If she lives in a major city and spent $29 on just those items, then she is an idiot. They would cost me $11-$15, leaving me with $14-$18 with which I could easily buy a 4 lb. pork shoulder, ready-made mole sauce spice, and a couple more pounds of raw veggies.

Apparently, I have been winning at this "challenge" for 25 years, because at age 45, I have never in my adult life averaged more than $29 per week (or $58 combined with my wife) in groceries, and most people are jealous of my meals.

This week, I made a hearty 3 serving meal of wine-braised beef cheeks on top of fontina cheese grits, and it cost me a total of $5. I could have made it 8 servings for $5 by using pork shoulder instead of beef cheeks, but I'm an elitist.

I can imagine that people with major dietary restrictions living in isolated rural areas with few stores and not even cheap "big-box" stores would have trouble. But either Paltrow set out to intentionally fail to make a political point (extremely likely), or she's a pampered 1% who never shops for or cooks her own food.

BTW, it is also worth noting that doing it for a single week is actually harder to have meal variety than when you buy things that carry over across weeks. For example, that is enough rice and beans to have at almost every single meal for a week (e.g., about 16 cups of cooked rice), which she would need to do if only doing this for 1 week. Granted most of the world's population today and through history eat such things as the foundation of every meal their whole lives. "Variety" most of us expect and think we "need" is a modern first world invention. But the rice and beans are dried and last months. So, one can spread them out over a whole month, only eating them a few times per week, and do the same with many other items bought with the budget for other weeks, thus greatly multiplying the variability in meals per week while still only spending $29 per week.
 
Well, that's what you get when you send your servants to the organic aisle of the Whole Foods in Malibu instead of the ramen aisle at Walmart.
 
$29 for food does not sound like it would be enough for one person. Staples like eggs, milk and bread would take chunk out the budget.
 
It's almost as if the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program is not designed to pay for all your food.
 
Apparently, I have been winning at this "challenge" for 25 years, because at age 45, I have never in my adult life averaged more than $29 per week (or $58 combined with my wife) in groceries, and most people are jealous of my meals.

Have you ever had to shop to feed two or three kids as well?
 
I could probably do it, easy. Its my chocolate addiction that puts me over it. But given I eat so much pasta and bake my own bread, that puts me in the low end of the food budget.
 
..
Participants are challenged to try to live on $29 worth of food for a week – the average U.S. food stamp budget, according to the Food Bank of New York City.

Fair enough. But:

The amount of benefits the household gets is called an allotment. The net monthly income of the household is multiplied by .3, and the result is subtracted from the maximum allotment for the household size to find the household's allotment. This is because SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 percent of their resources on food.

So the amount from SNAP is in addition to income a recipient already makes. It's supplemental. $29 may be the average SNAP benefit, but this infers that the recipient has other income to pay for food. To say that all the person would have to spend on food is $29 is false. Assuming no other income, the SNAP benefit for a person would be ~$50/wk.
 

Fair enough. But:

The amount of benefits the household gets is called an allotment. The net monthly income of the household is multiplied by .3, and the result is subtracted from the maximum allotment for the household size to find the household's allotment. This is because SNAP households are expected to spend about 30 percent of their resources on food.

So the amount from SNAP is in addition to income a recipient already makes. It's supplemental. $29 may be the average SNAP benefit, but this infers that the recipient has other income to pay for food. To say that all the person would have to spend on food is $29 is false. Assuming no other income, the SNAP benefit for a person would be ~$50/wk.

But...math.

Not fair.
 
Well here I am a married retire living on a mostly fixed income while trying to help my granddaughter by contributing a bit toward her college education. We shop Walmart twice a month with bills averaging $270.00 per visit of which about 180 are for eating stuff. Some hamburger, come fish, some chicken some sausage, lots of veggies, some coffee, some milk, eggs, cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, and some bread. That comes to about $90 a week at Walmart with two small sized appetite seniors who like to prepare interesting stuff. I'm thinking those who claim they can do this and that for pittance are playing politics as am I.

Look anyone can make a pot of chili that works for 14 or 15 meals for about $4.00 for beans, $5.00 for burger, and about one twentieth of $50.00 for spices ($2.50). We do now and again and we refrigerate most of it for up to six months. I know a couple of older people who are on minimum SS who live off one soup for a week. They have to go to food banks, accept food script, and get a few bucks here and there from friends for the food they use this way. They do this because their SS is taken up with electrical bills, housing bills, heating bills, laundry bills, water bills, phone bills, gasoline bills, insurance bills, and the like. No booze, no cigs, no candy, tissues or cleaning goods, no movies, no bowling, no yard tools, or other things like pots, pans, dishes when needed nor blankets outside church charities.

Which of the items above are luxuries or anything but necessities?
 
I average about $500 per month.

I can't eat pasta/rice/grains/starchy vegetables without putting my blood sugar in a tailspin.

So I have to leave out sugars, pastas, rices, beans, most breads, and stick with real lactose free milk product (less sugar) and buy mostly meats and eggs and leafy vegetables. Prices rise accordingly.
 
$29 for food does not sound like it would be enough for one person. Staples like eggs, milk and bread would take chunk out the budget.

It certainly can be. For a period of years I lived on less than this for medical reasons rather than financial ones. I haven't attempted to carefully total up what my wife spends on food but I would be surprised if she exceeds this most of the time. Rule #1 of eating cheap: Look at the weekly ads before you decide what to buy. Keep in mind that the best deals might not show up in your mailbox--for example, here the best deals on produce are usually from Hispanic places. A new one has taken over as our #1 pick and we actually do get their ad in the mailbox. Our previous 3 favorites never sent an ad even when we signed up for them. (One of them does manage to e-mail their ad to us these days, though.)

- - - Updated - - -

I average about $500 per month.

I can't eat pasta/rice/grains/starchy vegetables without putting my blood sugar in a tailspin.

So I have to leave out sugars, pastas, rices, beans, most breads, and stick with real lactose free milk product (less sugar) and buy mostly meats and eggs and leafy vegetables. Prices rise accordingly.

Is lactose-free milk actually less sugar or did they just crack the lactose into it's components?
 
One note from the OP, $29 a week, veggies aren't that easy to get. If you are lucky and have a local company that gets local veggies, it can be much cheaper, but you'll pay a mint at the large markets.
So I have to leave out sugars, pastas, rices, beans, most breads, and stick with real lactose free milk product (less sugar) and buy mostly meats and eggs and leafy vegetables. Prices rise accordingly.
You may want to give Seitan a try. It is gluten mixed with water and bouillon/herbs and cooked in a broth of water and soy/molasses (I don't know if the molasses) would put you over. Buying seitan isn't cheap, but making it is. You can make about 12 packages worth per bag of gluten. Just something to think about.

It certainly can be. For a period of years I lived on less than this for medical reasons rather than financial ones. I haven't attempted to carefully total up what my wife spends on food but I would be surprised if she exceeds this most of the time. Rule #1 of eating cheap: Look at the weekly ads before you decide what to buy.
Oh my fucking god! You are a genius. Let me guess step two, cut coupons?!
 
It certainly can be. For a period of years I lived on less than this for medical reasons rather than financial ones. I haven't attempted to carefully total up what my wife spends on food but I would be surprised if she exceeds this most of the time. Rule #1 of eating cheap: Look at the weekly ads before you decide what to buy. Keep in mind that the best deals might not show up in your mailbox--for example, here the best deals on produce are usually from Hispanic places. A new one has taken over as our #1 pick and we actually do get their ad in the mailbox. Our previous 3 favorites never sent an ad even when we signed up for them. (One of them does manage to e-mail their ad to us these days, though.)

- - - Updated - - -

I average about $500 per month.

I can't eat pasta/rice/grains/starchy vegetables without putting my blood sugar in a tailspin.

So I have to leave out sugars, pastas, rices, beans, most breads, and stick with real lactose free milk product (less sugar) and buy mostly meats and eggs and leafy vegetables. Prices rise accordingly.

Is lactose-free milk actually less sugar or did they just crack the lactose into it's components?

As far as I am aware, all "lactose free" milk and milk products are made by adding a drop of lactase to the bulk milk; the effect is to hydrolyse the lactose into galactose and glucose, and the total sugar content of the milk remains pretty much unchanged by this process. Around here, you can buy lactase to add to untreated milk; or you can by milk that has already been treated. If you mix a few ccs of 'lactose free' with a bottle of untreated milk, and store it in the fridge overnight, the whole bottle will be lactose free by morning.

The energy (and sugar) content of lactose free milk is effectively identical to that of ordinary milk, for consumers who are not lactose intolerant, as the result is indistinguishable from the naturally occurring hydrolysis from the enzyme in the small intestine.

However in lactose intolerant consumers, the use of such 'lactose free' milk renders the sugars available where otherwise they would be excreted in the faeces (it is the rise in osmotic potential in the large intestine due to the presence of undigested lactose that is the cause of many of the symptoms of lactose intolerance such as discomfort and diarrhoea). The metabolically available sugars are therefore rather greater for such patients than would be the case with untreated milk.

If you consume lactose free milk to keep your blood sugar levels low, then you are not achieving anything unless you are lactose intolerant, in which case you are doing more harm than good.
 
Back
Top Bottom