This statement right here says it all: "Now I should disclose that I have low blood sugar. At the very least this means, I get cranky if I don’t eat, at its worst I get dizzy and pass out. On my food stamp diet, I was getting 300 calories per meal — 200 fewer calories than my body was used to. In order to function I needed to supplement my food stamp purchases with extra snacks."
Guess what, I don't get that luxury and neither does anyone else on SNAP. Try being diabetic, or some one with celiacs, or even having a food allergy.. That aside learning to be frugal with limited funds for food takes time and practice, not something someone is going to learn in a week. For those "new" to being on SNAP, it is a hell of and adjustment.
In my own trial, which would last a week, I decided to split the difference between the $50 weekly allotment that a New Yorker would get through SNAP with the national average of $33. Thus, I would only buy $41 worth of groceries. My plan was to rely solely on these groceries, and to avoid supplementing my SNAP-purchased goods with food already in my pantry. The exceptions would be sauces (like soy sauce, and BBQ) and cooking materials like oil, salt and pepper, which many household kitchens have.
At first, $41 seemed like a lot of money for a week’s worth of food, but this was $41, full stop — not $41 (unless I’m running late for work and need to stop by a coffee shop for a muffin) and not $41 (and then ordering from Seamless because the temperature has dropped and I wanted to cozy up with some hot soup). This was $41 to pay for three meals a day for seven days. This was going to require some planning.
[,,,]
Trying to stretch my meager food budget, I found that while some healthy items were expensive — anything organic or gluten free jumped in price, and meat prices are very high — fruits, veggies and oatmeal were far less expensive than frozen meals or cereal. The most difficult part was preparing and portioning out my meals.
I made the baked pasta dish for my first SNAP dinner with the hope that it would last me at least seven non-breakfast meals. It only lasted me six: three days worth of lunch and dinner. At that point, I started to panic. Would rice, eight mini-chicken tenders, a pepper, and a small bag of Green Giant stir-fry veggies really last me eight more meals? I had no choice but to plan differently. Rather than cook giant batches, which I proved inept at rationing for long periods of time, I’d have to cook in waves of one or two meals at once.
[,,,]
For my first meal post-food stamps I was craving something rice-less, healthy and obtained with efficacy. Living in New York, it was difficult to turn down the splurge-worthy allure of ordering food online. As I hit the purchase button for a kale salad with chicken and a “soup of the day,” I was viscerally shocked at the total. With tax and a decent tip, it came to half of what I’d spent in the previous week for all of my meals. With this awareness, I lost my appetite.
What I learned from a week on food stamps: Paul Ryan couldn’t be any more wrong - Salon.com
Showing posts with label War on Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Poverty. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Monday, January 13, 2014
1964's War on Poverty: Failed or abandoned? - Philly.com
Fifty years and one day after President Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty, LeBaron Harvey was slicing strawberries last week in Cathedral Kitchen, a Camden nonprofit that feeds the poor.
Growing up in Camden, Harvey, 32, said he was kept alive by the food-stamp program, greatly expanded under Johnson's initiatives. Harvey learned to be a chef at Cathedral; he hopes to open an Asian/soul-food restaurant.
"In the projects I come from, food stamps were a main means of income," said Harvey, quick and efficient with the knife that's become his weapon of choice in LBJ's endless war. "After my [janitor] dad was laid off, our household collapsed. The program was all we had."
Food stamps still are a major part of the safety net that Johnson began weaving in 1964.
Regardless, the political right insists that the war on poverty has been lost, with trillions of dollars wasted. Their proof? Nearly 50 million Americans - including almost 27 percent of Philadelphians - continue to live in poverty.
[,,,]
That the war on poverty failed is easy to show, conservatives say.
The official national poverty measure was 14 percent in 1967 and is about 15 percent today.
A Columbia University study released last month - and officially presented to President Obama - suggests those numbers may be misleading.
A newer method of calculating poverty gives a more accurate picture of deprivation. The so-called supplemental poverty measure takes into account the benefits that the poor receive - including SNAP, tax credits, WIC, and school meals. It also totes up how much a family pays to survive, including health-care costs, taxes, child care, and housing.
Looking through this new lens, Columbia researchers found that the poverty rate in 1967 was closer to 26 percent, while the rate in 2011 (the latest available) was 16 percent.
Given these calculations, researchers said, the war on poverty actually did have an effect, since poverty fell almost 40 percent.
1964's War on Poverty: Failed or abandoned? - Philly.com
Growing up in Camden, Harvey, 32, said he was kept alive by the food-stamp program, greatly expanded under Johnson's initiatives. Harvey learned to be a chef at Cathedral; he hopes to open an Asian/soul-food restaurant.
"In the projects I come from, food stamps were a main means of income," said Harvey, quick and efficient with the knife that's become his weapon of choice in LBJ's endless war. "After my [janitor] dad was laid off, our household collapsed. The program was all we had."
Food stamps still are a major part of the safety net that Johnson began weaving in 1964.
Regardless, the political right insists that the war on poverty has been lost, with trillions of dollars wasted. Their proof? Nearly 50 million Americans - including almost 27 percent of Philadelphians - continue to live in poverty.
[,,,]
That the war on poverty failed is easy to show, conservatives say.
The official national poverty measure was 14 percent in 1967 and is about 15 percent today.
A Columbia University study released last month - and officially presented to President Obama - suggests those numbers may be misleading.
A newer method of calculating poverty gives a more accurate picture of deprivation. The so-called supplemental poverty measure takes into account the benefits that the poor receive - including SNAP, tax credits, WIC, and school meals. It also totes up how much a family pays to survive, including health-care costs, taxes, child care, and housing.
Looking through this new lens, Columbia researchers found that the poverty rate in 1967 was closer to 26 percent, while the rate in 2011 (the latest available) was 16 percent.
Given these calculations, researchers said, the war on poverty actually did have an effect, since poverty fell almost 40 percent.
1964's War on Poverty: Failed or abandoned? - Philly.com
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Marco Rubio: Minimum wage plan ‘stale’ - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com
Uhm, so Mr Rubio, what exactly is YOUR plan again? The only thing I have heard from you and your ilk is how you want to regulate my uterus and whom I am allowed to sleep with. I'm not so sure that helps the job market or lifts people out of poverty. All we see are your threats to eliminate programs altogether: slashing SNAP, not extending unemployment and hindering medicaid. None of this does anything to lift us out of poverty.
And what exactly is "opportunity inequality?" Sounds like a catch phrase for doing away with minimum wage, something your handlers would love. You haven't offered any solutions just more whinny rhetoric,,,
“The president’s focused on income inequality, the difference between the rich and the poor and the gap that’s grown, and that’s the wrong focus. It doesn’t give you a complete picture,” the Florida senator said.
Instead, Rubio says “opportunity inequality” needs to be the focus of reform and proposes control of anti-poverty programs should be handed to the states as the current government programs do not help people emerge from poverty.
“I do not believe, in fact, I know that Washington and its one-size-fits-all approach is not conducive to finding the kind of innovative solutions it will take,” Rubio said Thursday on CNN’s “New Day.”
Rubio also has the Democrats in his cross hairs, saying their focus on unemployment benefits rather than finding long-term solutions “is indicative of the flaw in their thinking.”
Marco Rubio: Minimum wage plan ‘stale’ - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com
And what exactly is "opportunity inequality?" Sounds like a catch phrase for doing away with minimum wage, something your handlers would love. You haven't offered any solutions just more whinny rhetoric,,,
“The president’s focused on income inequality, the difference between the rich and the poor and the gap that’s grown, and that’s the wrong focus. It doesn’t give you a complete picture,” the Florida senator said.
Instead, Rubio says “opportunity inequality” needs to be the focus of reform and proposes control of anti-poverty programs should be handed to the states as the current government programs do not help people emerge from poverty.
“I do not believe, in fact, I know that Washington and its one-size-fits-all approach is not conducive to finding the kind of innovative solutions it will take,” Rubio said Thursday on CNN’s “New Day.”
Rubio also has the Democrats in his cross hairs, saying their focus on unemployment benefits rather than finding long-term solutions “is indicative of the flaw in their thinking.”
Marco Rubio: Minimum wage plan ‘stale’ - Lucy McCalmont - POLITICO.com
Kentucky County That Gave War On Poverty A Face Still Struggles : NPR
Maybe this is why the Reich's ideology concerning poverty is so out of touch with reality. There are no faces or names for them, just the numbers: "Mueller says the locals didn't know their role in this new, domestic
war. For the White House, though, coming to Martin County gave poverty a
face — and a name."
In my mind, it highlights the simple gesture of U.S. Sen. Christopher Murphy and other Democrats that have taken the SNAP challenge. They at least are doing exactly what LBJ did, "Johnson visited the Fletchers on the porch of their home — a small wooden structure with fake brick siding. Photographers took what would become one of the iconic images of the war on poverty: the president crouched down, chatting with Tom Fletcher about the lack of jobs.
Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson stood before Congress and declared an "unconditional war on poverty in America." His arsenal included new programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Head Start, food stamps, more spending on education, and tax cuts to help create jobs.
At the time, 1 in 5 Americans was poor. Today, things are better, but tens of millions of Americans are still living at or below the poverty level. That raises the question: Did the war on poverty fail? In the coming year, NPR will explore this question and others about the impact and extent of poverty in the U.S., and what can be done to reduce it.
People in the isolated hills of Martin County, Ky., rarely saw outsiders, let alone a president. So when President Lyndon Johnson visited in 1964 to generate support for his proposed war on poverty, it was a big deal.
[,,,]
Mike Howell runs the Big Sandy Area Community Action Program where the Vinsons went for help. The program is a direct result of the war on poverty. Howell agrees that the war has yet to achieve its goals, but says the reason is a lack of support. The burst of enthusiasm after President Johnson's visit has waned, he says. Every year, his program has to fight for funds.
Kentucky County That Gave War On Poverty A Face Still Struggles : NPR
In my mind, it highlights the simple gesture of U.S. Sen. Christopher Murphy and other Democrats that have taken the SNAP challenge. They at least are doing exactly what LBJ did, "Johnson visited the Fletchers on the porch of their home — a small wooden structure with fake brick siding. Photographers took what would become one of the iconic images of the war on poverty: the president crouched down, chatting with Tom Fletcher about the lack of jobs.
Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Johnson stood before Congress and declared an "unconditional war on poverty in America." His arsenal included new programs: Medicaid, Medicare, Head Start, food stamps, more spending on education, and tax cuts to help create jobs.
At the time, 1 in 5 Americans was poor. Today, things are better, but tens of millions of Americans are still living at or below the poverty level. That raises the question: Did the war on poverty fail? In the coming year, NPR will explore this question and others about the impact and extent of poverty in the U.S., and what can be done to reduce it.
People in the isolated hills of Martin County, Ky., rarely saw outsiders, let alone a president. So when President Lyndon Johnson visited in 1964 to generate support for his proposed war on poverty, it was a big deal.
[,,,]
Mike Howell runs the Big Sandy Area Community Action Program where the Vinsons went for help. The program is a direct result of the war on poverty. Howell agrees that the war has yet to achieve its goals, but says the reason is a lack of support. The burst of enthusiasm after President Johnson's visit has waned, he says. Every year, his program has to fight for funds.
Kentucky County That Gave War On Poverty A Face Still Struggles : NPR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)