I fed myself on $2 a day for a month — here are my 9 best tips for making it work

[beerftw]

yeah! Thats the only way to make it..CAST IRON

bean soup and cornbread, last time I made it, I did not have a ham bone so I improvised and used some strips of about to expire bacon for flavor. I had every neighbor knowing on my door asking what I was making and if I would share. Black, white, hispanic or asian does not matter, everyone loves it.

 

[phattonez]

I do not know about way too easy, cowboy stew can meet everyones diet needs depending on what is thrown in it, but I doubt anyone would want to make giant batches as a time in a crawfish boiling pot freeze the extras then eat it every day for months or years straight.

Bean soup on the other hand, boiled for 24 hours with a ham bone for flavor, I could eat that every day.

Given that the guy in the OP could live on $32 a month, and the standard benefits for someone with no income is more than 3x that amount, then I'd say that yes it's way too easy.

 

[Kushinator]

Given that the guy in the OP could live on $32 a month, and the standard benefits for someone with no income is more than 3x that amount, then I'd say that yes it's way too easy.

You'd say? :lol:

The guy in the OP did it for 1 month, and does not recommend it. Why? Not only is it unrewarding and a pain in the ass, but the type of diet required to eat on $62 a month might lead to health problems (your colon could move out).

 

[Baralis]

I have fed myself for less than $3 a day for over four years. My diet consists of daily vegetables and meat/eggs several times a week. Many food options are simply not possible and it does require some effort but it is possible to eat semi healthy for very little money. There are even groups on pinterest and such that share daily meals and menus for a fairly well balanced diet for $2 a day.

 

[Gaius46]

It's really easy to cut down on food expenses. One of the easiest ways is to grow a lot of your own food. Fruits and many spices are easy to grow in your own backyard, or even a patio if you have one. On top of that, stick to staples like rice and pasta. These are all very cheap and give you the calories that you need. And if you have an even larger yard, you could get a few chickens and there is your supply of eggs if you want more protein.

What I find interesting is the fact that this shows that one can live on far less than the current allottment that you get with food stamps. $2 a day works out to $62 a month at most (and I'd argue that you could go far lower than this if you want to).

Going to this handy food stamp calculator, take a look at what you get:
If you plug in $0 of income and no housing costs, you get $189 a month in food stamp benefits. That is easily 3x more money than you need.

So we have the problem where we're giving out far too much in food benefits (living on food stamps shouldn't be comfortable) and creating moral hazard in the process. It's a lose-lose. This is why many Christian charities in the early 20th century and throughout the 19th century were adamantly opposed to government entry into helping the poor. The ensuant result is a depraved culture that breeds addiction and irresponsibility, the modern West.

As can making your own. Pasta is nothing more than flour and eggs. That $2 box of Ronzoni can be hand made at home for pennies. Then you can actually dress it with a simple tomato sauce - again pennies per serving - or a little oil and garlic, similarly cheap.

Ditto for pizza. My wife is a pizza junkie and since I started making my own a few months back she refuses to order a pizza. And a pie again costs less a buck if you use crappy but serviceable bagged mozarella instead of hand made stuff (though you can make that as well for a reasonable cost).

 

[Gaius46]

yeah! Thats the only way to make it..CAST IRON

You can make ANYTHING in a cast iron pan. I know people who've made cakes and pizzas in the things.

 

[Geoist]

I've never done anything as extreme as $2 a day, but I do try to be conscious of my food budget (both for economic and moral reasons). My wife and I are pescatarians (vegetarians who eat seafood) and it is amazing how much you save when you eliminate the farm-raised meats from your diet.

A typical day would look like this:

Breakfast - peanut butter and toast and/or hot tea
Lunch - 2 cups chips and 1 cup hummus
Snack - 1/2 cup Roasted seeds/nuts/fruit
Dinner - Veggie stir fry/Veggie curry/Fish and rice and beans

I never crunched the numbers, but I can't imagine the cost being more than $7 for each of us per day.

Of course, we cheat and order out sometimes, but our minimalist diet has made us feel far healthier than ever.

 

[phattonez]

You'd say? :lol:

The guy in the OP did it for 1 month, and does not recommend it. Why? Not only is it unrewarding and a pain in the ass, but the type of diet required to eat on $62 a month might lead to health problems (your colon could move out).

Should living on food stamps be rewarding and not "a pain in the ass"?

 

[KevinKohler]

Should living on food stamps be rewarding and not "a pain in the ass"?

Let's meet in the middle, then.


10 bucks per day.

 

[KevinKohler]

Should living on food stamps be rewarding and not "a pain in the ass"?

Let's compromise, then. No one's colon should fall out on 5 bucks per day. Thats....what....150 per month?

 

[Master PO]

You can make ANYTHING in a cast iron pan. I know people who've made cakes and pizzas in the things.

....

 

[Kushinator]

Should living on food stamps be rewarding and not "a pain in the ass"?

If you don't believe living on foodstamps is a pain in the ass, well..., i really don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Quag]

2$ doesn't buy very much caviar or champagne, this article is bogus

 

[phattonez]

Let's meet in the middle, then.


10 bucks per day.

Is far more than anyone on welfare should be getting. If you want more, you can either get a job or look to private charities for more help.

 

[phattonez]

If you don't believe living on foodstamps is a pain in the ass, well..., i really don't know what else to tell you.

It's apparently not enough, and also really easy to get. 46 million (more than 10% of the population) is receiving food stamps, at a cost of $76 billion per year. It's a big deal.

 

[phattonez]

Let's compromise, then. No one's colon should fall out on 5 bucks per day. Thats....what....150 per month?

How about, like this article: $2 per day. Food stamps shouldn't be something to live off of, they should be what you have to fall back on but really don't want to if you need it.

Or just cut it altogether and let private charities handle it again as they always did in the past. It's not as if there was mass starvation in this country prior to LBJ.

 

[Turin]

Lack of proper nutrition, while making your diet cheap could impact your health long term and end up costing you more to be honest.

I always get my recommended 3 cups of veggies a day and two-three fruits. Dairy, meat (usually chicken and fish and the occasional spoil of steak).

Agreed - it is a good survival article. Yet - long term could cause health issues that are costly.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It's really easy to cut down on food expenses. One of the easiest ways is to grow a lot of your own food. Fruits and many spices are easy to grow in your own backyard, or even a patio if you have one. On top of that, stick to staples like rice and pasta. These are all very cheap and give you the calories that you need. And if you have an even larger yard, you could get a few chickens and there is your supply of eggs if you want more protein.

What I find interesting is the fact that this shows that one can live on far less than the current allottment that you get with food stamps. $2 a day works out to $62 a month at most (and I'd argue that you could go far lower than this if you want to).

Going to this handy food stamp calculator, take a look at what you get:
If you plug in $0 of income and no housing costs, you get $189 a month in food stamp benefits. That is easily 3x more money than you need.

So we have the problem where we're giving out far too much in food benefits (living on food stamps shouldn't be comfortable) and creating moral hazard in the process. It's a lose-lose. This is why many Christian charities in the early 20th century and throughout the 19th century were adamantly opposed to government entry into helping the poor. The ensuant result is a depraved culture that breeds addiction and irresponsibility, the modern West.

complete BS, when we were on SNAP,zero income, we were getting $124 per person, which works out to $1.37 per meal. We stretched it by having just 2 meals per day. Snap is admin by states, and AZ is extremely tight, our application required multiple resubmissions, large amounts of documentation and a lot of time. It should be easy for families who are food insecure to get benefits in this land of plenty, it should not be a matter of shaming. The House is pushing to make SNAP a block grant program, allowing states to further restrict and to divert funds.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

How about, like this article: $2 per day. Food stamps shouldn't be something to live off of, they should be what you have to fall back on but really don't want to if you need it.

Or just cut it altogether and let private charities handle it again as they always did in the past. It's not as if there was mass starvation in this country prior to LBJ.

Actually, there was starvation during the depression, there is no way that private charities have the capability or money to handle the problem, especially in recessions/depressions.

 

[phattonez]

complete BS, when we were on SNAP,zero income, we were getting $124 per person, which works out to $1.37 per meal. We stretched it by having just 2 meals per day. Snap is admin by states, and AZ is extremely tight, our application required multiple resubmissions, large amounts of documentation and a lot of time. It should be easy for families who are food insecure to get benefits in this land of plenty, it should not be a matter of shaming. The House is pushing to make SNAP a block grant program, allowing states to further restrict and to divert funds.

Why? That's not at all self-evident.

And think about this: you got $124 a month for doing nothing, and yet you're complaining about that. Is complacency something that you want to see encouraged?

 

[phattonez]

Actually, there was starvation during the depression, there is no way that private charities have the capability or money to handle the problem, especially in recessions/depressions.

Really? The number in New York City was 20 during 1931, and 110 in 1934. These are tragedies, of course, but we're not talking about anything remotely like the widespread famine in the USSR in the 1930's. Interestingly socialist policies don't guarantee satisfaction of needs, yet private charity seems to handle the job quite well.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It should be easy for families who are food insecure to get benefits in this land of plenty

Why? That's not at all self-evident.

Really? This is the richest nation on Earth, it's distribution systems are unmatched, as is its food production....but somehow the ability to share/distribute basic sustenance easily and cheaply during recessions/depressions....is not self evident? Really.

And think about this: you got $124 a month for doing nothing, and yet you're complaining about that.

Again, it was not enough to provide 3 squares for anyone who is doing a lot of something, namely hustling to find employment. $1.37 per meal is food insecurity, is calorie restrictive, causes weight loss, increases stress in a highly stressful situation....and this is in a system where many do not use the system because of the hurdles put in place. SNAP in Tucson has offices where banners are in place celebrating the levels of "savings", ie denials. It is not a system to get help to those in need, it is a system built on limiting benefits as much as possible.

Is complacency something that you want to see encouraged?

a feeling of smug or uncritical satisfaction with oneself or one's achievements.

Is that what you think I am, "complacent", when I talk about my experience in dealing with AHCCCS in AZ?
The forum rules won't allow me to tell you here how I feel about your person, but your argument can go straight to hell.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Really? The number in New York City was 20 during 1931, and 110 in 1934. These are tragedies, of course, but we're not talking about anything remotely like the widespread famine in the USSR in the 1930's.

Starvation is not only death, and shortsighted argument that uses words it does not comprehend displays a general ignorance. I could go and point you to all sorts of documentation of starvation in the US as a result of the Great Depression, but why should I when it is available for anyone to know if they are interested.

Further, if you are referring to Stalin's Holodomor, that was genocide, it was not a distribution issue.

Interestingly socialist policies don't guarantee satisfaction of needs, yet private charity seems to handle the job quite well.

Again, it is the height of absurdity to believe that US charities did then or could now cope with US food distribution to those in need during economic depressions.

 

[longview]

I was thinking about the OP position of $2 per day per person. (He was just feeding himself).
For a family of 4 that would be $62 per week, I think it could be done,
and even have some extras.
While it has been a few years, when my kids were young, I think we were
only spending about $60 a week on groceries.
That is a lot of chicken leg quarters!

 

[Kushinator]

It should be easy for families who are food insecure to get benefits in this land of plentyReally? This is the richest nation on Earth, it's distribution systems are unmatched, as is its food production....but somehow the ability to share/distribute basic sustenance easily and cheaply during recessions/depressions....is not self evident? Really.

Yet Tony has no problem ignoring the enormous food subsidies for farmers that are baked into all agricultural legislation. The federal government has a duty to ensure the production they encourage (for pricing/market purposes) through subsidies is consumed on the front end. As if it would be possible to feed oneself on $2/day without that meddling interference by the federal government.