Really? I would have though that would be a stretch, unless you can bulk-buy rice and pasta on the absolute cheap.tattuchu wrote:It would be easy to live on ten dollars a week if you ate nothing but rice and pasta, and drank water. No meat. No vegetables. Maybe you could also get a loaf of bread. No butter, though. Jam? Forget it.klr wrote:Hold on ... food prices in the USA are not much cheaper than in Ireland or the UK, are they? 10 dollars is about 7.50 Euro at current exchange rates. I would struggle mightily to just meet basic - and I do mean basic - breakfast and fruit requirements with that.Coito ergo sum wrote: ...
$200 is a lot of money for one person for food. If I had to, I know I could survive on $10/week, no problem. I'm not saying the needy SHOULD only get $10 per week. It's just an indication that with some care, that $200 can go a fucking long way. I'm not against helping the needy. I'm against the jackalopes who scam the system.
In any event, it matters not: It would be grossly unhealthy, and therefore doesn't count. Even "primitive" hunter-gatherers would have a much better diet than that.
Anyway ... back to $ 200 a month. Let's say $ 45 a week, or c. 34 Euro. I could live on that, but I'd have to stop buying a full roll every day, which counts as my main meal. Beyond that, I could cut costs in other areas by buying more cheaply than I do at present, or by cutting some things out altogether. But even as it is, I buy a lot of generic (cheap) brands, rather than the much more costly big-name brands.