kelpie Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 So here I am in lovely canada watching a fundraiser for N'Orleans and across the bottom of the screen flashes the legend '$100 buys a family of four meals for two days' Now forgive me but this seems a trifle luxurious. Forget the fact that it's dollars, since one dollar is worth to me what one pound is to you, and work out how many days you could feed your family on 100 quid if you had to. I reckon i could get a week out of a ton. Just one more piece of evidence that the Americans are the biggest wasters on the planet.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 So here I am in lovely canada watching a fundraiser for N'Orleans and across the bottom of the screen flashes the legend '$100 buys a family of four meals for two days' Now forgive me but this seems a trifle luxurious. Forget the fact that it's dollars, since one dollar is worth to me what one pound is to you, and work out how many days you could feed your family on 100 quid if you had to. I reckon i could get a week out of a ton. Just one more piece of evidence that the Americans are the biggest wasters on the planet.....? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What I don't understand is why money should be sent to the US when the US is squandering billions slaughtering a generation of Iragis. If the US government can allocate > $60 billion why should others join in - what difference will it make? Anyway 4 x 2 x 3 = 24 meals for $100 which isn't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 My weekly shopping bill for the three of us is normally around Stg85 and that includes my weekly box of wine and all the other fripperies. I agree Kelpie, it does seem extravagent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 100 nicker? by crikey. ive been homeless before, for four months. 100 nicker is like winning the lottery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 I reckon i could get a week out of a ton. Yep I reckon I could as well. Anyone else reckon they could manage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 More than a week really. You can live quite comfortably on potatoes, rice, noodles and pasta with rice, beans, soups. I mean, they have tins of baked beans for 10p and packets of 10 fishfingers for 18p in supermarkets. It might not be the most balanced way to eat as there's little fresh fruit but it will get you through a reasonable period of time. When I was in my flat on my own at the tail end of the 90s, I used to go shopping once every two months and I'd spend about £150 total. Sure, I'd have to buy bread, milk and fruit during that time, but apart from that, it was just what I bought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 McDonalds, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 McDonalds, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No! The thread was about FOOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontlookbehindyou Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 £100 to £150 my shopping bill comes to once a month and that includes household stuff and smellies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 carbs are the only thing the body actually cant survive without. man can live on bread alone. unless he's injured. or he's got some weird skin disease. or he's fussy. so yeah, beans, bread, pasta are cheap as chips, and so are chips, anything else is pretty much a luxury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 But if they can't get into their homes, are they in a position to cook? Which would mean that many of the options you talk about aren't available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theintelligentthug Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 beans and bread can be eaten raw. there are other alternatives. there nowhere to cook when youre homeless either, but i managed. and pretty well too i might add. most grains can be soaked overnight, and eaten cold. im sure theyre in a position to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesemonster2005 Posted September 12, 2005 Share Posted September 12, 2005 So here I am in lovely canada watching a fundraiser for N'Orleans and across the bottom of the screen flashes the legend '$100 buys a family of four meals for two days' Now forgive me but this seems a trifle luxurious. Forget the fact that it's dollars, since one dollar is worth to me what one pound is to you, and work out how many days you could feed your family on 100 quid if you had to. I reckon i could get a week out of a ton. Just one more piece of evidence that the Americans are the biggest wasters on the planet.....? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What I don't understand is why money should be sent to the US when the US is squandering billions slaughtering a generation of Iragis. If the US government can allocate > $60 billion why should others join in - what difference will it make? Anyway 4 x 2 x 3 = 24 meals for $100 which isn't too bad. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree with both of these comments. 100GBP (or in this case 100$) should last a family of four for about 10 days. You must remember though that these are Americans who consume an estimated 33% more than other Westerners. Maybe they need to heat the food as they are no longer in their own homes but considering there are upto 80,000 homeless after Katrina bulk-buying all the necessary food should reduce costs a lot. I'm also not happy to aid America while they are still spending in Iraq. They really are wasting millions every day on a futile war in Iraq based on false evidence and misleading aims. If they only reduced the amount they spend on killing Iraqis they would be able to feed and house all those affected by Katrina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Unlike Africa, money to be spent on food is not the problem in America. What they are actually short of is intelligent leadership and organisation and donations aren't going to solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.