Ben Affleck will live on $1.50 a day for ‘Live Below the Line’, like Tom Hiddleston

The Dragonflies will be so happy! Ben Affleck has decided to copy Tom Hiddleston (ha!) and take the “Live Below The Line” challenge. Hiddles did this two weeks ago – he lived on £1 a day (for food) to raise awareness of the hundreds of millions of people in the world living below the poverty line, the people who don’t know where their next meal will come from. Hiddles was posting photos of his “below the line” meals all week. I wonder if Ben will do the same?

Ben Affleck plans to live on $1.50 a day – and he wants you to join him.

While the Oscar winner could certainly afford much more, Affleck is joining other celebrities to shine a light on poverty through the Global Poverty Project’s Live Below the Line campaign. That figure represents the extreme poverty line in the U.S. as estimated by the World Bank.

Affleck Tweeted of his efforts: “1.4 billion people live on less the $1.50/day. I’m joining Live #BelowTheLine on behalf of @easterncongo. Will you?” He plans to feed himself on $1.50 for five days, following in the footsteps of other celebrities who have joined the cause to raise awareness of issues of inequality and poverty around the world.

Jonah Hill, Josh Groban, Sophia Bush and The Avengers actor Tom Hiddleston – who Tweeted earlier this month photos of his scant meals – are among the other celebrities who have said they are participating in the campaign.

Hugh Jackman, who sits on the Global Poverty Project’s board, kicked off the $1.50 day living challenge in 2011, appearing in public service announcements for the campaign. Others active in this year’s project drive are Cooking Channel chefs Debi Mazar and Gabriele Corcos.

More than 20,000 people are expected to participate this year, Time.com reported, noting that more than $3 million was raised for the project last year. The GPP, on its Facebook page, says currently 1.2 billion people around the world live in extreme poverty, down from 1.4 billion five years ago.

[From People]

I always forget that Ben Affleck has a Twitter. He doesn’t use for anything personal, he just uses it to promote his films and his advocacy work for the most part. I doubt Ben will be tweeting photos of what he’s eating, is what I’m saying. Anyway, as I said with Hiddleston… his heart is in the right place and when bigger celebrities do this, it does raise awareness. Hopefully they will raise money for their cause. And hopefully Jennifer Garner won’t be too put-out by having to figure out what Ben should eat, because you know she’s the one preparing his meals anyway. This would be the perfect time for her to shout, “You should go eat your mistress’s p—y, that sh-t is free!” Too much?

These are photos of Ben and his family in LA over the weekend. He can’t just stop being pap’d with them cold turkey, you know! That would be too obvious.

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

50 Responses to “Ben Affleck will live on $1.50 a day for ‘Live Below the Line’, like Tom Hiddleston”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. GoodCapon says:

    Their hearts are in the right place, but I wonder if it will truly make a difference.

  2. JL says:

    Nice thought, but I think the whole gravity of it is a little different when you know it’s for a week rather than you fear it’s forever.

    • Rachel says:

      Agreed. It’s a nice thought, but when you’re eating a $1.50 meal in your multi-million dollar home, it just seems kind of condescending to me.

      • Stubbylove says:

        Agree. The thought is perhaps there, but it’s not practical nor sincere – in-fact it puts the emphasis on Affleck which reeks of egocentricity rather than altruism. If multi-millionaires like Affleck want to make a difference, give significant $ to constructive organizations, volunteer your time and efforts and raise your children to do the same. The Kennedy’s are an excellent example of this – affluent and flawed, knowing they have responsibility to someone other than themselves.

    • bangbang says:

      Or that it might be less than that later =( How about if the celebs that do this donate the difference?

      It costs them how much for most celebs to eat usually? Factor in the dinners and wine, minus your 7.50 for five days of 1.50/day.

  3. Zimmer says:

    Good for Ben. I’m glad he’s doing it, now I challenge Goop to do it! Booze included in the dollar and 50 cents.

  4. JL says:

    “You should go eat your mistress’s p—y, that sh-t is free!” Too much?

    People please, I’m drinking hot coffee here, do you want me to choke and spit hot coffee everywhere at the same time?

    BTW I bet that sh*t most definitely isn’t free!

  5. V4Real says:

    “You should go eat your mistress’s p—y, that sh-t is free!” Wow Kaiser; didn’t know you had it in you. LOL

    I love me some Ben and why I think this is a good cause it will not be hard for him to live on 1.50 a day when his fridge is packed with food, he already has nice clothes, cars and so on. What I want to see is him stripped of all this.He better go to the place where people are actually living in poverty and spend two weeks with them. He needs to live the way they live and then I will buy it.

    • Rachel says:

      When that show Undercover Millionaire or whatever it was called initially aired, a father and son gave up everything and had to live on $100/week (I think). They had to find a place to live (one of those run down motels), shop for food that would last them all week, etc. They were the only “millionaires” who actually lived in poverty. It was a real eye opener for them, and, I think, everyone who watched the show. There was a woman living in the same motel who got them jobs and helped them “get on their feet.” It was amazing because even though she herself was living in poverty, she was dedicated to helping other people.

      • Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

        This reminds me of what Batbara Einrich did for a year to write Nickel and Dimed.

    • Rhea says:

      This!! While it’s nice for him to do this, but I just don’t think he will “learn” something from it.

    • bob says:

      A film-maker did this in The UK recently, in Newcastle in the cold North East, and he died. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/05/radio-presenter-lee-halpin-dead

  6. AveryBingH says:

    The same man that bought a 3 million dollar ring for Jennifer Lopez is going to show us how hard living in poverty is? This is a serious issue and Ben Affleck is an over indulged, spoiled celebrity that is going to whine about how hard it is to go without. Can’t the charity show real people trying to survive on very little money? People who have to choose between feeding their children and eating themselves? I am sure it will be really tough for Ben Affleck to hear his stomach growling for a few days before he goes back to his mansion, his Bentley and millions of dollars.

  7. aims says:

    hahaha, that’s to funny. “Eat you mistress p*ssy!” To be a fly on the wall at their house.

    this is a noble cause though.

  8. Karlie says:

    Urgh…. Noble cause as it raises awareness but i guess it’s good for their image too?

  9. cmc says:

    They never really take their son out on these “family outings”. Who’s watching him all the time? Nannies, right?

  10. arock says:

    thats really noble of him. when he retells the story about how hard it was to live off 1.50 a day after driving to the Polo Club in his range rover to meet with his business manager, everyone will listen intently, nod empathetically, then decides to spend 300 million on a movie-not poverty, medicine, or education- a money making movie.
    id rather him not use misfortune as some anecdote over lunch. just donate a school or something and be done.
    that pussy comment though, that was funny….

  11. Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

    This is feeling like a little celebrity club. Rich people pretending to be poor for a week so that they can feel good about themselves and congratulate one another.

    Heart is in the right place, I guess, maybe, but I would be more impressed if they dipped into their petty cash and made a real donation, then spent the week working in a food pantry.

  12. lucy2 says:

    Much like in the Hiddleston post, I’ll say nice sentiment, not terribly effective, but might help raise more awareness and money. And I still want to see politicians have to do this instead of actors.

  13. pam says:

    now if i could only get him to send me 10 million so i could be rich for a day.

  14. kim says:

    What an a*s

    The cost of this “social awareness” publicity bs would be better used as a donation to a food pantry. Poor people already know how hard it is, while people with plenty know that there are ppl without.

    Publicity for the ben affleck self awareness is all this is

    • YuYa says:

      I agree. There was a time in my life in my early 20’s that I was living on about 15 bucks a week for food after rent, utilities and transportation costs were paid. It sucked ass, like, really sucked. But, I did it.

      Poor people KNOW what it is like to live on basically nothing food wise. What they do need are better stocked pantries and programs that don’t just cater to the city poor, but also the country poor. Food donations have drastcially gone down in the US in the past few years, because lets face it, everyone other than millionares is hurting financially.

      I haven’t gotten a raise in 5 years, but sure as shit, everything else has increased exponentially in price.

      I don’t need to see some overly blessed millionare post twitter pics of his egg sandwich everyday to be aware of how hard the times are, I am ALREADY aware. Jesus, the egos of these people astounds me sometimes.

  15. Kelly says:

    It’s so affected.

  16. Sam says:

    I have to ask – does there really need to be awareness to show that living on something so small is, well, really hard? This isn’t the food stamp challenge, where I’ve actually seen people debate on how difficult that might actually be. 1.50 is a SUPER low amount (like they said, it’s extreme poverty level). Do people really need to be told “hey, it really sucks to live on that little?” I’d hope not. The root causes of extreme poverty are many, but identifiable. I’d prefer if all these celebs cut sizable checks to addressing those root causes (and I’m not saying they all haven’t). But this feels a little trite.

  17. YuYa says:

    WTH can you even get for 10.50 a week? A carton of eggs, and some ramen noodles, maybe an onion and a loaf of bread?

    • Sam says:

      Rice. Lots of rice. I read once that somewhere around 1/2 of Earth’s population survives almost exclusively on rice (that might not be correct now). Basically, you eat an absolute ton of white rice.

      ETA: It still is! Seriously, the wikipedia page on rice is weirdly awesome.

      • Amy says:

        When I was in college a million years ago, a group raised awareness with a “hunger meal,” showing what people in impoverished countries live on, and I remember just an absurdly small amount of white rice. It made an impact on me.

  18. Jane says:

    The cause is worthy and should be highlighted.

    However, these folks are not “living” on $1.50. That is only for food, so, they should be a lot clearer on what this project is.

    The conditions under which people in poverty actually “live” is beyond the food. It is housing or lack thereof, clothing, heat, clean water, lack of transportation, etc. So, I wish these kind hearted people would highlight the entire spectrum, not just the easier to do since he is still at home, in clean clothes, with water and everything else that goes with being rich or even middle class.

    Sorry to sound preachy, but this is not an easy problem that can be solved when it is not even being presented properly.

  19. MonicaQ says:

    Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Try to do charity and “you’re not doing enough” or “out of touch” or “condescending”. Don’t do any and “you’re selfish jackass.”

    However this does seem like the facebook “Change your picture to stop child abuse!” thing. Yay activism! Look! I did something! Except not really. I’m pretty sure Affleck donated money though.

  20. TheyPromisedMeBeer says:

    I get what they’re trying to do, but I feel like this “Live Below the Line” is the new Live 8 or “off-setting their carbon footprint” – a celebrity fad that they won’t think about in a couple of years other than to give themselves a quick pat on the back.

    If they wanted to be effective, maybe they should live with a family that actually *does* have to live on that per day. Reality is way more jarring than the practice.

  21. Koda says:

    I feel like people are forgetting that Ben founded the organization “Eastern Congo Initiative” which he donates thousands of dollars towards the Congo and regularly makes charity trips there.

    And not to be a Debbie Downer, but the p*ssy comment and the pap comment on a post about him doing something good seems a little inappropriate. It seems no matter what Ben does people find an issue with it and find reason to hate. And I find it hilarious that you say he can’t quit being papped cold turkey yet its almost May and the Oscars were in February. Just admit that you were wrong about him only being seen for his Oscar campaign and let it go.

    • Lb says:

      I agree. Everyone talking about how Ben needs to do more by devoting his time? He does. He’s always up in Congress’s face about his initiatives in Africa and until I see proof, I am going to assume no one here has copies of financial documents. So who knows how much money he and Jennifer Garner donate? Certainly no one here. For all we know, their efforts do feed many people around the world.

      And don’t even getting started on the whole getting papped with family only for the Oscars. Those have come and gone and look? His kids still seem to like him, as they always have.

    • Belle says:

      +2 to everything you said. Nothing much here to attack Ben for, so let’s bash him for trying to do his part in raising awareness for a cause…. throw in a jab about cheating, double down AND change the narrative about ‘campaign’ photo ops… now he can’t quit them cold turkey? LOL Ben is seen (and photographed) with his kids the same amount he usually is when he is at home and/or in between projects.

      Ben does a lot for charity publicly, and I suspect even more privately. Everyone I know who does charity work or is affiliated with a cause of some sort…. well, they are happy with pretty much anything anyone does to help… raising awareness, donating time, giving money, etc. Odd how the people who truly care about these things never seem to bitch about the manner in which someone tries to help. Go figure.

    • JenAsh12 says:

      +3

      Ben does a lot for charity. Not only does he spend a lot of time in Congo and donating to Congo through his organization but he is also frequently working with Congress. Also during the promotion of Argo he took the time to launch Congo chocolate bars that raise money during his interviews. And even Jennifer Garner does a lot for charity domestically. She is an ambassador for Save the Children which focuses on impoverished children and raises money to get them meals, education, etc and she has gone to Congress for that as well and does interviews for it.

      And I agree 100% about the comment about the cheating and the paparazzi photos. There is still no proof that be ever cheating people just love to take rumors and run with them. I won’t believe them until I see even the least bit of proof. And that blind means nothing to me since it was obvious she was pregnant for a while and Jlo had already announced her split. And the Oscar campaign people are still finding excuses as to why he’s seen with them. He’s always seen with them when he’s not working. I don’t get why it’s so hard to understand that someone who is working isn’t going to be seen running errands. He’s not working so he’s home. End of story.

    • bluhare says:

      +4. Did everyone trash Tom Hiddleston when he did the same thing?

    • megsie says:

      +5

      Ok, maybe I laughed at the p*ssy comment. Valid or not I thought it was funny. Forgive me.

      But otherwise, Ben and Jen have both donated mega time and money to various charities, particularly his Congo Initiative and her Save the Children work. Also, I think what they do quietly behind the scenes would impress even the naysayers. And tbh you couln’t pay me to go to the Congo. A very dangerous state of affairs there. Bless him for not just writing a check but risking his neck as well.

      Ben has been involved with the Feeding America project for a number of years: http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/ben-affleck
      http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/jennifer-garner

    • MsAubra says:

      BOOM BABY!!

  22. Dh says:

    Perhaps he could just take the money he spends at the Brentwood country mart and feed a family for a year instead

  23. flower says:

    Oh great, another rich person trying on “le poor” for five days. I like Tom, but I still frown at him for doing it and I like Ben too, but he will still have his Beverly Hills mansion and beautiful well fed family when this is all over.

  24. Crumpets and Crotchshots says:

    I will give Ben a lot more credit than Tom because he actually has done substantial legwork and has put in years of effort toward understanding global poverty and its causes– whereas Tom took a five day tour, followed it up by some really sanctimonious and vain photo shoots, and has been working it to make himself visible ever since without really going more deeply into the issues. Plus those godawful twitter pics from his Belsize Park house.

    I respect everything Ben has done in the past– but I also feel like this is a lame publicity stunt that comes across as condescending and only calls attention to just how wealthy he is. He cruelly is better than this.

  25. MissThing says:

    I’m gonna say that the cons against this are the same as they were for Tom… but for some reason this thing just smells like PR stunt. Yes he has done charity work (yay!) but the problem is it is going to come across as a jumping on the celebrity bandwagon even if he planned it way in advance.

  26. DailyNightly says:

    I wanna see Goop try this challenge!

  27. Lucrezia says:

    Saying these celebs should be more hard-core and give up their housing/transportation is missing the point.

    The idea isn’t to raise awareness of poverty – everyone with half a brain knows it sucks. The goal is to raise awareness of this specific event, so that more people participate. Regular people can’t/won’t give up their house and car for a week, but they can – and will – participate in a food-challenge to raise money.

    It’s just like the old 24/30/40 Hour Famine campaign. Starving yourself really does jack. But getting people to sponsor you to starve is an effective fundraiser.

    I don’t recall any negative backlash about the various X Hour Famine campaign. So I really don’t understand why it’s happening here.

  28. sharron says:

    I’d be more impressed if celebrities spoke out, LOUDLY, about the misuse of aid money by various African countries.

    Africa as a continent shouldn’t be so poor, it has vast natural resources and has received aid for the last 25 years…. most of it has been spent on arms or Rolls Royces and shopping trips by the various rulers and their family.

    Yet every night on UK television there are hours & hours of “give us £3 to feed a child” commercials…. OK will do, if I thought the money actually went on food, or even better on helping poor people fend for themselves.