U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:04 PM
 
14,188 posts, read 6,442,686 times
Reputation: 14640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz View Post
Sheesh I wonder what you think of all of the online restaurant delivery services like UberEats and Doordash !
Good point. Or even just regular restaurants that deliver, such as pizza. There's a delivery charge right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,124 posts, read 13,636,147 times
Reputation: 22167
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
I agree with you, this is great for physically disabled. No one knows what it's like to have trouble getting around until it happens to them. Unfortunately, and as usual there are people who can get around who will take advantage of it.
How does one take advantage of a delivery service that they are required to pay for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:34 PM
 
66,569 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G View Post
You take out way more then you pay in w/ SS as life expectancy is growing.
Life expectancy in the US is decreasing, and the AP published an article a few years ago about how higher income earners have been losing money on SS since the 1990s, and now the middle class is losing money on SS, too. Only the low-income, on average, will get more in SS benefits than they paid in SS tax.

Quote:
"As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration."
Social Security is a LOSING deal for most workers - Associated Press
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G View Post
Many that receive SNAP also pay taxes therefore I would argue that YES it is the same concept. Social Security is a popular program but it is still paying out more to the individual than the individual paid in therefore a Handout, just one we support as a country.
Not usually, anymore. We've crossed that rubicon, and NOT in a good way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:47 PM
 
66,569 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Only 20% of the obese people in the US are poor enough to receive SNAP benefits. 41% of the obese have an income of over $86,100 a year. One study done over a decade ago found that women receiving SNAP had a 2%-5% greater chance of becoming obese than did other women, but there was no increase found for men on SNAP and other studies have found no relationship between SNAP and obesity. https://theconversation.com/dont-bla...-america-80725

I agree poor people are not as healthy as the wealthy but you can't attribute that solely to food. A bigger part of that is lack of access to medical care, especially in states that did not expand medicaid.

This like all social problems are far more complex than we want to admit. I would like to see the Federal Government acknowledge how addicting sugar is but it won't happen, I was appalled when they started allowing schools to start serving sugar laden milk beverages again. Kids don't need strawberry milk and that helps no one except the food industry. I have a 7 year old grandson who only rarely is allowed to eat candy, soda or sugary treats and he basically has no interest in them and is more likely to ask for applesauce than a cupcake, but his neighborhood friends eat sweets and sodas constantly (and none as far as I know are SNAP recipients)
You knew this was coming... There most certainly IS a correlation between Food Stamps and obesity. Even the USDA has noticed there's a correlation, and the USDA OIG has recommended halting the overlapping of government free food programs benefits for the exact same daily meals.

The obesity rates of the poor on food stamps compared to the poor who aren't on food stamps, and compared to the rest of the population:

Income-eligible children on food stamps: 24%
Income-eligible children NOT on food stamps: 20%
Non-poor children who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 13%

Kids who get Food Stamps (and free school meals, and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have an 85% higher obesity rate than kids who don't qualify for those benefits.

Income-eligible adults on food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults NOT on food stamps: 33% obese
Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese

Adults who get Food Stamps (and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have a 33.3% higher obesity rate than adults who qualify for those benefits but choose to not receive them.

Do the math, and recognize that this is a SIGNIFICANT problem.

Exhibit 5, here:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...-SNAP07-10.pdf

Also, it certainly does appear that the children of poor and low-income families who receive free school breakfast, lunch, etc., program meals, regardless of whether they get food stamps, are being overfed.

And to confirm, the USDA OIG (Office of the Inspector General) has found that a full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs for the exact same daily meals:

Overlap and Duplication in Food and Nutrition Service's Nutrition Programs - USDA OIG
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27001-0001-10.pdf

Let that sink in... A full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs (like free school breakfast/lunch/dinner in after school programs) for the exact same daily meals.

Are we really doing the poor any favors by causing their obesity by letting them double-dip and sometimes even triple-dip or more government free food program benefits, thereby enabling their overeating and ruining their health? They are disproportionately obese, and cost us a lot more tax money to pay for their obesity-related health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,124 posts, read 13,636,147 times
Reputation: 22167
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You knew this was coming... There most certainly IS a correlation between Food Stamps and obesity. Even the USDA has noticed there's a correlation, and the USDA OIG has recommended halting the overlapping of government free food programs benefits for the exact same daily meals.

The obesity rates of the poor on food stamps compared to the poor who aren't on food stamps, and compared to the rest of the population:

Income-eligible children on food stamps: 24%
Income-eligible children NOT on food stamps: 20%
Non-poor children who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 13%

Kids who get Food Stamps (and free school meals, and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have an 85% higher obesity rate than kids who don't qualify for those benefits.

Income-eligible adults on food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults NOT on food stamps: 33% obese
Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese

Adults who get Food Stamps (and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have a 33.3% higher obesity rate than adults who qualify for those benefits but choose to not receive them.

Do the math, and recognize that this is a SIGNIFICANT problem.

Exhibit 5, here:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...-SNAP07-10.pdf

Also, it certainly does appear that the children of poor and low-income families who receive free school breakfast, lunch, etc., program meals, regardless of whether they get food stamps, are being overfed.

And to confirm, the USDA OIG (Office of the Inspector General) has found that a full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs for the exact same daily meals:

Overlap and Duplication in Food and Nutrition Service's Nutrition Programs - USDA OIG
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27001-0001-10.pdf

Let that sink in... A full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs (like free school breakfast/lunch/dinner in after school programs) for the exact same daily meals.

Are we really doing the poor any favors by causing their obesity by letting them double-dip and sometimes even triple-dip or more government free food program benefits, thereby enabling their overeating and ruining their health? They are disproportionately obese, and cost us a lot more tax money to pay for their obesity-related health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes.
Are you serious? You are going to present data that is 12 years old to prove me wrong? GIVE ME A BREAK
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Boston
7,955 posts, read 2,308,244 times
Reputation: 5665
they're too busy looking for good paying jobs to be bothered with the grocery store.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 01:57 PM
 
66,569 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Wrong. There are specific requirements about the amount of 'staple foods' that stores must carry in order to accept EBT. If an individual store rings up alcohol as food they are breaking the law and at some point will probably get caught in a USDA sting operation and go to jail.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/my-store-eligible
Of course, they're breaking the law. But the liquor store owners and employees know the people in their neighborhood and both seller and buyer participate in the wink, wink, nod, nod illegal deal. You can't possibly be so nave that you fail to realize that's a regular occurrence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,124 posts, read 13,636,147 times
Reputation: 22167
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Of course, they're breaking the law. But the liquor store owners and employees know the people in their neighborhood and both seller and buyer participate in the wink, wink, nod, nod illegal deal. You can't possibly be so nave that you fail to realize that's a regular occurrence.
You might find this article interesting:

https://newfoodeconomy.org/usda-algo...ll-businesses/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:10 PM
 
66,569 posts, read 30,379,078 times
Reputation: 8688
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane View Post
That is who should be getting most of the assistance but they often get minimal amounts and they don't like to complain.

Single parent families get disproportionate amounts of food assistance often getting layered programs for their kids. I can't imagine they won't expect these delivery fees, if they even exist for this population, to be subsidized by someone. If companies do it for free, they will raise prices for those of us who pay for our own food, or just raise our delivery fees.
I just commented on the duplication of Fed Gov free food program benefits for the exact same daily meals and how that's contributing to the fact that those on Food Stamps have significantly higher obesity rates than everyone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,379 posts, read 9,502,077 times
Reputation: 18252
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor View Post
You must be new here.

I've mentioned many times how the US is one of only two countries which taxes its citizens who live abroad, and how it costs $2500 to give up citizenship.
Hopefully that is satire. It is a pretty well-known law, but the only people who care are the ones who live in other countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top