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, 02:19 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Are you serious? You are going to present data that is 12 years old to prove me wrong? GIVE ME A BREAK
You presented 10 year old data NOT from the USDA and the USDA OIG. I'll believe the official source over your ridiculously massaged statistics dubious source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:21 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
You might find this article interesting:

https://newfoodeconomy.org/usda-algo...ll-businesses/
That's opinion, NOT fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:23 PM
 
858 posts, read 139,897 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Are you serious? You are going to present data that is 12 years old to prove me wrong? GIVE ME A BREAK
I didn't go back and see who said what but buying habits have not changed much in the past 2-3 years it seems.


Snap recipients purchases mirror those that do not receive Snap benefits until you reach Upper-Middle income brackets. Americans eat crap food, we love it, and we are paying for it.

This is no secret everyone, the entire middle of every grocery store in America (damn near the entire store) is stocked with crap that kills us over time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
30,893 posts, read 13,428,225 times
Reputation: 21991
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That's opinion, NOT fact.
Check again, it's sourced
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:32 PM
 
4,196 posts, read 818,572 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
People are going to fall over to hear me say this, but for those who are genuinely physically disabled to the point that they cannot work even a sedentary job and have little to no mobility, this is going to be a godsend.
The problem is that people could easily make that claim when they are capable of getting such a job. In other words, it could be easily abused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:39 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G View Post
I didn't go back and see who said what but buying habits have not changed much in the past 2-3 years it seems.

Snap recipients purchases mirror those that do not receive Snap benefits until you reach Upper-Middle income brackets. Americans eat crap food, we love it, and we are paying for it.
Then WHY the significant obesity rate difference between Food Stamp recipients and those who qualify For Food Stamps by income but have chosen to NOT receive Food Stamps? If what you assert were true, there would be no difference. But there's a HUGE difference. The Food Stamp recipients have MUCH higher obesity rates than those who qualify but do not receive the benefits.

Adults: Food Stamp recipients have a 33% higher obesity rate
Children: Food Stamp recipients have a 20% higher obesity rate, though their obesity rate, unlike the adults, is quite dissimilar (54% higher) from those who DON'T qualify for Food Stamps because they're still eligible for free school breakfast/lunch/dinner, and summer meals when school is out of session.

Look at the USDA's statistics, again. There's a significant difference, and even the USDA OIG has reported on their concern:

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, note that the USDA data isn't 12 years old, as falsely alleged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:42 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Check again, it's sourced
Get back to us when every liquor store in the US is banned from accepting EBT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:45 PM
 
66,239 posts, read 30,145,317 times
Reputation: 8606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eumaois View Post
The problem is that people could easily make that claim when they are capable of getting such a job. In other words, it could be easily abused.
I agree. There's a LOT of abuse of means-tested public assistance programs. That's why I don't support them, in general, and believe they should be funded via voluntary donations, only. If "society" believes they're so important, "society" will open their wallets and voluntarily donate to pay for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:47 PM
 
858 posts, read 139,897 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Then WHY the significant obesity rate difference between Food Stamp recipients and those who qualify For Food Stamps by income but have chosen to NOT receive Food Stamps? If what you assert were true, there would be no difference. But there's a HUGE difference. The Food Stamp recipients have MUCH higher obesity rates than those who qualify but do not receive the benefits.

Adults: Food Stamp recipients have a 33% higher obesity rate
Children: Food Stamp recipients have a 20% higher obesity rate, though their obesity rate, unlike the adults, is quite dissimilar (54% higher) from those who DON'T qualify for Food Stamps because they're still eligible for free school breakfast/lunch/dinner, and summer meals when school is out of session.

Look at the USDA's statistics, again. There's a significant difference, and even the USDA OIG has reported on their concern:

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, note that the USDA data isn't 12 years old, as falsely alleged.
Socio-economic status, that is a easy answer.
Same reason retirees with little retirement income have poorer outcomes.
Same reason poor people have worse health outcomes.
You don’t escape reality because of a magical food stamp card.

If you have 20 dollars do you buy fresh fruit and vegetables that last 1-2 days?

Or

Do you grab a weeks worth of processed bread, cheapest processed meat, mayo, processed cereal, processed cheeses, processed.......
The best we could hope for is the person buys beans for a filler but that can be bad if diabetes is a concern.

This is not rocket science guys.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2019, 02:50 PM
 
26,297 posts, read 17,198,522 times
Reputation: 10273
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I agree. There's a LOT of abuse of means-tested public assistance programs. That's why I don't support them, in general, and believe they should be funded via voluntary donations, only. If "society" believes they're so important, "society" will open their wallets and voluntarily donate to pay for them.
Yeah, voluntary donations and church charities would work out well for sick folks too.
Quote:
The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity
The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society's weakest—an era that never existed and can't exist today

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...harity/284552/
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.

© 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