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.
"If the Food Stamp Program were successful then there wouldn't be any food insecurity, now, would there?"
Now here is some reason and logic that certainly causes one to pause...
With the same sort of reasoning I suppose we could say that if the application of medicine were successful then there woudn't be any sickness, now would there?
If the "thinking" here is that somehow the battle against food insecurity (hunger) can ever really be won, and if winning that war is how we define success, then right you are! No program can be deemed "successful."
So what next? Like with the war on drugs, poverty, cancer, crime, we stop fighting because these wars cannot be won?
Of course not!
Nevertheless, conservatives are forever bad-mouthing such efforts as "unsuccessful," and/or calling them what they will, "for lazy people to mooch off the system while they do what they want during the day rather than having to work." Why, because they simply don't know any better (to be polite). Also until they too find themselves in need of such help and then suddenly, like my good Republican friend who found himself suddenly without a job, they suddenly get a clue.
Notice how you go from discussing what the children get....to discussing the obese adults...who do not get the additional nutrition discussed.
Are the children given the food stamps to redeem for their free school breakfasts and lunches? Or are the adults in their families given those food stamps to use to buy extra and unnecessary food because their kids are already fed free breakfasts and lunches at school?
Quote:
Also that year round thing? Only covers a tiny portion of the children.
You'd have to be an idiot to believe only a tiny portion of children are served.
Quote:
LOL...even better the 33% vs 44%. Gosh...I wonder who can best afford healthy food? People like me, or people on food stamps? Bwahahahhaha.
Why do income-eligible adults of the same education level and residential area who DON'T get food stamps have only a 33% obesity rate (similar to higher income adults), while the adults on food stamps have a 44% obesity rate? The only difference between the two groups is that the group with the MUCH higher obesity rate receives food stamps.
Well, I'm taking me and my food stamps to the Farmer's Market today to eat healthy. Last week I got peaches, blueberries, and strawberries. They all cost twice as much as they would if I had bought them in the store, but they taste 100 times better (although I found organic peaches at a supermarket that do taste like fresh picked ones). I can't help but feel they are probably healthier than the vegetables in supermarkets, too. Pricier, but better.
Priced fish lately? Unless farmed cod is on sale for a couple bucks a pound, the only fish I get is tuna in a can.
Know where your iodine in your diet comes from? The iodine that's necessary for a healthy thyroid? Besides iodized salt, it comes from shrimp. But people on welfare aren't supposed to buy shrimp.
My point is, it's not just obesity you should be concerned about, IFC. It's health in general. People who are inadequately fed are not only susceptible to the problems that come with being obese, they're also more apt to catch other diseases and stay sicker longer and have more serious complications. That costs everybody.
Instead of cutting our welfare and food stamps altogether, and trying to enforce laws about what can and can't be bought with food stamps, maybe we need to start putting the money into programs that aggressively pursue food stamp abuse.
I'm due to go out shopping on food stamps in a couple days or so, and I'm saying again, anyone in the Seattle area that wants to go with me and see what I buy and why I buy it, is welcome to come along.
My point is, it's not just obesity you should be concerned about, IFC. It's health in general.
So how does giving families duplicate benefits in 2 or more simultaneous major FNS programs for the same free meals, with the resultant effect that 44% of the SNAP participant adults become obese, increase the quality of their health?
I can read and I can reason pretty well, as far as I've been told. Both are important...
You can't seem to consider anything outside the realm of your own comments, and I don't have the time to search back for links that should always be provided along with the data you wish to repeat over and over. Actually, I don't have the time to beat this dead horse any longer, but was hoping to at least conclude in some way that made some sense.
Just want to separate fact from fiction while also attempting a balanced consideration of ALL the facts.
I can read and I can reason pretty well, as far as I've been told. Both are important...
You can't seem to consider anything outside the realm of your own comments, and I don't have the time to search back for links that should always be provided along with the data you wish to repeat over and over. Actually, I don't have the time to beat this dead horse any longer, but was hoping to at least conclude in some way that made some sense.
Just want to separate fact from fiction while also attempting a balanced consideration of ALL the facts.
Ever tried anything like that?
Yes. The USDA FACTS are that:
59% of families participating in a major FNS free food public assistance program (SNAP, WIC, Free School Breakfast, Free School Lunch) simultaneously participate in 2 or more of those programs, stacking duplicate benefits for the same meals.
44% of adults receiving food stamps are obese. Not just overweight. Obese. Compared to 33% of income-eligible but nonparticipating (have chosen to NOT receive food stamps) adults, and 32% of adults with higher incomes.
That's a statistically significant difference in obesity rates among those with the same income levels, and the OSU study even controlled for education levels and residential areas, as well.
InformedOne: I can see you are having fun repeating yourself, and your inability to veer from your comfort zone is obvious, but you should know that normally if one copy/pastes these sorts of "facts" into Google search, the article comes right up. Not to put you out, I've tried this simple step more than a few times as mentioned before and your source just doesn't show up so well. One site that does come up is this one that goes back to 2005!
Now if you don't want to provide the site you are referring to again, plain and simple, from where you are getting these facts that have you repeating yourself and beating your drum over and over, well that's your prerogative of course, but repetition and stone-walling are not becoming, no matter how many of our politicians think otherwise.
The one-tracked closed-minded perspective is the other characteristic far too many Americans love to embrace, and why I say we deserve no better government than what we have!
Will be painful to witness this sad truth in tonight's debate..., and speaking of obese, it seems Chris Christie made the cut!
"If the Food Stamp Program were successful then there wouldn't be any food insecurity, now, would there?"
Now here is some reason and logic that certainly causes one to pause...
Yet you failed to address the issue.
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.
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.
The only difference between the two groups is that the group with the MUCH higher obesity rate receives food stamps.
