Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds (Rush Limbaugh, bias)
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.
Depends on where they live how much that taxi will cost.
Example: When I lived in Maine, I lived just outside a "city" (if you can call it that). I lived CLOSER to the dispatch center than most of the people did in the city. However, because I was not "from the actual city", I would get charged $15 just to have them show up, and then you add in the fare. Someone from the city could call and the cab driver would have to drive 10 miles to get them. I call, they have to drive one mile to get me, but I have to pay more because I'm not in the actual city.
That happens all over this country. If someone is living in a rural area, and to get to the "cheap healthy food", they have to take a taxi, (because, don't forget, a lot of rural places do not have bus systems that get them where they need to go...heck, even in large cities...say Seattle, for example, there are places that the bus system does not go...I know, I used to have a job that the last mile to work I had to walk because no buses went that way), you have to add in the cost for that taxi to come pick them up because they are not in the city. Everyone seems to conveniently forget these details.
Yeah I am guessing the taxi surcharge was because the taxis were previously in the city after finishing a run rather than being actually in the dispatch center.
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics (46 percent versus 36 percent)."
I've read through the entire thread.
Avoidance, repetition and wishing won't make it so.
The only "fact' in the above is the fact that it was stated in whatever source it keeps being posted from.
Anyone can post raw percentages. Not everyone can analyze them correctly.
I am fully convinced that the data have been misused and misinterpreted by those who wish to tell a specific story.
Rather than all of this disingenuous posturing, people should just state what they really believe:
Poor people should be punished for being poor.
If people on food stamps did eat healthier the people who were complaining about them not eating healthy would just turn around and complain that they were eating like kings and should not be able to eat the foods they eat. Subjects like this is not about improving the health of the people on food stamps or saving money on food stamps it is that they hate poor people and people on food stamps and want to do everything they can to make them as misarable as possible.
This is so true these people do not care one bit about these people they just want to get rid of welfare and food stamps altogether. Crime rate will double or triple in the first 6 to 8 month after you get rid of these programs so they can survive.
The Office of the Inspector General found the same problem I suggested may very well exist:
Quote:
"FNS [Food and Nutrition Service] may be duplicating its efforts by providing total benefits that exceed 100 percent of daily nutritional needs to program participants when households and/or individuals participate in more than one of FNS’ nutrition programs simultaneously. For instance, FNS programs such as SNAP, NSLP [National School Lunch Program], and SBP [School Breakfast Program] are structured to provide up to 100 percent, 33 percent, and 25 percent of the recommended daily nutrition, respectively. Separate legislative authorizations have established the current 15 separate food and nutrition programs that constitute what is commonly referred to as the national nutrition "safety net." While FNS considers each of the programs to complement each other, it is unclear whether the complementary nature of these programs duplicates FNS’ efforts because FNS has not fully assessed its food safety net as a whole to determine the impact of providing potentially overlapping nutritional benefits through multiple programs. If FNS’ cumulative program efforts are providing overlapping nutritional assistance, FNS’ expenditure of program funds may exceed the amount needed to fulfill the nutritional needs of participants."
The fact that many food stamp recipients may be getting overlapping and duplicate free food benefits that supply up to 158% of recommended daily nutrition could very well explain why there's such a disproportionately high rate of obesity among those who receive food stamps.
I'm not sure where your confusion is. Wyoming's obesity rate is LOWER than that of the higher earning population:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics (46 percent versus 36 percent)."
YOU CANNOT GENERALIZE THE 40% FOUND IN A SURVEY TO THE ENTIRE US POPULATION OR EVEN A STATE LIKE WYOMING. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO SO.
YOU CANNOT GENERALIZE SURVEY DATA TO THE LARGER, US POPULATION.
THIS IS RESEARCH DESIGN 101. You need to attend college for a statistics class or graduate school if you want to argue topics like this and actually make sense. You are making yourself look quite ignorant, all for a backward agenda.
The data I provided regarding Wyoming was for the entire state. They have the lowest SNAP figures, only 5% of the state on SNAP, and 27% of the entire state population is obese. Explain that one, please.
AND get back to me about West Virginia. This is my sixth time asking. Why is West Virginia, the 93% White state, the leader in obesity, at 35.1%?
No, they're not. The bottom 2 quintiles, 40% of all those who file a 1040 tax return, have a NEGATIVE average effective federal income tax rate. The lowest quintile has an average effective federal income tax rate of -4.5%, and the 2nd lowest quintile has an average effective federal income tax rate of -1%. Budget Explainer: How Much Do Americans Pay in Federal Taxes?
BS. I paid taxes, and got nothing back, so stop that Republican lie about how the poor pay no taxes. YES, they do.
I don't understand why both sides would not support this.
For the liberals, it makes them happy because poor people would get fed...and better food at that.
For the right, it makes them happy because we are always talking about tax breaks for businesses, it would cut down on welfare, and they wouldn't have to share the planet with a bunch of "stupid, lazy, fat disgusting" poor people.
This also made me angry, because I think back to those days when I couldn't afford any food, and all that food was being left on the ground, or thrown in the trash, that I would have loved to have. And I can guarantee that some poor people would also love to have some of that food.
So, there's the solution. How about everyone stop whining about "fat poor people", and take action on this to get it done?
The data I provided regarding Wyoming was for the entire state. They have the lowest SNAP figures, only 5% of the state on SNAP, and 27% of the entire state population is obese. Explain that one, please.
I already did. Wyoming's obesity rate is even lower than the obesity rate of higher earners:
"Among all persons, 29 percent were overweight and 31 percent were obese. SNAP participants were more likely than income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants to be obese (40 percent versus 32 percent and 30 percent, respectively)."
"SNAP participants were more likely to be obese than income-eligible nonparticipants who were matched in economic and demographic characteristics (46 percent versus 36 percent)."
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.
