Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2016, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,839 posts, read 26,236,305 times
Reputation: 34038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
I think everyone should stop working and start living on food stamps.
How bout if you start the trend, try it for a while then report back on how well that worked out for you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2016, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,839 posts, read 26,236,305 times
Reputation: 34038
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamies View Post
And home break ins are already going up here.
So people are breaking into homes because they lost their SNAP benefits?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,332,941 times
Reputation: 3863
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Those who do not work shall not eat. Nor should their kids. That is the breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas View Post
I think everyone should stop working and start living on food stamps.
More than half of all homes receiving SNAP benefits contain at least one working adult. And a higher percentage of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly and the disabled.

The idea that most people on food stamps are just lazy meth heads is nonsense.

As has been mentioned, the national average of food benefits received amounts to $1.41 per person per meal per day.

The burden to the taxpayer for SNAP, TANF and day care assistance is orders of magnitude smaller than what is paid in taxes for corporate welfare including subsidies and incentives, tax loopholes and bailouts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 10:24 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
It's pretty simple to figure out. Those who are income eligible to get food stamps, and get them, will go out and buy food. The food stamps don't go THAT far, so they tend to buy potatoes, and rice, and beans, and all kinds of starches to make that food stamp money last the entire month. Yes, some people do buy crap on it that they shouldn't be buying, (slurpies, candy, chips, Capn' Crunch cereal, etc), but they have been given the money TO buy all of that crap.

The income eligible who do NOT get food stamps don't have the extra money to spend, THEY EAT LESS. What they do eat is not good for them, they are buying the starches, too, but they eat less of it because they don't have the money to buy more.
So... explain to us all why a poor diet plus a 33% higher obesity rate is preferable to just a poor diet.

Why ruin 33% more poor adults' health?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 11:45 PM
 
34,006 posts, read 17,035,093 times
Reputation: 17186
This is terrific. The waivers were temporary as unemployment was double its present rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 01:00 AM
 
952 posts, read 518,158 times
Reputation: 444
Guess I don't see how requiring single people with no children to work a minimum of 20 hours a week as asking too much in order for them to receive benefits.

Of course there may be exceptions, and hopefully they can appeal a decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 01:08 AM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,251 posts, read 23,719,256 times
Reputation: 38626
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
So... explain to us all why a poor diet plus a 33% higher obesity rate is preferable to just a poor diet.

Why ruin 33% more poor adults' health?
You act as if being thin because you don't have enough to eat is not a major problem, either. Because someone is not "obese" doesn't mean that they won't have dire health issues. When you are poor, you don't get to eat all of the good healthy foods, even if you get food stamps. The poor person who doesn't get food stamps means that they still have a poor diet, and their health is just as bad as anyone who is obese.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 04:15 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
31,340 posts, read 14,247,595 times
Reputation: 27861
Quote:
Originally Posted by epliny View Post
The Truth about obama's wonderful economy will start to raise it's ugly head!
(Then what will the liberals have to say?)

For example ...
The same thing the have been saying:
It's all George W. Bush's fault. And those nasty republicans in congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
31,340 posts, read 14,247,595 times
Reputation: 27861
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Stop right there because the USDA statistics report exactly the OPPOSITE, as I've already shown.

The income-eligible adults who get food stamps have a 44% obesity rate
The income-eligible adults who DO NOT get food stamps have a 33% obesity rate.

You've been spoon-fed a BS canard.

Nice!


The liberals never like the actual numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 04:27 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,971 posts, read 44,780,079 times
Reputation: 13681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
You act as if being thin because you don't have enough to eat is not a major problem, either.
A 33% obesity rate among income-eligible adults who DON'T receive food stamps (which is in line with higher-income earners' 32% obesity rate) is hardly an indication of the non-receivers not having enough to eat.

Quote:
Because someone is not "obese" doesn't mean that they won't have dire health issues. When you are poor, you don't get to eat all of the good healthy foods, even if you get food stamps. The poor person who doesn't get food stamps means that they still have a poor diet, and their health is just as bad as anyone who is obese.
BS. You aren't seriously trying to claim that there aren't obesity-related illnesses, the rate of which increases as the obesity rate increases, are you?

To recap: Food stamps = ruining 33% (increase from 33% to 44%) more poor adults' health. That results in additional increased costs to society due to their significantly higher likelihood of suffering obesity-related illnesses and incapacities.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top