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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
