Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
If you're stupid enough to overpay, you're foregoing money that could be working for you all year.
Not just me -- there have been a series of studies showing the same thing. And the common sense of it should be obvious to you, if you think it through. Presumably you're familiar with basic concepts like the Flynn Effect, right? If not, it's the idea that IQs have been rising significantly over time. One of the main reasons given for this is the improvement of nutrition -- the same reason that people have gotten so much taller, on average, than they were a hundred or two hundred years ago. People with higher IQs tend to have higher productivity, and less of a tendency towards violent crime and various social dysfunction (e.g., teen pregnancy). So, what happens when millions of young Americans suddenly start getting worse nutrition, due to nutrition assistance drying up? Obviously, we'd expect their developing minds to develop less. And what happens when that cohort of poor kids become adults with depressed IQs? Are they going to be more or less likely to be contributing members of society and taxpayers? Are they going to be more or less likely to be a burden on social services and to have children who are the same? What would you expect?
So you say.
Yes, but again, you don't have to take my word on it. You can read the studies. Or, if that's too much work, just think it through. What would you expect the result to be of having more people in that generation growing up with worse nutrition? Do you think they're likely to be more or less productive/crime-prone/sickly, etc., when they reach adulthood, if they went through a period of poor nutrition as children?
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that question.
I won't. You made the assertions. If you can't substantiate them factually, that's not my problem.
That was the point made to Phantasal, reagansghost, and Jack(off). The three of them combined didn't understand.
The taxpayers aren't responsible for feeding THEIR kids. When, in the U.S., did it become the norm for people to think someone else was supposed to feed THEIR kids?
If, as a child, someone other than those that have the sole responsibility to feed them are forced to do it, when those children have children, they'll be more likely to expect someone else other than themselves to feed their kids, too. How do you ever expect to break that cycle if you don't hold responsible the ones having them supporting them?
For those that function that way, it is their norm. As long as people like Ocasio-Cortez get a vote in the process, it will continue to be the norm for them. For folks like the two of us and many others that meet their parental responsibilities, it isn't.
You still can't understand proportions are the only way to make a comparison when other factors aren't the same. 10.5 million receiving food stamps out of 41 million blacks total is far worse than 17 million out of 220 million whites doing so.
Are you going to say that no blacks in the red districts of my state get food stamps? Georgia, NC, SC, Mississippi, just to name a few, fit the same description whether you are willing to accept facts or not.
Before I track down the studies, are you actually going to read them? Or is this one of those situations where you're going to say it's my job to convince you, but you can't be bothered to read anything, so you'll never be convinced?
Anyway, what's your thought about the common-sense analysis? What do you think the impact will be of having a larger portion of that generation having poor nutrition in their developmental years, once they get to adulthood? Wouldn't you expect them to be likely to be less physically and mentally able? And wouldn't that mean larger long-term costs?
There have been studies that look at this specifically in the context of Medicaid (one form of welfare assistance to the poor):
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mille/MillerWherry_Prenatal2015.pdf
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20835.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/conservatives-american-dream/508880/
It just didn't work out the way orthodox GOP rhetoric would have you think.
Food stamps have similar evidence:
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/about/news/2014/schanzenbach-food-stamps-health.html
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...ed-nutritional-outcomes-and-lower-health-care
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...es/documents/SNAP_report_final_nonembargo.pdf
https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Hoynes-Schanzenbach-Almond-4-14.pdf
A better question is how do you expect people to break the cycle of poverty if they're being saddled with lower IQs and sicker bodies as a result of a childhood of deprivation, meaning they'll never have an even playing field in adulthood?
At a fundamental level, the fact that government assistance doesn't cause people to be unproductive mooches when they grow up should be clear enough by the fact that the large majority of productive Americans had one huge part of their childhood advantages provided by the state: public primary education. That doesn't train us to put our hand out. Most of us grow up not only to be productive, but to be VASTLY more productive than people were in the era before such education.
It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers to provide someone else's kids with healthcare either. It's the job of the one with the pussy it came out of and the one that dropped the sperm in it. PERIOD.
You don't want a level playing field. That involves people doing for their own because it's their responsibility to do so. You want those for whom the parents refuse to provide care given something funded by those who do meet that responsibility for their own.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...fare-are-more-likely-to-be-on-welfare-2013-11
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/par...s-more-welfare-use-their-children-study-finds
Here's why those on welfare have no reason to do any better. When you have children you can't support yet have more children and the taxpayers are forced to support them, why would you stop if you know you're going to get more with each child: https://calmatters.org/articles/abo...id-to-moms-on-welfare-who-have-more-children/
Simply not true no matter how many times you say it.
You can't get over that 1 in every 3 1/2 blacks uses food stamps while only 1 in 12 - 13 whites does.
That's debatable. From a moral perspective, I take the view that mankind is a shared responsibility. But if you come from an immoral perspective, there's not going to be any convincing you about that, so I won't try. Instead, I'm just arguing pragmatism. Regardless of whether you think it's your responsibility, if you can pay for an ounce of prevention now, by helping out some kids in their formative years, and that'll save you from paying for a pound of prevention down the road, when they're adults, isn't that worth the investment?
I actually do. But I realize that doesn't mean having the field tilted heavily against those who happen to be born into poorer families.
Because you're better off if you stop. That's why you see almost no families churning out huge numbers of kids. The most recent data was for the 2010 census, at which time the average TANF family had 1.8 recipient children, and half the families had only one child, while less than eight percent had more than three. There are rare cases of large welfare families, but most families that need welfare stop having more children, despite the ability to get a little more money for each additional child, because that little bit is a lot less than it costs to care for the additional child. The idea that any sizable portion of welfare recipients are churning out large broods just for the check simply isn't backed up by the hard data. What it is backed up by is right-wing prejudice, which is all some people need to repeat it.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Maybe they will get off their asses and find jobs.