Reply to So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]At food pantries, people snap up the fresh produce when it is available. The claim that people choose to eat junk is in part false and in part true due to generational poverty and people tending to follow patterns. The programs around SNAP have been working to fix those root problems and now they are gone. You have no idea how hard it was, and how much effort and lobbying it took to get people to be able to use their snap benefits at a farm market. It wasn’t allowed at all until very recently. When it was allowed farmers invented the mobile farm truck to get the food into neighborhoods that don’t have those markets.
[/quote]

The food pantry I volunteer in has most of the fresh foods left behind and not taken.  Meat and dairy will go- but fresh fruits and vegetables are not taken by most [/quote]

That’s because we’re all addicted to cheap junk food laden with salt, sugar and fat. And lower income people even more so given this sh*t is cheaper and easier to access than fresh fruits and veggies.[/quote]

Let me see. Apple of dubious freshness that counts as an item in my total and provides 60 calories, or a bag of biscuits that will survive the end times and nets 1,000 calories. Which one should I choose for my hungry kids?[/quote]

Except most people on food stamps aren’t short on calories.  They’d be better off taking the apples.  Even if not peek freshness for raw eating, make some applesauce, bake into something, can them.  Tons you can do with apples, especially in the fall when the food pantry is quite literally overflowing with them.  No one takes the vegetables either, just saying [/quote]

Again, you ignore the reality that these folks are short on kitchen equipment, storage space, and TIME.[/quote]

Why do people accept that the poor have less time? They spend fewer hours a week working than higher income households. That’s in large part why they are poor. [/quote]

Do you have a source for this other than your ass? A lot of people living in poverty are cobbling together multiple part time jobs. A lot of people living in poverty work a full time job that pays poverty wages. Part of WalMart's onboarding process for new employees is filling out public assistance paperwork.

Now, why do they have less time? Again, cobbling together multiple part time jobs. Traveling on poorly funded public transit. Walking. Having a smaller living space, requiring them to shop more frequently. There are a multitude of reasons low income people struggle with having less time. They do not have the money to pay for convenience like you or me.

They generally aren't sitting around doing nothing all day twiddling their thumbs and eating junk food like so many of you imagine. The welfare queen image you have in your mind was racist propaganda. It's not real. [/quote]

You can get it from the Current Population Survey. Here’s someone doing the cross tabs in 22: [url] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-actual-working-hours-of-different-income-levels/[/url]

Lowest 10% work 42.2 hours while highest work 46.6.

You can of course run your own cross tabs if you like.

So where did all of you who thought they worked more get your data?[/quote]

Pretty sure 42 hours a week is full time. You insinuated there was some huge discrepancy in hours worked for poor people. You cited a source showing that isn't true, and still doubled down. Why do you hate poor people?[/quote]

I'll summarize for you since it can be hard to keep up with all the anons. Many people posted the assumption, without any data, that poor people worked more than non-poor. I posted data showing otherwise.

One caveat of the source I posted is that it was for only full time workers. That means anyone working less than 35 hours was not in that chart. Many of the working poor fall into that category. I would hope everyone here would agree that people working less than 35 hours a week should have time to cook an actual meal.

So in summary, it is not a time issue keeping poor people from making healthy meals. It is usually an issue with executive functioning, which is why we give then SNAP instead of just giving them an envelope full of cash. [/quote]

You posted an analysis drawn from Census data, which has flaws that have been pointed out to you. Go back and read the responses. People who are working are not at home to answer the door. [/quote]

Your anecdotes and assumptions don’t make inconvenient data disappear. There is no systematic undercounting of work hours by the poor. We could bring IRS data and other sources in as well. The pattern will hold.

The poor have time, they choose to use it for other things.[/quote]

Yes. To commute. To attend doctors appointments. To care for disabled family members. To care for children. To care for elderly family members. To attend school. To work odd jobs under the table. This idea that poor people are somehow rich in time is not supported by data. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics