It was a joke. She’s not even buying food.
All your premises are true, however you leave open that more food consumption could be eating veggies and fruits. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Because that’s what people on food stamps eat. lol
No need to get your panties in a twist.
They could also be exercising more and thus balancing out their increased intake with increased output.
Though I rarely disgree with you, this one is a bit over-generalized. It really depends on what foods are subsidized versus the overall available choices.
- Healthy, low calorie food subsidies will, ceteris paribus, lead to an increase in healthy food consumption.
- An increase in healthy food consumption may lead to a decrease in unhealthy food consumption.
- This change in consumption may lead to a decrease in calories consumed.
- A decrease in calories consumed leads to less obesity.
A subsidy on tofu and rice cakes will most likely not lead to an increase in obesity, ceteris paribus.
Clayton is right. I see people buying shit food on food stamps. Watermelon, fried chicken, grape soda, diapers, alcohol . . . .
Ceteris paribus means “all else equal”:
- Same amount of exercise
- Same overall food choices, pro rata
Now, we can certainly qualify these ceteris paribus conditions - food subsidies do affect what people buy as well as how much. For example, these “take and bake pizza” shops are a creation of food stamps which permit people to purchase any food item that is not a restaurant food, in other words, served hot and ready-to-eat. So, they make the pizza but don’t bake it so that you can purchase it with food stamps and eat it at home.
WIC (Women-Infants-Children… not sure if this is national or just in Oregon) has as its sole purpose to change the quality of what people buy - it does not specify a dollar amount but, rather, specifies the exact type of goods for which it can be redeemed - 1 gallon of milk, 3 cans of grape concentrate, 1 lb. cheddar cheese, etc. Because any brand is redeemable, people always choose the top-shelf brands. As you would imagine, the brand-names are big-time proponents of the WIC program.
Food stamps must indirectly affect how much exercise people perform because the more overweight you are, the less you exercise.
I see no reason to believe that people will eat more nutritious foods on food stamps. I can think of reasons why people on food-stamps might purchase even more unhealthy (low nutrient, high calorie) foods - the less you spend on food (dollars per calorie) in a month, the more you have left over which you can use to barter for other goods you want more than the remaining food you could buy.
Clayton -
Um, are you trolling? Watermelon is not shit food, diapers are not food and alcohol cannot be purchased with food stamps.
Clayton -
Most likely triknighted just forgot to throw in cornbread as well. I imagine you can see what I’m insinuating.
OH NO THAT MUDDAF**KA DIDN’T
Food stamps are one of the major causes of obesity.
No kidding..I ate so many food stamps I gained like 35 lbs
Tip your bartenders folks
This is incorrect. If someone spends $100 a week on groceries without food stamps, and then you give them an additional $100 per week in food stamps, all this does is free up the initial $100 for use any way they wish. Sure, they might buy $200 in groceries a week, but its just as plausible that they spend that initial $100 on DVD’s or lottery tickets or school supplies.
In fact, I would argue that so long as the amount of food stamps someone receives is enough to cover their usual grocery bill, its more likely that they would shift that initial $100 towards other goods because it is more likely that they value things besides more food.
I was simply referring to types of food bought with food stamps. What were you insinuating?
I was insinuating that instead of trolling, you are prejudiced at the very least and most likely a bigot. I thought it was pretty clear that was what I was getting at.
Just another agent provocateur. I’m astonished at how many there are.
Sonofabitch, damn images don’t show. LINK
@mikachussetts: See my prior post - the conclusion holds ceteris paribus and, yes, the conditions are qualified in the actual fact but in a way that makes my case stronger, not weaker. The effects of food stamps on the overall budget is dependent on the recipient’s schedule of wants, of course, but because they are redeemable only for food, this must boost demand for food, even if it boosts demand for other things as a side-effect. Demand cannot increase without an increase in production (Say’s law) and a concomitant increase in consumption.
Clayton -
“Don’t lie about what exactly?”
Clayton is a very exact person.
and to the watermelon issue…watermelon is healthy. unless is has some gross bacteria on the outside of it…and you don’t wash the entire melon and you decide to cut through the watermelon with a knife, thereby letting the knife touch the bacteria and then touch the inside meat of the fruit, thereby infecting it and eating something nasty. thereby, leading to you bent over in agony squirting in the toilet several hours later.
gotlucky, to which race do you presume I belong? You might want to check your “bigot” accusation because frankly you know nothing about me.
As for statistics, Wikipedia links to a bigger article on this. These are the summarized facts as of 2010:
“According to the United States Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows: 36% of participants are White; 22% are African-American, not Hispanic; 10% are Hispanic; 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity.”
So again, I must ask (unless you will continue to dodge the question by throwing red herrings at me):
Above, you stated . . .
Let me specify: what were you insinuating by your “cornbread” reference? Why would you assume that I “just forgot to throw in cornbread as well”? It’s a simple question, and I am waiting. . . .