|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
kokopelli
| | #1 posted November 4, 2009 at 11:51am (EST) |
Half of US kids will get food stamps, study says
Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say.
The estimate comes from an analysis of 30 years of national data, and it bolsters other recent evidence on the pervasiveness of youngsters at economic risk. It suggests that almost everyone knows a family who has received food stamps, or will in the future, said lead author Mark Rank, a sociologist at Washington University in St. Louis.
"Your neighbor may be using some of these programs but it's not the kind of thing people want to talk about," Rank said.
|
monkbonk
  
| | #2 posted November 4, 2009 at 11:53am (EST) |
WOE IS ME
T.A.P.E. FORUM |
kokopelli
| #3 posted November 4, 2009 at 11:54am (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 11:55am (EST) |
Your family ever on stamps?
Being from Alabama and all.....
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/statebriefs.... |
monkbonk
| | #4 posted November 4, 2009 at 11:57am (EST) |
no, but my sister and bro gets dem reduced lunches
that's all we're taken advantage of currently. moar to follow
T.A.P.E. FORUM |
DrizzDrizzDrizz
 
| | #5 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:16pm (EST) |
Poor kids...
Smile Now Cry Later |
emoryarts
  
 
| | #6 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:24pm (EST) |
...should get jobs. |
kokopelli
| | #7 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:28pm (EST) |
If there were any....the business class sent them all over to China, India, etc.
All the while telling the U.S. citizen to "get a job" |
millenium_dare
 
| | #8 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:44pm (EST) |
Dear "Progressive" Government of the past 110 years,
Thank you.
-David
|
Technosphile
 
| | #9 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:49pm (EST) |
At least we're still the best at baseball
OH SHI-- |
Lino
| | #10 posted November 4, 2009 at 12:57pm (EST) |
let's have a blamestorming session!!
i blame Reagan........... either him or snuffalupagus
 |
Chad
| | #11 posted November 4, 2009 at 2:19pm (EST) |
reagan was just a puppet. it was the jelly belly president that has run things for the better part of 3 decades now. |
kokopelli
| #12 posted November 4, 2009 at 2:49pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 2:49pm (EST) |
The republicans always point to their demented puppet (Reagan) as the epitome of success.
Leaving little to the imagination, interesting that the figures for food stamps correlate with the rise of the republican revolution 30 years ago. |
John
 
| | #13 posted November 4, 2009 at 4:23pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> Leaving little to the imagination, interesting that the figures for
> food stamps correlate with the rise of the republican revolution 30
> years ago.
Over the past 30 years, infant deaths have dropped from 76 per 1000 to only 28 per 1000. So, would you also say that the rise of the republican revolution correlates with a hugely significant decrease in infant deaths in the USA? Good thing we don't have the Democrats keeping our babies dying any more.
- John...
John says "Hi." Tell your friends. |
kokopelli
| #14 posted November 4, 2009 at 4:25pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 4:27pm (EST) |
That's not saying much, John, given that the US still has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the industrialized world.
That, of course, is due to a lack of a public option for health care.
Guess who opposes that.....
....so, as Alan Grayson says, republican policies keep children in poverty and want them to die. |
BluePhoenix
| | #15 posted November 4, 2009 at 4:39pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> Leaving little to the imagination, interesting
> that the figures for food stamps correlate
> with the rise of the republican revolution
> 30 years ago.
correlation does not imply causation. |
John
| | #16 posted November 4, 2009 at 4:47pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> That's not saying much, John, given that the US still has one of the
> worst infant mortality rates in the industrialized world.
Hi! Welcome to "you completely missed the point."
Just to spell it out for you, the point was that just because something changed over a 30 year period does not mean that it necessarily was caused by that or even vaguely relates! The example was supposed to show you that you can't just go "hey! Look! Republicans came to power over the past 30 years so therefore anything that happened over the same 30 years was caused by that!"
Are you sure you aren't Sheesh?
- John...
John says "Hi." Tell your friends. |
John
| #17 posted November 4, 2009 at 4:49pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 4:50pm (EST) |
On a side note, Canada, which HAS the health care you are looking for, scored 25th out of 31 when it comes to infant mortality rates. Well behind lots of countries that do NOT have a "public option" or any other universal healthcare.
So, again, your attempted relation of cause and effect just doesn't hold.
- John...
John says "Hi." Tell your friends. |
Chad
| | #18 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:07pm (EST) |
gogganiZING! |
emoryarts
| | #19 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:09pm (EST) |
And here I thought that was a thing of the past... thanks for proving me wrong, Sheesh |
John
| #20 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:18pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 5:18pm (EST) |
What's funny is that I'm not even a Republican and I actually am in favor of some universal health care if the right protections are in place. I just know that those protections are NOT going to come and it WILL still likely be passed. To me, this means that it WILL still likely be wildly abused. So, I'm not that fond of the current offerings when it comes to health care and/or a "public option" (that like 90+% of the population won't even be allowed to "opt" into -- including myself).
Also -- you know why 50% of the kids get food stamps and why that has gotten worse over the past 30 years? Because the entitlement mentality of this nation has grown over the past 30 years and more and more people realize that the government will just GIVE things to them if they want. As always, there are SOME that need this help -- but most welfare in this country is thoroughly and significantly abused. So, yes, food stamps are up over the past 30 years -- as is housing assistance, disability (BIG time), and other welfare assistance. Because we've taught people how to get things for free for doing nothing or very little.
It is very difficult to get people to do something for themselves when we freely do it for them as a reward for not doing it for themselves.
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
Chad
| | #21 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:25pm (EST) |
seriously, whats with so many people now-a-days expecting to get something for nothing? |
kokopelli
| #22 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:28pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 5:29pm (EST) |
John wrote:
>
> Also -- you know why 50% of the kids get food stamps and why that
> has gotten worse over the past 30 years? Because the entitlement
> mentality of this nation has grown over the past 30 years and more
> and more people realize that the government will just GIVE things
> to them if they want.
meh. Prove it. Same old gibberish from those that already "have". A way to absolve yourself of the problem and demonize those that are needy.
And, yes. I'm sure I'm not sheesh. Are you sure? |
John
| | #23 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:32pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> meh. Prove it. Same old gibberish from those that already "have".
I'm not sure it is trivial to "prove" that this is happening. I'm just basing it on personal observations. I feel that people have more of an entitlement attitude now than they did 20 or 30 years ago -- and it seems obvious to me. But, proving that to you would be difficult, I'm sure. I know of several people on SSI/Disability that I feel could work normal jobs just fine but simply don't because they don't have to -- because the government pays them to sit at home.
Some will argue that there is apparently widespread depression and other mental disabilities that have developed over the past 20-30 years, I guess. I personally just think that it is difficult to diagnose and fairly easy to fake -- so it is heavily abused.
But, you got me there -- I have no way to "prove" this to you. If it was easy to detect, then I think more would be done about it. As it is now, it is just too easy to get on disability and stay there, IMO.
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
John
| | #24 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:42pm (EST) |
I found an interesting article that was actually more about the unemployment rate, but mentioned this (my emphasis added):
| Research by the economists David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mark Duggan at the University of Maryland shows that once Congress began loosening the standards to qualify for disability payments in the late 1980's and early 1990's, people who would normally be counted as unemployed started moving in record numbers into the disability system -- a kind of invisible unemployment. Almost all of the increase came from hard-to-verify disabilities like back pain and mental disorders. |
Check out how the number of "disabled" workers has doubled over the past 30 years (from 1979 until now).
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
kokopelli
| | #25 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:43pm (EST) |
So, were those numbers total numbers or adjusted per 100K (i.e. standardized).
That said, what does that have to do with food stamps? |
John
| | #26 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:49pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> So, were those numbers total numbers or adjusted per 100K (i.e. standardized).
How do you want them adjusted? They are just the number of people on disability.
> That said, what does that have to do with food stamps?
Because it is a welfare system where people will take what the government gives them for as long as they can. I maintain the the increase in food stamps is directly related to the increase in SSI/disability claims -- that a significant percentage are people that are basically abusing the welfare systems.
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
kokopelli
| #27 posted November 4, 2009 at 5:52pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 5:53pm (EST) |
John wrote:
> kokopelli wrote:
>> So, were those numbers total numbers or adjusted per 100K (i.e.
> standardized).
>
> How do you want them adjusted? They are just the number of people
> on disability.
Because if the population of the U.S. in 1970 were, say, 200 million and the number on SSI was 2 million; while today there are, say, 400 million and the number was 4 million on SSI, the percentage is the same. That is why you adjust/standardize in statistics. To determine if there is, really, a trend.
>
>> That said, what does that have to do with food stamps?
>
> Because it is a welfare system where people will take what the government
> gives them for as long as they can. I maintain the the increase in
> food stamps is directly related to the increase in SSI/disability
> claims -- that a significant percentage are people that are basically
> abusing the welfare systems.
That has nothing to do with kids.
50% of the kids in this country on food stamps.
Or, are you suggesting that the majority (who come from single parent households) also have a parent who bilks SSI as well? |
John
| | #28 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:11pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> Because if the population of the U.S. in 1970 were, say, 200 million
> and the number on SSI was 2 million; while today there are, say, 400
> million and the number was 4 million on SSI, the percentage is the
> same. That is why you adjust/standardize in statistics. To determine
> if there is, really, a trend.
Agreed -- sorry, I thought you knew that the population didn't double in the USA from 1979 to 2009. Sorry for assuming that you had some idea of the world.
The population in 1979 was around 225M. In 2009, it is around 303M.
> That has nothing to do with kids.
Yes, it certainly does. Kids on food stamps are on them because of the financial situation of their parents. Parents on disability actually AUTOMATICALLY qualify for their kids to get food stamps in most states.
> Or, are you suggesting that the majority (who come from single parent
> households) also have a parent who bilks SSI as well?
I'm not suggesting that it has to be the majority. But, yes, I'm suggesting that a significant number of kids on welfare have parents on welfare that are "bilking" the welfare system.
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
John
| #29 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:15pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 6:16pm (EST) |
Also, it should be noted that the article just says that 50% of people will live in a household that gets food stamps at some point between the age of 1 and 20. So, to just make a statement like you just did that implies that 50% of the kids in this country are ON food stamps is just completely wrong -- the study didn't suggest that AT ALL.
It should also be noted that this was a study based on surveys from 1968 to 1997. That doesn't necessarily change anything -- but I think it is worth noting and keeping in mind.
- John...
Secret Santa 2009 has begun! |
Knight
| | #30 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:16pm (EST) |
kokopelli wrote:
> Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters
> will be on food stamps at some point during childhood
Derp racist.
--
|
kokopelli
| #31 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:18pm (EST)
edited November 4, 2009 at 6:19pm (EST) |
John wrote:
>
> Agreed -- sorry, I thought you knew that the population didn't double
> in the USA from 1979 to 2009. Sorry for assuming that you had some
> idea of the world.
No need to be condescending, sir. I pulled the figures quickly out of my ass in order to provide a timely response to illustrate an example of the importance of adjusting/standardizing.
> The population in 1979 was around 225M. In 2009, it is around 303M.
>
>> That has nothing to do with kids.
>
> Yes, it certainly does. Kids on food stamps are on them because of
> the financial situation of their parents. Parents on disability actually
> AUTOMATICALLY qualify for their kids to get food stamps in most states.
>
>> Or, are you suggesting that the majority (who come from single
> parent
>> households) also have a parent who bilks SSI as well?
>
> I'm not suggesting that it has to be the majority. But, yes, I'm
> suggesting that a significant number of kids on welfare have parents
> on welfare that are "bilking" the welfare system.
To the two exchanges, above, you answered both my and your question. You imply a great increase/majority as an effect while denying a great increase/majority as a cause - all the while using your anecdotal information as a justification.
Gogganized?
Goodness. |
Lino
| | #32 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:26pm (EST) |
50% of American kids are on foodstamps because only idiots are breeding nowadays. Cuz like, its got electrolytes!
|
metsfan718
 
| | #33 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:30pm (EST) |
Another political argument by sheesh... |
BioHazardMan
| | #34 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:33pm (EST) |
kokopelli: THE RETURN OF SHEESH
 |
kokopelli
| | #35 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:37pm (EST) |
Lino wrote:
> 50% of American kids are on foodstamps because only idiots are breeding
> nowadays. Cuz like, its got electrolytes!
Right on.
It is similar to what the white russians were worried about during the soviet empire. |
Lino
| | #36 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:37pm (EST) |
These boards need some entertainment. I say 'welcome'
|
BluePhoenix
| | #37 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:42pm (EST) |
John wrote:
> Also, it should be noted that the article
> just says that 50% of people will live in
> a household that gets food stamps at some
> point between the age of 1 and 20. So,
> to just make a statement like you just did
> that implies that 50% of the kids in this
> country are ON food stamps is just completely
> wrong -- the study didn't suggest that AT
> ALL.
He said at some time in their lives in the OP, unless I missed something after that.
kokopelli wrote:
> No need to be condescending, sir. I pulled
> the figures quickly out of my ass in order
> to provide a timely response to illustrate
> an example of the importance of adjusting/standardizing.
He understood the importance of standardizing, it just wasn't relevant to the chart he was using.
> all the while using your anecdotal
> information as a justification.
he said in his opinion, he isn't trying to justify it. |
Brigance
| | #38 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:55pm (EST) |
didn't we ban sheesh? |
kokopelli
| | #39 posted November 4, 2009 at 6:59pm (EST) |
See the thread in Site Feedback titled "kokopelli".
I am not sheesh. |
BioHazardMan
| | #40 posted November 4, 2009 at 7:03pm (EST) |
HE JUST ADMITTED IT!!!!!
|
|
|
Rules Help 
- Twitter 
- Facebook 
