1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Food stamps do little to alleviate hunger; increase government dependence.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Nov 21, 2013.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Crain's Chicago op-ed:

  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    While food stamps may do little to alleviate hunger, they do appear to increase government dependency. Nearly 56 percent of SNAP households are on the program for five years or longer, suggesting that the program is no longer a temporary safety net but increasingly is becoming a way of life.

    This is strictly the author's extrapolation from the data. "Appear" is a weasel word, which are pretty prevalent in this piece.

    So: How does that rate compare to the rate prior to the recession? Or at various times in SNAP's existence? How does the turnover rate track with the unemployment rate, over time? Was it ever a "temporary safety net," as this passage indicates? Was it ever meant to be a "temporary safety net"? Are food stamps really to blame for chronic dependence, as Charles Tanner gleefully concludes, or are they serving their purpose wonderfully, except supplementary programs like job training and birth control education are non-existent or inadequate?

    I also have no idea what this means:

    Similarly, a study for the U.S. Department of Agriculture found for nearly all vitamins, minerals and macronutrients assessed, the dietary intake among SNAP participants was comparable to that of nonparticipants.

    What is a "nonparticipant"? I'm a nonparticipant. Are they being compared to people like me? If that is the case, SNAP advocates should be spiking the football, not Michael Tanner, extremely concered columnist at Crain's Chicago Business. Or, rather, is the comparison among socioeconomic equals who, for whatever reason, have opted out of SNAP? That sentence makes zero sense. It contains zero context. He also includes the weasel phrase "nearly all." What does "nearly all" mean? Ninety percent? Eighty percent? And what does "comparable" mean?

    Further, should this really be the end of the comparison between participants and non-participants, assuming we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to Mark Zuckerberg? OK, participants and non-participants eat the same. Are they clothed the same? Are they sheltered the same? Do participants have more books? Do they have heat in the winter? Do they live in safer neighborhoods? Is SNAP freeing up resources for other necessities? If so, then it's a victory, right?

    There are no citations to any of this rock-solid evidence that Michael Tanner rolls out. But I suppose it plays well with those predisposed to blame poor people for being poor. Which means it fulfilled its purpose.

    And I guess you made this post with SnapChat, as I didn't hop on fast enough to see your boner pic. You're usually a good critical thinker, but Michael Tanner wrote a few slipshod sentences, with yawning holes, that happened to dovetail with your preconceived ideals. And you ran with it.

    Take away food stamps tomorrow. OK. After your Rush Limbaugh party, what do we do now? How is poverty in any way fixed? Where do the former participants go to find these jobs that do not exist any more in the United States? Where do they find the training to become skilled employees in the 21st century economy so that they can find and land jobs that do exist? How do they afford the training? How do they even hear about the training? How do they beat out the 200 college graduates who also apply for the position once they obtain their training? How, how, how?
  4. H.L. Mencken

    H.L. Mencken Member

    Let them eat rats, say the men who play roulette with our economy and then demand the government rescue them.
  5. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Give 'em a buck and send 'em to McDonalds.
  6. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    If you can look at this fact and thing "Damn, must be people trying to screw over the system" and not "Damn, our economy is getting screwed up by wealth equality," then you should be a tiny bit ashamed of yourself. Or more than a tiny bit.
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    This is one of these issues - like the Kennedy assassination, to cross-thread - where it is almost impossible to find straight answers in a cursory Google-aided investigation, because almost every scrap of information out there has been filtered through a partisan prism.
  8. poindexter

    poindexter Well-Known Member

    Grind up a multi-vitamin into every bag of Flaming Hot Cheetos and we'll end the nutritional deficiency in 100% of the SNAP participants under 25.
  9. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Those things are the most disgusting "food" in the history of America.

    And every teenager loves them.
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Completely fair criticism.

    I think it's also fair to point out that when someone is on a social services program for longer than five years, it's not being used as a safety net, which is what most people do support. But, the author needs to do a better job showing how the program itself has contributed to this.

    I don't think people are "screwing" the system as much as I think they are just taking what is available to them, for as long as is possible. And, there has been a conscious effort to expand the program to include more people.

    I think it is fair to look at whether the program actually helps people.

    Programs should be judged on the merits, not the intentions.

    Has the expansion of SNAP been a good thing, and by what measure?
  11. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    Why not?

    Believe it or not, being poor in this country is enough of a challenge that it *may* last more than five years. It lasts generations.
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page