Alabama saw 85% drop in food stamp participation after work requirements restarted

[Independent voter]

Several problems with your vague assumptions and rationalizing.

The 1.7% you quoted only applies to adults age 20+

Additionally you somehow assume someone who is average weight or overweight isn't effected by going hungry and can't be impacted by malnutrition if they wind up without a job for a period of time.

Of the 48.8 million Americans who go hungry 13 million are children, that you've purposefully left out of your "Americans are mostly fat" logic. Children don't have a means to get food if their parent(s) are out of work.

https://www.nokidhungry.org/problem/hunger-facts

The definition huh? Have you even seen it since you're telling him to look it up.

It's what your definition of starvation is. Anorexics? We have people who die of anorexia but I wouldn't call that classic starvation.

Malnutrition? Yes there are people who don't eat properly and that stresses their body causing heart attack, etc. Food stamps aren't going to help.

And then we have dysfunctional adults who fail in feeding their children for one reason or another, usually drug abuse. These people are likely to spend their food stamp money on drugs.

But you really don't see skinny people in poor neighborhoods, quite the opposite.

[Sharkconas]

If people aren't working and aren't able to make the $130 salary threshold, yet get cut off from the state's food program, how exactly are they able to get food?

Oh, you mean stealing? Cheating the system? Pan-handling on a street corner?

Eating out of one of our delectable dumpsters? Food waste keeps the hungry alive lol.

[Spectral]

That's really the ignorance-laced quote that I needed to top off this useless nonsense spewing I have been reading.

Yes, I'm aware that you truly believe that poor adults are so infantile that they absolutely need to receive SNAP in perpetuity or they won't be able to figure out how to get food. Understood. I'm not buying it.

[-Nurot]

Children have literally nothing to do with this policy. People with dependents weren't included in the policy change.

Again you're assuming all couples are married and that all children are the product of both individuals. These are faulty assumptions and still would result in a food insecurity situation in that household, until the working parent (one likely doesn't work, seeing as if you're living on food stamps you probably can't afford daycare to have both work) again finds a job.

Being able to claim a dependent simply on taxes would also allow a divorced individual to claim the child as a dependent even if they don't have custody.

Seems like that isn't the perfect solution.

It's what your definition of starvation is. Anorexics? We have people who die of anorexia but I wouldn't call that classic starvation.

Malnutrition? Yes there are people who don't eat properly and that stresses their body causing heart attack, etc. Food stamps aren't going to help.

And then we have dysfunctional adults who fail in feeding their children for one reason or another, usually drug abuse. These people are likely to spend their food stamp money on drugs.

But you really don't see skinny people in poor neighborhoods, quite the opposite.

When you starve to death, don't you die from malnutrition? I'm curious how you think people starve. In that same token, average weight individuals and overweight people can also starve before their bodies use up its fat storage.

Are you saying starvation isn't a thing? That you have to be skinny to starve? Therefore, people just don't starve especially people in poor neighborhoods? I'm not sure why you consider anorexia as the definition of starvation, but that's a terrible definition.

[Spectral]

Again you're assuming all couples are married and that all children are the product of both individuals. These are faulty assumptions and still would result in a food insecurity situation in that household, until the working parent (one likely doesn't work, seeing as if you're living on food stamps you probably can't afford daycare to have both work) again finds a job.

Being able to claim a dependent simply on taxes would also allow a divorced individual to claim the child as a dependent even if they don't have custody.

Seems like that isn't the perfect solution.

So, your scenario of someone that's going to be unfairly deprived is someone living with their partner who has a child from someone else and isn't filing a head of household return.

OK, I guess that could exist. Given that the total number of impacted people was about ten thousand, how many people do you think fit in this bucket? A couple dozen?

[Ghostpanther]

I don't know if you've traveled around the South a real lot, but I can assure you that the poor of the South ain't going hungry...

But, but!, that does not fit well with some narratives. There has to be a injustice involved if the Republicans are having anything to do with it. :P

[Orlong]

Since you're so well traveled, I assume you already know this, but there are plenty of areas in the country where people do not have ready access to a grocery store, or healthy food alternatives beyond fast food.

Imagine living in an area where there isn't a local food store (but plenty of McDonalds, KFC, pizza, etc). A place where the closest grocery store is in the next town over, but you don't have a car or any real means of public transit to get there. There's your food insecurity, and those situations exist in the US.

You can order all the food you need on Amazon

- - - Updated - - -

People on SSDI are not on SSDI until they apply and are approved for SSDI, which can take months, or not happen at all, based on random bureaucracy.

Have you even bothered reading the opposition to these bills or are you just set in your ways and refuse to believe that you could be wrong about this?

And people shouldnt be getting SSDI because they are depressed or get anxiety around people. Its total bullshit and also easily faked. Working makes MOST people depressed

[Daelak]

But, but!, that does not fit well with some narratives. There has to be a injustice involved if the Republicans are having anything to do with it. :P

Just because they are obese doesn't mean that it is from nutritious foods. There are serious medical problems in the south and midwest from obesity.

[Orlong]

If people aren't working and aren't able to make the $130 salary threshold, yet get cut off from the state's food program, how exactly are they able to get food?

Oh, you mean stealing? Cheating the system? Pan-handling on a street corner?

Or take one of the thousands of fast food, retail, gas station, convenience store, car wash, etc... jobs that are always available that they refused to take before because they were making the same money sitting on their ass via welfare without having to work

[Ghostpanther]

- - - Updated - - -



And people shouldnt be getting SSDI because they are depressed or get anxiety around people. Its total bullshit and also easily faked. Working makes MOST people depressed

That is a interesting point. I once read about 75% of working people do not like their jobs. So you could be right.

[Orlong]

So are there people out there starving now or what? I don't really see this as something positive if it means people who needed it to survive aren't getting it now because they're unable to work or find work.

Here in Sweden, if you're on welfare you still have to at the very least keep applying for work or be on some kind of arrangement for you to have some kind of employment, even if you're not getting a job from it. Unless of course, you're at 100% sick leave, but then there's other rules and requirements. You can't just endlessly drift on welfare here, you will have social services breathing down your neck constantly.

And in the US when people live in a state that requires x amount of job apps to be submitted every week, people just apply for jobs that they know they will not qualify for like structural engineer, cardiac surgeon, architect etc.. when they only have a GED or High School diploma. It meets the number of applications quota and keeps them raking in the welfare without having to risk getting hired.

[Deleted]

It's actually not that hard to be familiar with data - there are nearly zero people in the South that are underweight and about three quarters are overweight.

On my list of substantive concerns, starvation in the South ranks roughly 375089th.

You know that because of the fact that healthy food (veggies etc) is more expensive than junk food in most places giving people less to spend on food actually leads to MORE overweight people (who in turn incur a fuckton of societal costs in healthcare etc).

Anyways on topic: This seems weird to me, limiting SNAP benefits away from the people who need it most (ie the people with no job and bc of that no income) makes absolutely 0 sense.

The only context in which this is logical would be that it encourages more people to go to work in jobs that pay something but still allow you to qualify for SNAP, but if you expect that to be the case, then why does the guy being interviewed expect the amount of SNAP recipients to go down even more in the future? If that is the case, then this move to incentivize people to work has failed miserably.

All in all, this seems to be needlessly vindictive towards people who don't have jobs and outside of some minimal cost savings (126 a month for ~10k 6k people a month really isnt that big of a deal budget wise) I really don't see how people could possibly be excited about this.

[Spectral]

You know that because of the fact that healthy food (veggies etc) is more expensive than junk food in most places giving people less to spend on food actually leads to MORE overweight people (who in turn incur a fuckton of societal costs in healthcare etc).

I addressed this already:

I'm sure everyone here has done enough laps around nutrition at this point that we're all pretty well aware that it's actually not expensive to put a starch (potato, rice, etc.), a meat (pork roast, whole chicken, etc.), and a green thing (green beans, broccoli, etc.) on the plate. Obviously it's a lot more expensive to eat Doritos and other prepared foods.

I do understand that people who don't work are simply too busy to cook though, so everyone may get me on that finer point.

Anyways on topic: This seems weird to me, limiting SNAP benefits away from the people who need it most (ie the people with no job and bc of that no income) makes absolutely 0 sense.

The only context in which this is logical would be that it encourages more people to go to work in jobs that pay something but still allow you to qualify for SNAP, but if you expect that to be the case, then why does the guy being interviewed expect the amount of SNAP recipients to go down even more in the future? If that is the case, then this move to incentivize people to work has failed miserably.

All in all, this seems to be needlessly vindictive towards people who don't have jobs and outside of some minimal cost savings (126 a month for ~10k 6k people a month really isnt that big of a deal budget wise) I really don't see how people could possibly be excited about this.

Of course it doesn't matter much, but that's kind of the point - people who are inclined to never, ever shrink a government program under any circumstances squeal like stuck pigs when a state eliminates an exemption that was introduced during a deep recession. A return to standard policy becomes framed as unfathomably cruel. That context is why people with even the slightest inclination towards fiscal prudence object to increases - they know that once a handout is in place, even the tiniest scaleback becomes a moral crisis.

[Sharkconas]

Or take one of the thousands of fast food, retail, gas station, convenience store, car wash, etc... jobs that are always available that they refused to take before because they were making the same money sitting on their ass via welfare without having to work

Wait haven't you posted in the past some of these jobs should be done by teens only? Now suddenly your the champion of adults going to work for a low tier jobs instead looking for good paying jobs. I guess your for paying the people a living wage for working in these job, right?

[Arbiter]

I'm literally going to Mississippi today. I've been around the country quite a lot. The same point applies everywhere in the country though - Americans are mostly fat, there is little or no problem with people unable to get enough food. Nationwide, the number of underweight people is 1.7 percent.

A sample size of a few thousand people only over the age of 20 5 years ago is not a source. Try again. It's also nationwide which even if it wasn't a shit source it still holds no proof on your claims.

But cool man I've been to Pennsylvania once so I guess that makes me an expert on the people up North as well. Who knew.

Either way not being underweight doesn't mean you're not starving. You could easily have been in a good position only to lose it all. No one goes from over weight or even normal weight to underweight over night. And it's also ignorant of you to assume "oh it's the south so everyone is over weight". Makes you sound like like a moron.

[Spectral]

A sample size of a few thousand people only over the age of 20 5 years ago is not a source. Try again. It's also nationwide which even if it wasn't a shit source it still holds no proof on your claims.

But cool man I've been to Pennsylvania once so I guess that makes me an expert on the people up North as well. Who knew.

You should give the CDC a call and offer them your statistical expertise so they don't keep making such stupid errors in sampling

Seriously, everyone that has ever said "a few thousand people blah blah blah sample size something" is just flatly ignorant of statistics. It boggles my mind that people who have such a low level of basic knowledge really, genuinely, think that they've pointed out a fatal flaw in how surveys, polling, or epidemiology is done.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Since you're so well traveled, I assume you already know this, but there are plenty of areas in the country where people do not have ready access to a grocery store, or healthy food alternatives beyond fast food.

Imagine living in an area where there isn't a local food store (but plenty of McDonalds, KFC, pizza, etc). A place where the closest grocery store is in the next town over, but you don't have a car or any real means of public transit to get there. There's your food insecurity, and those situations exist in the US.

They closed down one of the most popular local grocery stores because it became rife with theft and blight, even though it was the only store for miles around that had reasonable prices for good food that was within walking distance (Because poor people don't have ready transportation for cold foods.)

We've also had situations where Walmart did indeed destroy every other option, and then themselves left when the situation became unsustainable, leaving entire towns without anything.

$126 of food stamps a month is worth way more than $190 of income a week because that income is going straight towards rent and bills. But that's gone now.

As for nutrition, it's almost proof positive that high rates of obesity indicate starvation. Without reliable meals, the only meals are ready-to-eat pantry fats. You can't afford to buy anything that would go into the garbage if mishandled, especially with a teeny tiny freezer. Doubly especially if you're not going to be able to make trips to a grocery twice a week which is too often without that transportation.

And it's almost like churches hurt more than help, because everyone will tell you that you can't starve as long as you can go to the church food drive, but doing that requires proper documentation and a car to wait in the long, long line.

Don't get me started on going to a food bank; It's very nice, honestly, but it's demoralizing to see the probably-not-poor people arrive early to snatch all the major brand clothing they can get just by providing their SSN each week so they can resell it. I guess it's just a system set up for predators to abuse more than genuinely needy to find relief.

[Phookah]

Just wanted to point out exactly what is being reported on as I have no doubt we have people here that are going to mis-interpret what is being stated.

The bolded is key to understand what is going on. I can find current numbers (and the "journalist" for the report didn't bother to provide that important context), but total SNAP recipients for Alabama was 889,380 in 2015. Assuming the levels are about the same, that means the 13,663 able-bodied adults represent about 1.5% of total SNAP recipients.

So, before you get too excited by the 85% number for a few counties, realize that SNAP totals for the state went from about 889,380 down to 883,200...or less than a 0.7% drop overall.

Yes, there are people that abuse the system, but they are a very small percentage. The vast majority of people on SNAP are not abusing the system and actually need help.

Fucking exactly. I read this and got "85% of the 2% of people who are on SNAP who are able-bodied found a job"

- - - Updated - - -

Or take one of the thousands of fast food, retail, gas station, convenience store, car wash, etc... jobs that are always available that they refused to take before because they were making the same money sitting on their ass via welfare without having to work

Don't worry, that doesn't happen.
Only in your head.
Keep up your facade Orlong, everyone knows at this point.

[Novakhoro]

I don't know if you've traveled around the South a real lot, but I can assure you that the poor of the South ain't going hungry...

From rural GA, family from backwoods AL and LA... we wont be starvin, and the ones that do never learned how to scale a fish

[Arbiter]

You should give the CDC a call and offer them your statistical expertise so they don't keep making such stupid errors in sampling

Seriously, everyone that has ever said "a few thousand people blah blah blah sample size something" is just flatly ignorant of statistics. It boggles my mind that people who have such a low level of basic knowledge really, genuinely, think that they've pointed out a fatal flaw in how surveys, polling, or epidemiology is done.

No, it's hilarious that some random guy in the internet is trying to pretend like he's an expert on the people in this entire country and actually thinks a random few thousand people from around the country is any good representative of the hundreds of millions of people in the country and even more hilarious that you use it to come up with the conclusion that the south is even less of that representation because "south is fat". True ignorance spoken.