LogFAQs > #879765262

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Trump says People who DON'T WORK, then you DON'T EAT!! Do you agree with that???
Zeus 05/25/17 1:26:38 AM #44:	streamofthesky posted... Zeus posted... streamofthesky posted... Zeus posted... The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple. Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)? CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale. Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it." % of population is one indicator, but overall consumption is equally important. Plus you have benefits per person, which is another metric (where again blue states lead). There's no one perfect metric, but two key metrics go to blue. Again, saying CA has the most poor people doesn't say much, it has the largest population in the U.S., so of course it does. So raw numbers of people in each state is a worthless metric, reinforced by the fact that 4 of the 5 top states for # of poor people also happen to be the 4 most populous states. I guess IL needs to get its shit together, though. Consumption per person is also pretty meaningless. The higher the cost of living in an area, the more benefits a person will need just to get by, and blue states and urban (ie, blue) areas are the most expensive to live in. What matters is % of the population that use SNAP. No, the argument isn't which state has more by %, it's which states are more dependent on it. If you have a higher amount of money going to a state, that state is arguably more dependent. Likewise, if people don't need as much support, they're less dependent on the support. For instance, if one person made enough that they only qualified for $40 and their neighbor qualified for $80, they wouldn't be equally dependent. InfestedAdam posted... On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets. Yes, which is a point I raised as well. As it stands, SNAP is an unproductive use of resources instead of simply giving partial reimbursements for goods that might expire and giving those to the poor. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:879765262] in Trump says... [t:75383214]...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>streamofthesky posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.</quote> Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)? CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale. Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it."</quote> % of population is one indicator, but overall consumption is equally important. Plus you have benefits per person, which is another metric (where again blue states lead). There's no one perfect metric, but two key metrics go to blue.</quote> Again, saying CA has the most poor people doesn't say much, it has the largest population in the U.S., so of course it does. So raw numbers of people in each state is a worthless metric, reinforced by the fact that 4 of the 5 top states for # of poor people also happen to be the 4 most populous states. I guess IL needs to get its shit together, though. Consumption per person is also pretty meaningless. The higher the cost of living in an area, the more benefits a person will need just to get by, and blue states and urban (ie, blue) areas are the most expensive to live in. What matters is % of the population that use SNAP.</quote> No, the argument isn't which state has more by %, it's which states are more dependent on it. If you have a higher amount of money going to a state, that state is arguably more dependent. Likewise, if people don't need as much support, they're less dependent on the support. For instance, if one person made enough that they only qualified for $40 and their neighbor qualified for $80, they wouldn't be equally dependent. <cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.</quote> Yes, which is a point I raised as well. As it stands, SNAP is an unproductive use of resources instead of simply giving partial reimbursements for goods that might expire and giving those to the poor. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1