Honestly? Why should I bother to continue to post links to sources then? You ignore them when I do anyway (or just dismiss them without discussion as you're doing right now).
You mean like the link you gave me on a study done determining ones ability to feel secure in providing food to a family? The one where quotes you pulled contradicted what your point was....the very point you linked to support your claims that food stamps aren't really needed cause people can work for food like your po' family did.
The point being made in that case was that the difference in actual food a given family ate was not significantly affected based on whether they received food stamps or not. So the food stamps in most cases were not necessary to ensure people had enough food, but rather simply allowed them to buy other things as well as food. Which directly supported by multiple quotes from the source I linked, each of which represented a different method used to interpret the data on food stamp use (did you read the link?).
Meanwhile said that food stamps are working, however the gap still leaves them on the list of low food security, despite the fact food stamps do make people feel more secure.
You missed the point I was making *and* the point of the study I linked. The degree to which a given family suffers "food insecurity" does not appear to change at all based on whether we provide them with food stamps. A family that comes up $100/month short on their food budget each month, if given $300 in food stamps, will still come up $100 short on their food budget each month. While the study doesn't attempt to explain *why* that happens, the overwhelming amount of data supporting this is present. All I did was attempt an explanation. I believe that the reason this happens is because some people (many people?) only stop spending on "wants", when their inability to obtain their "needs" reaches some level. Where that threshold is will vary from person to person, but each person will have one. So one person's threshold might be "coming within $100 of being unable to feed my family", and that person will stop spending on non-essentials $100 before they run short of food. Someone else's threshold might be "coming $100 short on food for the month", and will thus always come up $100 short no matter how much food purchasing assistance you provide them
That explanation fits the data. The idea that if we just provide people with sufficient food stamps, we'll eliminate food insecurity is *not*.
The cite you linked comparing the values to showing that 3 distinct income brackets all fell below the governments intended level of food security. Showing that while food stamps help they are not closing the gap they intend to close.
Yes. You're missing the next set of logic though. Why is it that food stamp programs help to a certain point, but then are apparently unable to close that gap? My proposed explanation is that the people have an innate "gap" they will maintain no matter how much they have available to spend. Thus, increasing the amount of food stamps we give them, does not affect that gap. This theory fits the data perfectly.
Remember, I'm not arguing to end food stamps entirely. I'm suggesting that we should not equate a dollar of food stamps to a dollar of food provided for someone in need. I'm arguing that at some point, people will transform the dollars of food stamps into dollars for other things. A simple example of this is someone who earns $1000/month and currently spends $200/month on food. If you give that person $200 in food stamps, will they now spend $400 on food? Or will they continue to spend $200 on food, and thus increase the amount they can spend on other things by $200/month?
I don't think it's much of a mystery what will happen. Do you? So giving that person food stamps doesn't increase the amount of food they have, or decrease any food insecurity they have. Most if not all of the food stamp dollars will end out being used to buy things other than food.
I have already addressed all this though, after it being pointed out you either did not read the article, or grossly misunderstood what the article said, and just pecked through to find quotes you could use in nonsensical order to make a point, you decided to whine about how no one ever reads your articles and responds to discuss. Of course I imagine you assumed I would not read the article, and thus be able to blow holes throughout your interpretation of it.
Since you have yet to actually say anything about the article that makes me think you read and understood it, I'm going to stick with that. The one half paragraph you did quote indicates that you just scanned through it looking for a quotable line or two that would appear out of context to counter what I was saying. You failed to even read the whole paragraph it was in though, much less understand the whole source. This was abundantly obvious to anyone who actually read the whole thing.
You don't like facts because you lack the mental capacity to understand what you are trying to read, and it shows in your complete lack of understanding of a vast majority of what is discussed here. You try to cover your inept understanding by using a lot of words, you hope people get lost in the bullsh*t and sh*tty analogies and forget the original point.
Wait. Me writing in my own words what a source of data means indicates a lack of understanding of the subject matter, but you quoting an out of context sentence from the same source means you do? Um... It works the other way around btw.
If you read half as much as your brain sperges on a keyboard, you might actually be able to A) Learn something of what you are talking about, and B)Actually be able to back it up with relative support. Instead of picking through an article in direct conflict with your own position.
There's some rich irony here. I suspect you can't see it though.