T1B

Great observation, 88. Unfortunately this kind of stuff takes place on both sides of almost any issue. A lot of people will look at a number or statistic only at the surface level without even thinking about what it might actually mean. If it seems to support whatever their pre-determined position is, they'll jump all over it.

As I said, it happens on both sides. One thing that's truly frustrating is when somebody makes a stupid jump in logic, based on some set of incomplete information, to support a conclusion that you know is logically and/or statistically valid, but for other reasons.

What % of poor Whites get food stamps compared to poor Blacks? If you know.

I was following up on your break down of the data and was wondering if you knew if poor whites are more or less likely than poor blacks to get food stamps. I'm guessing the answer is no.

Moving Sale wrote:I was following up on your break down of the data and was wondering if you knew if poor whites are more or less likely than poor blacks to get food stamps. I'm guessing the answer is no.

Some very quick Google research shows that the answer is "less likely." Very, very rough numbers show about 75% of whites below the poverty line receive food stamps, while about 101% of AAs do.

So, actually a pretty decent gap. About 33% more likely among those below the poverty-line.

Again, the numbers from my 60 seconds of research are rough.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:I was following up on your break down of the data and was wondering if you knew if poor whites are more or less likely than poor blacks to get food stamps. I'm guessing the answer is no.

I do not know the answer to your question. It is called the participation rate, and the only source of data I could find that I deemed to be reasonably reliable was from 2007, which seems too old to be relevant now. It was a government report that said that eligible blacks are significantly more likely than eligible whites to participate in the SNAP program, and that eligible Hispanics are the leastl likely to participate. But I do not know if that still holds true.

I wouldn't trust data in a subject such as this that is from prior to '08 economic meltdown. I would be surprised if the percentage of whites didn't go up after that.

In light of the new information, and the likelihood that my poverty rates were more current than the participation rates provided, I withdraw my statistical conclusion.

Although I doubt the percentages changed much, just the overall numbers.

Yes I know they are called participation rates. I was, again, trying to prod you into understanding how silly your rant was because it didn't involve the best indicator of "who is on food stamps" at any one time.

This is pretty confusing.

Not sure what non-Hispanic (relative to being Hispanic) means. Can you be non-Hispanic (relative to being non-Hispanic)?

Do the semi-colons signify "or" or "and?"
Based "; or US citizens," it seems like US citizens overall are more likely to be on SNAP than white non-Hispanics. I guess this makes some sense but US citizens is a pretty broad group.

Or does it mean that if you're white and non-Hispanic (relative to being Hispanic, of course) you're less likely to be on SNAP than if you're black, female and a and non-Hispanic (relative to being Hispanic) US citizen?

I think that once Left Seater realizes how many brown people are eating Ho-hos and drinking sugary soft drinks on his dime, he's gonna SNAP.

Goober McTuber wrote:I think that once Left Seater realizes how many brown people are eating Ho-hos and drinking sugary soft drinks on his dime, he's gonna SNAP.

You would be wrong yet again. Ho-ho and soft drinks aren't usually paid for with the snap benefits. You and I pay for the fruits and veggies, and then they non snap items are paid for via cash or credit.

Yemenese bodega owners are more than happy to fund snap purchases of soda and candy for 50 cents on the dollar.

The point is, 88, that you are just as guilty as the author is because you knew or should have known your 3.75 number was misleading.
Glass houses and all.

schmick wrote:the Winco in downtown browntown

Outside of maybe their hometown of Boise, isn't every Winco the gathering place for the brownfolk?

My local Winco (right up the street) is on this loop road off the major business highway I live adjacent to. And they built a Walmart across the street. So now, next to each other, it the Evil Triumvirate of Winco, Walmart, and Costco.

Safe to say, I haven't even so much as driven down that street since Walmart opened. I'll pay a couple of extra bucks at a real store, thanks.

Winco, where the Mexis work on perfecting the art of parking the cart in the middle of the aisle. Walmart, where even the Mexis are afraid of the PWTs that inhabit it. And Costco, for people who are in deep denial that they're white trash. (Sidenote -- there's very, very few blacks in my part of town, but we make up for it with an abundance of (illegal) South Canadians.)


And BTW -- fuck you, Schmick, for instantly making "downtown browntown" part of my vocabulary.

Mikey wrote:Not sure what non-Hispanic (relative to being Hispanic) means. Can you be non-Hispanic (relative to being non-Hispanic)?

Hispanics can be black or white. For demographic purposes, if a person is identified as Hispanic, the data is further broken down to identify race since Hispanic is not a race.

Here in lilly-white suburban CT we just have regular big chain grocery stores. Last summer I was in MD for class and stopped into a brownfolk grocery store. Holy fukking shit!!!!! Was that place a trainwreck. Apparently run by some ADHD addled douche who's stocking system consists of, find a place on the shelf where it will fit. Need a can of kidney beans? Right over there, next to the windshield washer fluid. Surprisingly, no one made the two fer one EBT card offer. Just as well as I doubt I spent more than 5 bucks there. I eventually got frustrated and hoped in the sled and drove down the road to whitey market.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:The point is, 88, that you are just as guilty as the author is because you knew or should have known your 3.75 number was misleading.
Glass houses and all.

Misleading in what sense? In point of fact, it appears that blacks are 3.75+ times more likely to participate in SNAP than whites.

How is getting your main statistic wrong in a thead about misleading statistics NOT misleading?

Smackie wrote:Hispanic is not a race

Neither is African, but that hasn't stopped masses of idiots from nodding and accepting the absolutely ridiculous fraud in the White House.










:wink:

poptart wrote:

Smackie wrote:Hispanic is not a race

Neither is African, but that hasn't stopped masses of idiots from nodding and accepting the absolutely ridiculous fraud in the White House.

Ah yes, the infant Obama typed in African on his birth certificate.

BSmack wrote:

poptart wrote:

Smackie wrote:Hispanic is not a race

Neither is African, but that hasn't stopped masses of idiots from nodding and accepting the absolutely ridiculous fraud in the White House.

Ah yes, the infant Obama typed in African on his birth certificate.

He's Black Irish.