COVID-19

[ReignOnU]

Here's a look at SNAP consumption if you prefer to just look at a welfare related item, instead of using a loaded federal dollars number tied to GDP. Imagine that, it looks similar to the other list.

The ten states that have the highest number of SNAP recipients are:

California - 3,789,000
Texas - 3,406,000
Florida - 2,847,000
New York - 2,661,000
Illinois - 1,770,000
Pennsylvania - 1,757,000
Georgia - 1,424,000
Ohio - 1,383,000
North Carolina - 1,298,000
Michigan - 1,180,000

[ReignOnU]

California has more people on SNAP than 20 states have people in total. Most of those 20 are in your list because your list is tied to GDP of large states that rely on farming, industry and small business as a great percent production than the larger cities that get the benefit of corp/tech jobs.

[dakshdar]

California has more people on SNAP than 20 states have people in total. Most of those 20 are in your list because your list is tied to GDP of large states that rely on farming, industry and small business as a great percent production than the larger cities that get the benefit of corp/tech jobs.

If you don't look at it by percentage of population in the state... I don't know how just the number of people means anything.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/10-states ... od-stamps/

[Crowes]

There's no other way to make an argument unless you ignore all context or say roads in Alabama require more federal money then California

[ReignOnU]

California has more people on SNAP than 20 states have people in total. Most of those 20 are in your list because your list is tied to GDP of large states that rely on farming, industry and small business as a great percent production than the larger cities that get the benefit of corp/tech jobs.

If you don't look at it by percentage of population in the state... I don't know how just the number of people means anything.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/10-states ... od-stamps/

Because it was a statement of volume, not usage percent.

[ReignOnU]

There's no other way to make an argument unless you ignore all context or say roads in Alabama require more federal money then California

I'm going to try to be cordial in the explanation and give you some credit... the cost of roads in Alabama doesn't have to be higher to cause more of a drag on the budget, it just has higher than the population %. It's literally the argument that Jason wanted to make, but failed miserably in doing so regarding welfare. Ultimately, it's not just a welfare thing, it's going to apply to quite a few things in terms of government assistance due to lower population, higher land area, and the types of production/business.

Going further, this is just scraping the barrel in terms of what's loaded in that welfare question. Because the next step is understanding what is in the numbers (ex. SNAP vs farming subsidy) and then understanding their overall impact. For instance SNAP is about 80b, farming subsidies around 8b. SNAP helps people get food. Farming subsidies are in place to protect farmers from poor seasons and offset long-term production costs of corn, wheat, and a couple of other crops, allowing cheaper access to these items across the country. So while yes, subsidies go to the farmer in plains state, but the benefits are intended to be felt nationwide. Does it or does it not actually work that way? IDK, I see a lot of farmers around here with some really nice farm equipment and really nice home down those long driveways.

But to the point at hand, simply tossing out some number tied to GDP without understand how/why is silly and it's a consistent theme around here. In fact, this COVID thread was jampacked with that stuff for months and part of the reason I slowed down with information. People get on a narrative and instead of understanding who/how/why, they just look for 1 immediate 'gotcha' that supports their thought.

[nick]

Shot one finally done. Pfizer gang

[jsence2]

Here's a look at SNAP consumption if you prefer to just look at a welfare related item, instead of using a loaded federal dollars number tied to GDP. Imagine that, it looks similar to the other list.

The ten states that have the highest number of SNAP recipients are:

California - 3,789,000
Texas - 3,406,000
Florida - 2,847,000
New York - 2,661,000
Illinois - 1,770,000
Pennsylvania - 1,757,000
Georgia - 1,424,000
Ohio - 1,383,000
North Carolina - 1,298,000
Michigan - 1,180,000

Time out...

...you're telling me that the states with the most people, have the most people on SNAP?!?!?!

OH MY GOD, THAT'S AMAZING! I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!!!

Again, you're conflating what I'm saying (I was sarcastically saying "welfare" for the STATE, not the actual SNAP program, I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick). I was referring to how we keep hearing about the "booming economies" of states that didn't shut down, and how McConnell said the government shouldn't fund blue states (even though red states take way more money from the federal government).

The same folks who rail against "handouts" and "getting what you deserve" have no issues with things like farm subsidies (pretty sure that's a handout, right?). I mean, maybe work harder on that farm? Maybe be smarter with how you sell your crops? It's not rocket science!

[shel311]

Shot one finally done. Pfizer gang

I got the red headed stepchild of vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson... What could go wrong!

[jsence2]

Shot one finally done. Pfizer gang

I got the red headed stepchild of vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson... What could go wrong!

Any side effects?

Nick, make sure you get dose #2 on a day where you're off the following day.

[shel311]

Any side effects?

Nothing day 1.


Day 2 mostly and into day 3, I was super tired and feeling a bit achy.... mostly just tired though.

[dakshdar]

California has more people on SNAP than 20 states have people in total. Most of those 20 are in your list because your list is tied to GDP of large states that rely on farming, industry and small business as a great percent production than the larger cities that get the benefit of corp/tech jobs.

If you don't look at it by percentage of population in the state... I don't know how just the number of people means anything.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/10-states ... od-stamps/

Because it was a statement of volume, not usage percent.

I guess I don't see why a statement on volume is relevant in that instance. Just about any reasonable discourse on statistics won't use basic values. It will almost always come down to rates and ratios for the comparisons.

[ReignOnU]

California has more people on SNAP than 20 states have people in total. Most of those 20 are in your list because your list is tied to GDP of large states that rely on farming, industry and small business as a great percent production than the larger cities that get the benefit of corp/tech jobs.

If you don't look at it by percentage of population in the state... I don't know how just the number of people means anything.

https://www.zippia.com/advice/10-states ... od-stamps/

Because it was a statement of volume, not usage percent.

I guess I don't see why a statement on volume is relevant in that instance. Just about any reasonable discourse on statistics won't use basic values. It will almost always come down to rates and ratios for the comparisons.

"Who took the most." Literally speaking most. In very simple terms, when I ask you who threw the most TDs in the NFL, you answer Tom Brady. You don't answer Sid Luckman, who leads in TD %.

[ReignOnU]

Here's a look at SNAP consumption if you prefer to just look at a welfare related item, instead of using a loaded federal dollars number tied to GDP. Imagine that, it looks similar to the other list.

The ten states that have the highest number of SNAP recipients are:

California - 3,789,000
Texas - 3,406,000
Florida - 2,847,000
New York - 2,661,000
Illinois - 1,770,000
Pennsylvania - 1,757,000
Georgia - 1,424,000
Ohio - 1,383,000
North Carolina - 1,298,000
Michigan - 1,180,000

Time out...

...you're telling me that the states with the most people, have the most people on SNAP?!?!?!

OH MY GOD, THAT'S AMAZING! I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!!!

Again, you're conflating what I'm saying (I was sarcastically saying "welfare" for the STATE, not the actual SNAP program, I laid the sarcasm on pretty thick). I was referring to how we keep hearing about the "booming economies" of states that didn't shut down, and how McConnell said the government shouldn't fund blue states (even though red states take way more money from the federal government).

The same folks who rail against "handouts" and "getting what you deserve" have no issues with things like farm subsidies (pretty sure that's a handout, right?). I mean, maybe work harder on that farm? Maybe be smarter with how you sell your crops? It's not rocket science!

So why misrepresent the stat if you know the answer? It just goes from misinformation to admitted disinformation to support you agenda.

I just used SNAP as an example since complete welfare often has various levels and doesn't have clear numbers. SNAP is easy to find. Easily shows who uses the most.

As for farm subsidies, it's not really about working harder on the farm. Your commentary just shows your complete ignorance as to how the subsidies work and why they are in place. Ultimately, the farmers would manage without the subsidies. In fact, even a tiny bit of research will give you examples where some farmers are heavily against subsidies. There's a reason that the subsidies are only given a very specific set of crops. I can give you an in-depth breakdown on why, but based on the lunacy of your commentary since you've reemerged on the boards lately, it's safe to say that it's a waste of keystrokes.

[dakshdar]

I don't know dude. You're using solo accomplishments where the population generating the statistic are all comparison groups of 1.

Citing that as an example when you're pulling stats for populations of anywhere from a few million to tens of millions. I don't think there's a relevant point to make when speaking "most" from disparate group sizes.

[ReignOnU]

I don't know dude. You're using solo accomplishments where the population generating the statistic are all comparison groups of 1.

Citing that as an example when you're pulling stats for populations of anywhere from a few million to tens of millions. I don't think there's a relevant point to make when speaking "most" from disparate group sizes.

You're trying really hard to defend something that is indefensible. There's disparity in just about everything. You say disparate group sizes, so why can't there be disparity in football rules during the time periods?

What race commits the most crime in the US? I say white people. You and Jason say black/AA people. Pretty simple answer.

[dakshdar]

I don't know dude. You're using solo accomplishments where the population generating the statistic are all comparison groups of 1.

Citing that as an example when you're pulling stats for populations of anywhere from a few million to tens of millions. I don't think there's a relevant point to make when speaking "most" from disparate group sizes.

You're trying really hard to defend something that is indefensible. There's disparity in just about everything. You say disparate group sizes, so why can't there be disparity in football rules during the time periods?

What race commits the most crime in the US? I say white people. You and Jason say black/AA people. Pretty simple answer.

But I'm not. I have zero comment on the topic itself or which side is "right" in any of this. I'm speaking purely from the math side.

Your sports example was super interesting too since modern discussion of sports statistics has very much moved away from the basic quantity of anything produced and instead focuses on rates and ratios.

Anyway, too far off topic (as of this topic wasn't already)...

[nick]

All I got from shot 1 was a Charlie horse in my arm and a little headache that might just be from the weather. And a sudden urge to buy anything Microsoft

[GeorgesGoons]

And a sudden urge to buy anything Microsoft

[nick]

Damn near almost bought a Xbox series S. that’s cause its virtually impossible to get a ps5.