A persistent myth on the left is that poor people eat sugary foods because it's cheaper. SNAP is a program that is supposed to supplement people's food budgets.
Let's see what I can buy on the average weekly benefit for a family of four.
The average monthly benefit for a family of four is $726, which translates to ~$169 per week ($726/4.3=168.83).
So, I shopped at Target and here is what I was able to buy:
1) 5 gallons of milk; 2) 10 pounds of chicken breast; 3) 5 pounds of ground beef;
4) 10 salad kits that provided 35 to 40 servings of salad per week and they don't even have to be made; 5) 2 pounds of tomatoes; 6) 5 pounds of oranges; 7) 3 boxes of cereal; 8) 2 loaves of bread; 9) 1 pound of cheese; 10) 2 pounds of bananas; 11) 2 pounds of apples;
12) 2 weeks of toilet paper; 13) 2 weeks of soap; 14) 2 weeks of shampoo.
I exceeded the weekly budget by less than $9. But that's okay because I won't need to buy shampoo, soap, or toilet paper next week. Next week, I can buy other items like apple juice or snacks.
More importantly, SNAP is a SUPPLEMENTAL food program. It is not intended to pay for the entire food budget of a family. But as I have noted above, I can get a family of four through the week eating three meals a day and consuming 15 pounds of meat products and...
...still be within the scope of the average SNAP budget. If someone wants eggs, trim out some meat. If there is a celebration coming up, save a little money every week and pay for it.
The SNAP program is an incredibly generous program.
The only reason people struggle within its limits is because many people on SNAP rarely value shop and lack the education to understand that buying those chips at ~$6 per bag means not buying 2 pounds of tomatoes and 2 pounds of bananas.
That's a terrible trade-off. Yet, many SNAP recipients make that trade-off. As a society, we should not be abetting that trade-off. If someone wants to suckle from the teat of society, there must be rules. Those rules include making proper healthy choices.
There is no reason to increase the amount of money in SNAP. That will only increase the amount of sugary, terrible foods. SNAP participants are more obese and less mentally healthy than eligible nonparticipants.
IOW, SNAP appears to make people worse off.
SNAP provides more than enough money to beneficiaries. The problem with SNAP is that there are no guardrails to prevent people from buying unhealthy food that makes them sicker and more expensive in other programs like Medicaid.
SNAP must be restricted to allowance of certain purchases. There is no human right to buying potato chips. If someone wants to buy potato chips, they can buy it on their own dime.
By the way, I was able to get free delivery to most locations in cities in the US.
I should not have added the paper products. Those are not SNAP eligible. But people still get the point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2024, climate scientists published a paper in the journal, Nature, about the economic effects of climate change, asserting that the economic effects would be many times worse than previously reported.
That paper has been cited by politicians, news, and the UN. But..
...it's wrong. Indeed, the results were so preposterous that all three peer-reviewers raised doubts during the peer review process. One said, "I have a major concern on the uncertainty and validity of the empirical...model they built and used for projections."
Another said, "it is somewhat difficult to comprehend the full rationale for the particular econometric specification that is used." The reviewer also noted that the authors needed more tests to support their conclusions.
Intersex. You have heard trans activists refer to intersex as proof that biological sex is "complex." You have likely heard that intersex people make up 1.7% of the population.
That statistic is a lie created by Anne Fausto-Sterling and repeated by hospitals for $.
Sterling is a "sexologist" who has long sought to "disrupt" the idea that biological sex has two sexes. In 1993, she claimed that there were five sexes - male, female, merm, ferm, and herm.
But her real contribution to misinformation was her paper claiming that 1.7% of the...
...population is intersex. To get to that number, she included a range of syndromes that no clinician considers intersex. The reason is that those syndromes are very clearly male or female but with developmental dysfunctions.
Recently, I went to Ocean Prime, a restaurant in Boston. It is very expensive. It is a place I would never go in my 20s. Appetizers start at $23. Entrees start at $39.
Yet, it was filled with people in their mid- to late-20s. I struck up a conversation with one of them.
He was a young man waiting for some friends. Three in fact. All of them his roommates. He lived in in a four-bedroom apartment in Boston. He couldn't afford to live with fewer people. No big deal. I asked him if they were going to eat at Ocean Prime. He told me it was...
..."their favorite restaurant." I asked how often they eat at Ocean Prime. "Once a month or something like that."
I was floored. Eventually, his friends showed up and off they went to their tables with their girlfriends.
Maui's government has decided to blame "outsiders" for its failures. According to the mayor, "This is...about restoring housing to residents and reducing our overdependence on tourism."
Let's see how progressive governance is the problem, and how this will harm Maui.
Maui requires a mindboggling amount of permits just to build a single home. Builders must zoning restrictions, water-use regulations, and historical- and environmental-preservation requirements. This is before they even get to filing permits on actually building the home.
When they get to those permits, they are required to get permits on separate applications and schedules for electrical, plumbing, grading, and driveway work. Once that is done, they must wait for an understaffed permitting office to issue each permit.
Scientific results are limited to the quality of data. When it comes to climate science, the data is shoddy - at best.
In 2012, scientists and news organizations trumpeted the demise of the Great Barrier Reef. What happened next shows the limitations of science.
In 2012, a study published in the prestigious journal, PNAS, showed that the GBR had suffered a 50% decline in coral cover over a 27-year period. Climate scientists and the media ran with the horrors of acidifying seas and a warming climate.
But there was a problem.
The scientists could only go back to 1985 because, frankly, the data before 1985 was very limited and very suspect. As even the Coral Monitoring Network admits, coral cover had huge ranges of reliability even through the 90s. This was also true for the GBR.
This solar facility came online last year in China's Xinjiang province. It covers 200K acres, the size of NYC. It could power the city of Boston, which is a quarter the size of NYC.
It is a waste of resources and destruction of land. It is not the only one.
This is Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park. It covers over 19K acres and powers 270K homes. There are plans to expand it to cover over 57K acres so that it could power 800K homes. That's around a quarter of the state of Massachusetts, not including businesses.
This is Golmud Solar Park in Qinghai Province. It covers over 6,500 acres and provides enough power for a third of the state of Massachusetts, not including businesses.