poverty line
James
you supposed to be able to afford a certain size apartment with heat,
eat healthy, and dress warmly? Or is it just a number that qualifies
you for welfare?
Gary Heston
It's a number that qualifies you to be a political football.
What you'd be able to afford while "at the poverty line" varies tremendously
depending on where you live. In New York, LA, or DC, you'd barely be able
to eat; forget about an apartment or wardrobe. In other areas, you'd have
no problem getting an apartment, affording food, and having decent clothes.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody
Dave Garland
> If you are at the line, what are you supposed to be able to do?
Live in an "adequate" fashion.
There is no single number for that line, it will depend on where you
live, how expensive things are in your area, how many members are in
your household, etc.
> Are
> you supposed to be able to afford a certain size apartment with heat,
> eat healthy, and dress warmly? Or is it just a number that qualifies
> you for welfare?
No.
It all depends on the particular program. Eligibility for various
programs may depend on being at some percentage of that figure (above
or below). Some programs use a percentage of median income for your
area. Different programs may well have different requirements.
Other numbers may be involved, such as your age, the dollar value of
any assets you own (house, car, bank account, IRA), etc.
Programs may include such things as food aid, subsidized housing,
medical assistance, and the like. But there isn't any one rule that
applies everywhere.
Dave
Rod Speed
> If you are at the line, what are you supposed to be able to do?
Realise that many can live quite well on what is allegedly the poverty line.
> Are you supposed to be able to afford a certain size
> apartment with heat, eat healthy, and dress warmly?
Varys with where you 'live'
> Or is it just a number that qualifies you for welfare?
Nope, it isnt even that.
Goomba
It probably depends on your own initiative and abilities as to what
you'll be able to do? A clever person can find resources to help them
fulfill their needs. A not very clever person will wait for someone else
to meet their needs.
Take food stamps for example-Some people are given assistance and
squander it on expensive processed foods whereas others (those clever
ones) take it to buy ingredients and cook more from scratch. Which one
do you think will have food longer into the month.....?
catalpa
"James" <j006...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1487a77-2cf2-4430...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...
Here are some facts on poor people in America:
"The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census
Bureau, taken from various gov苟rnment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actu苔lly own their own homes.
The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is
a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
patio.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or
more cars.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or
satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and
more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. "
Dave Garland
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
And a lot of them are elderly. But what's your point? Should they be
paying $1000/mo in rent, instead of nothing (if they have the home
paid off) or $550/mo mortgage?
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car;
Unfortunately, in the US, most places you can't hunt for work, hold a
job (many poor households do hold down jobs), or shop for groceries
without a car.
>31 percent own two or more cars.
How many of those are up on blocks? But in any case, owning a car
isn't difficult, you can find a car for a couple of hundred dollars.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens,
$10 at garage sales
>more than half have a stereo,
free for taking from the alley
A far-right organization.
Dave
Rod Speed
> catalpa wrote
>> Forty-three percent of all poor households actu苔lly own their own homes.
> And a lot of them are elderly. But what's your point?
That thats not the normal definition of poor.
> Should they be paying $1000/mo in rent, instead of nothing
> (if they have the home paid off) or $550/mo mortgage?
Thats not the normal definition of poor.
>> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car;
> Unfortunately, in the US, most places you can't hunt for work, hold a job
> (many poor households do hold down jobs), or shop for groceries without a car.
Pig ignorant lie. Particularly with the elderly.
>> 31 percent own two or more cars.
> How many of those are up on blocks?
Fuck all I bet.
> But in any case, owning a car isn't difficult, you
> can find a car for a couple of hundred dollars.
Still nothing like poor.
>> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens,
> $10 at garage sales
Bet fuck all of them got them that way.
>> more than half have a stereo,
> free for taking from the alley
Bet fuck all of them got them that way.
> A far-right organization.
Which got those facts right anyway.
Marsha
> catalpa wrote:
>
But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
no medical care. Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or a
cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category. Most
truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices. What we need
is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.
Marsha
clams_casino
>
> But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
> someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
> no medical care. Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or
> a cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category.
> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices. What
> we need is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.
>
> Marsha
What the US really needs is a revision to the tax code. The amount of
money going into welfare is negligible relative to the perks the rich
receive via generous tax breaks. For a start, why do the lower and
middle income groups typically have to pay for health care using after
tax income while most upper & wealthy receive / enjoy $14k + / year free
/ untaxed health care?
Why is it a concern to provide a few hundred dollars / month in housing
subsidies for the poor while providing tens of thousands of dollars in
tax relief for the wealthy to live in multi-million dollar homes.
Why is it such a concern to provide food stamps to the needy, but
provide tax free $100+ lobster & steak dinners to businessmen?
Why are spa, box seat sporting event seats, country club memberships,
etc provided tax free which primarily the wealthy enjoy?
The cost of welfare is negligible relative to the bonuses being hand out
to financial bankers at the expense of tax payers.
Rick
That is a tricky number. It is calculated so differently by so many
different people that you could easily have a large range to tell
people "I live below the poverty line" and you would not be lieing.
In Michigan, if you can prove you have expenses more then a certain
amount that when subtracted from your gross income it falls below
predetermined amounts for the size faimly you are in, you can have
your property taxes dismissed. It's called Poverty Exemption and many
people are taking advantage of it right now as you can probably guess.
Regards,
Rick
JonquilJan
In some locations, the amount stated can enable the person to qualify for
breaks on subsidized housing, food stamps, tax breaks, etc. In my locality
(the only one where I have personal experience) I qualify for the STAR tax
program - which lowers my school taxes. But I do not qualify for HEAP -
which would help with my winter heating bills.
I could go to the monthly surplus food distribution (I can't stand up long
enough to wait in the lines however) but anyone can do that regardless of
income. I would qualify for subsidized housing - but only if I stopped
working (just barely over the line when I work) - and I wouldn't want to
leave my home anyway.
Some people 'live' quite well when their income is below the 'poverty line'
because they are frugal and make good choices. Others live quite 'poorly'
even when they are well above the 'poverty line' because they make bad
choices and live extravagently.
I don't have a cell phone, only basic cable (less that $9 a month), a used
car, no stereo, no microwave, have the house paid off. Health care through
Medicare. I am almost 70 (less than 2 months) and have been disabled for
over 35 years. Poverty line - I'm close - but not under that line as yet.
JonquilJan
Learn something new every day
As long as you are learning, you are living
When you stop learning, you start dying
Dave Garland
> But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
> someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
> no medical care.
You're right, that image is not always accurate. It is sometimes, but
not others. Sometimes the poor is a 80-year-old widow living in her
own deteriorating house on social security. Sometimes it's a single
mom with kids who left daddy because he beat them, or is doing time.
Sometimes it's a family with one wage-earner in a minimum-wage job and
medical problems. And yeah, sometimes it's a guy who's allergic to work.
The media and politicians like to reduce their stories to simple black
and white. Because the public's attention span isn't long enough for
anything more complicated. It's gotta fit into a sound bite.
>Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or a
> cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category.
I'd agree about the TV. But most of the poor who I know that have a
cellphone don't have a landline. If you have bad credit, do you know
what it costs to get a landline installed? You can get a prepaid
cellphone at K-Mart for $20 no questions asked, another $20 will load
it with 100 minutes talk time. You tell me what the local telco will
charge (don't forget to include the taxes, they can double a low-end
bill).
> Most
> truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.
That's sometimes true. But do you have any evidence do you have for
"most"?
> What we need
> is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.
Along with a major overhaul of developers and sports team owners who
get big tax giveaways, buddies of the vice president who get no-bid
government contracts so they can charge twice or three times the
market rate, major corporations who get multi-billion dollar bailouts
no strings attached, subsidies for telephone service of people who
choose to live in places like Alaska, and a lot of other stuff.
Dave
Seerialmom
Actually it's a number that allows many non-profit organizations to
get free grants to help those who fit that number. It's also used to
allocate federal funds in school districts for special programs. To
qualify for the benefits you mentioned you most likely would need to
fall well below the line. As for the certain housing, dress and food,
in general the answer is "no".
Seerialmom
I couldn't agree with you more on that. One negative aspect of that,
however, is that where there are large clusters of "welfare" families
in an inner city chances are there isn't a regular grocery store
nearby (or even accessible) and the options for food can be limited to
Mom/Pop stores who carry little "fresh" food. Some cities are trying
to lure in grocers and also host "farmers markets" weekly, that's at
least helpful.
Seerialmom
I know, how about we turn all the old military bases into "paupers
farms" and anyone who applies for welfare would have to go there to
live instead of being allowed the albeit slight, dignity of at least
trying to take care of their families in their own homes?
Seerialmom
One thing those who fail to realize when they grouse about welfare is
the recipient never "keeps" the money, it goes to landowners, grocers,
utilities etc. They aren't getting rich. Sure, "some" abuse the
benefit. For every 1 "welfare queen wearing gold and driving a
Cadillac" there's 30 more working part time, wearing second hand
clothes and if she's lucky, has a $300 beater car.
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
>
>> But the media and politicians like to paint a picture of the poor as
>> someone without adequate shelter, not enough food, not much income and
>> no medical care.
>
> You're right, that image is not always accurate. It is sometimes, but
> not others. Sometimes the poor is a 80-year-old widow living in her
> own deteriorating house on social security. Sometimes it's a single
> mom with kids who left daddy because he beat them, or is doing time.
> Sometimes it's a family with one wage-earner in a minimum-wage job and
> medical problems. And yeah, sometimes it's a guy who's allergic to work.
No disagreement. That's why there were percentages in the original link.
> The media and politicians like to reduce their stories to simple black
> and white. Because the public's attention span isn't long enough for
> anything more complicated. It's gotta fit into a sound bite.
From Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts today:
"As American incomes have risen over the years, liberals have kept
changing the definition of "poverty." Otherwise, the dwindling numbers
of people who could be called "poor" would take away the liberals' main
claim to influence and power."
>
>> Someone with cable or satellite TV reception and/or a
>> cell phone in addition to a land line does not fit that category.
>
> I'd agree about the TV. But most of the poor who I know that have a
> cellphone don't have a landline. If you have bad credit, do you know
> what it costs to get a landline installed? You can get a prepaid
> cellphone at K-Mart for $20 no questions asked, another $20 will load
> it with 100 minutes talk time. You tell me what the local telco will
> charge (don't forget to include the taxes, they can double a low-end
> bill).
Again, no disagreement. That's why there were percentages in the
original link. One third have both cell phones and land lines. Two
thirds have cable or satellite.
>
>> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.
>
> That's sometimes true. But do you have any evidence do you have for
> "most"?
No, that's just my experience with people I know. Do you have any that
says it isn't the case in most situations?
>
>> What we need
>> is a major overhaul of the welfare system and immigration.
>
> Along with a major overhaul of developers and sports team owners who
> get big tax giveaways, buddies of the vice president who get no-bid
> government contracts so they can charge twice or three times the
> market rate, major corporations who get multi-billion dollar bailouts
> no strings attached, subsidies for telephone service of people who
> choose to live in places like Alaska, and a lot of other stuff.
>
> Dave
Mostly agree. We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.
Marsha/Ohio
Dennis
<seeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>One thing those who fail to realize when they grouse about welfare is
>the recipient never "keeps" the money, it goes to landowners, grocers,
>utilities etc. They aren't getting rich. Sure, "some" abuse the
>benefit. For every 1 "welfare queen wearing gold and driving a
>Cadillac" there's 30 more working part time, wearing second hand
>clothes and if she's lucky, has a $300 beater car.
Really? Is that just a guess or is it based on some personal
experience? Because we used to own/manage some apartments that
catered to Section 8 tenants. Our experience with these people was
that about 1 in 4 was a basically honest hard-working type who was
down on their luck and just needed a hand to get on their feet. The
rest were just working the system for whatever they could get.
I would actually be happy to learn that our experience was atypical.
Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.
Dennis
<seeri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I know, how about we turn all the old military bases into "paupers
>farms" and anyone who applies for welfare would have to go there to
>live instead of being allowed the albeit slight, dignity of at least
>trying to take care of their families in their own homes?
Some local entrepreneurs bought and turned the old county "poor farm"
into restaurant/brewpub/winery/hotel/concert venue. My wife and I
went there and, once we got past the irony of the old poor farm now
being a trendy spot where yuppies go to drink $6/glass wine and eat
$25/plate dinners, we took a look around. They had quite a few
pictures of the old place and displays of its history.
The able-bodied residents actually worked the farm. They produced
all their own food, plus surplus that fed the county jails and
hospitals. They also produced their own power. Those who didn't work
the fields did the laundry, cooking, cleaning, child care, etc. I'm
sure it wasn't a luxurious life, but no one starved.
Interesting contrast to today's approach: here's a check and some
foodstamps -- you're on your own.
Here's a link to some info if interested:
http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=3&id=56
Dave Garland
> No disagreement. That's why there were percentages in the original link.
I looked there. But they don't give footnotes about precisely where
the data came from. My problem is, I don't trust "heritage.org".
They're rightwingers with a big ax to grind. I'm not saying that I
think they lie, but I'm saying that I think one needs to examine what
they say with a fine-tooth comb, since "had sex with" can have
different meanings depending on what the definitions are.
> From Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts today:
>
> "As American incomes have risen over the years, liberals have kept
> changing the definition of "poverty." Otherwise, the dwindling numbers
> of people who could be called "poor" would take away the liberals' main
> claim to influence and power."
Perhaps. And of course, what we call "middle class" nowadays would
have once been called "obscenely wealthy". Standards do change.
Once, living to 50 qualified you as elderly. Presumably, Mr. Sowell
thinks it still should.
>>> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.
>> But do you have any evidence do you have for
>> "most"?
>
> No, that's just my experience with people I know. Do you have any that
> says it isn't the case in most situations?
No, other than personal experience. In part it depends on exactly
what "good choices" means. Many people (including President Bush)
obviously make what in retrospect are bad choices. The trick is
having the ability to know ahead of time whether they will be good or bad.
> We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
> decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.
A frail 80-year-old has the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent
living?
Dave
clams_casino
>
>
>Perhaps. And of course, what we call "middle class" nowadays would
>have once been called "obscenely wealthy".
>
The Republicans were using an upper threshold of $250k for middle class
throughout this year's election.
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
>> No disagreement. That's why there were percentages in the original link.
>
> I looked there. But they don't give footnotes about precisely where
> the data came from. My problem is, I don't trust "heritage.org".
> They're rightwingers with a big ax to grind. I'm not saying that I
> think they lie, but I'm saying that I think one needs to examine what
> they say with a fine-tooth comb, since "had sex with" can have
> different meanings depending on what the definitions are.
It's just another point of view, IMO, to counterbalance all the crap
from the left. Extremes are not good in either case.
>
>> From Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts today:
>>
>> "As American incomes have risen over the years, liberals have kept
>> changing the definition of "poverty." Otherwise, the dwindling numbers
>> of people who could be called "poor" would take away the liberals' main
>> claim to influence and power."
>
> Perhaps. And of course, what we call "middle class" nowadays would
> have once been called "obscenely wealthy". Standards do change.
> Once, living to 50 qualified you as elderly. Presumably, Mr. Sowell
> thinks it still should.
I think he's right.
>
>>>> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.
>
>>> But do you have any evidence do you have for "most"?
>> No, that's just my experience with people I know. Do you have any that
>> says it isn't the case in most situations?
>
> No, other than personal experience. In part it depends on exactly
> what "good choices" means. Many people (including President Bush)
> obviously make what in retrospect are bad choices. The trick is
> having the ability to know ahead of time whether they will be good or bad.
Some things that are well known to be bad ahead of time: A female, who
doesn't want to get pregnant, who screws around and gets pregnant.
Someone who has a good job but spends every penny and doesn't save any
of it. Dropouts from school. Everyone makes mistakes. The problem
with some at poverty level is they don't try to correct them, or even
own up to them, because they know Uncle Sam will be there for the rest
of their life.
>
>> We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
>> decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.
>
> A frail 80-year-old has the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent
> living?
>
> Dave
The original link didn't mention the average age of those at poverty
level. But I'd be willing to bet they're not all frail 80-year-olds.
We're both pointing out opposite ends. I don't disagree that there are
people who need help and you shouldn't disagree that there are people
who suck off the welfare tit for all it's worth. It's those who use it
as a lifestyle, generation after generation, that I'm talking about.
Marsha/Ohio
Dave Garland
>>> We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
>>> decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.
>>
>> A frail 80-year-old has the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent
>> living?
> The original link didn't mention the average age of those at poverty
> level. But I'd be willing to bet they're not all frail 80-year-olds.
Agreed. I merely threw out that example because you said "all", and
"all" is not accurate.
> who suck off the welfare tit for all it's worth. It's those who use it
> as a lifestyle, generation after generation, that I'm talking about.
Fair enough. But I don't think there are very many who fit into that
category (does any reliable source give figures for "generation after
generation"?). Certainly not (in monetary terms) as many as there who
own businesses and find ways to such off the government tit.
In my city, the guy who's probably the richest citizen, owner of a
sports team, has managed to get public financing (a special sales tax)
for a new stadium for his team. Mind you, the stadium isn't useful
for anything else, the public doesn't get any equity in the team, and
if, after a brief period, he decides to move or sell the team
elsewhere, we'll still be stuck with the bill for the stadium. You
can support a whole lot of people at welfare rates for that expense.
If I'm going to piss away tax money, I'd rather it go to the poor than
the rich.
Dave
Marsha
> Marsha wrote:
>>>> We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
>>>> decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.
>>> A frail 80-year-old has the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent
>>> living?
>
>> The original link didn't mention the average age of those at poverty
>> level. But I'd be willing to bet they're not all frail 80-year-olds.
>
> Agreed. I merely threw out that example because you said "all", and
> "all" is not accurate.
I should have said mentally or physically unable to work.
>> who suck off the welfare tit for all it's worth. It's those who use it
>> as a lifestyle, generation after generation, that I'm talking about.
>
> Fair enough. But I don't think there are very many who fit into that
> category (does any reliable source give figures for "generation after
> generation"?). Certainly not (in monetary terms) as many as there who
> own businesses and find ways to such off the government tit.
We have quite a few subsidized apartments in Toledo with tenants who fit
that category. I work at a hospital and see the same families abusing
the health care system, because they don't have to pay a dime.
>
> In my city, the guy who's probably the richest citizen, owner of a
> sports team, has managed to get public financing (a special sales tax)
> for a new stadium for his team. Mind you, the stadium isn't useful
> for anything else, the public doesn't get any equity in the team, and
> if, after a brief period, he decides to move or sell the team
> elsewhere, we'll still be stuck with the bill for the stadium. You
> can support a whole lot of people at welfare rates for that expense.
> If I'm going to piss away tax money, I'd rather it go to the poor than
> the rich.
>
> Dave
>
Instead of just throwing more money at welfare like a bandaid, I'd
rather see it used for education and job skills. It would be nice if
those who are able would actually do something to earn it. I think the
biggest problem of welfare recipients (not the 80-year-olds) is that
they have no ambition or incentive to better their lives. If you take
away the free money, there would be a whole lot of incentive.
Marsha/Ohio
Siskuwihane
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:33:53 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
>
> >One thing those who fail to realize when they grouse about welfare is
> >the recipient never "keeps" the money, it goes to landowners, grocers,
> >utilities etc. They aren't getting rich. Sure, "some" abuse the
> >benefit. For every 1 "welfare queen wearing gold and driving a
> >Cadillac" there's 30 more working part time, wearing second hand
> >clothes and if she's lucky, has a $300 beater car.
>
> Really? Is that just a guess or is it based on some personal
> experience? Because we used to own/manage some apartments that
> catered to Section 8 tenants. Our experience with these people was
> that about 1 in 4 was a basically honest hard-working type who was
> down on their luck and just needed a hand to get on their feet. The
> rest were just working the system for whatever they could get.
>
> I would actually be happy to learn that our experience was atypical.
Not atypical from what I have experienced in the last 2 years
volunteering at 2 local food banks and the Christmas toy givaway
program. I would estimate that at least 70% are nothing more than
mooches.
It's amazing the number of people who cannot afford to buy food but
always have the money for cell phones, cigarettes, and body piercings.
When I carry a box of food to a womans car and the food she was given
last month is still sitting in the trunk, I know she isn't needy,
she's just getting it because it's free (for her).
A few weeks ago a couple arrived at the food bank an hour before we
opened. The male asked what time we were going to open (even though he
walked past three signs stating the opening time and has been coming
for over a year) and I told him we would be opening at 11:00. They
started to leave and another person I was working with said "you could
help us move these boxes" to which he replied "I ain't doing no
f***ing work".
That pretty much sums up the attitude of the majority of those coming
in for food.
Dave Garland
> Instead of just throwing more money at welfare like a bandaid, I'd
> rather see it used for education and job skills.
I can't argue with that. Of course, in recent years the trend has
been to cut back on the expenditures for expenditures, job skills, and
child care for those who can either work or take care of their
children during the day, but not both at the same time.
> If you take
> away the free money, there would be a whole lot of incentive.
Yup. That's true of the wealthy sports team owners, too.
Dave
Seerialmom
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:24:31 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
>
The suggestion was done tongue in cheek; but I agree that giving the
check with no specific requirements isn't the way to break that
dependence. What I find sad is when the emphasis is placed on "job
training, placement and child care assistance" many will take that
route only to have it yanked out a year or so later when the local
govt's decide they can't afford it anymore. And then they're back to
square one again.
The Real Bev
> On Dec 24, 7:26 pm, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:24:31 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
>>
>> <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >I know, how about we turn all the old military bases into "paupers
>> >farms" and anyone who applies for welfare would have to go there to
>> >live instead of being allowed the albeit slight, dignity of at least
>> >trying to take care of their families in their own homes?
>>
>> Some local entrepreneurs bought and turned the old county "poor farm"
>> into restaurant/brewpub/winery/hotel/concert venue. My wife and I
>> went there and, once we got past the irony of the old poor farm now
>> being a trendy spot where yuppies go to drink $6/glass wine and eat
>> $25/plate dinners, we took a look around. They had quite a few
>> pictures of the old place and displays of its history.
>>
>> The able-bodied residents actually worked the farm. They produced
>> all their own food, plus surplus that fed the county jails and
>> hospitals. They also produced their own power. Those who didn't work
>> the fields did the laundry, cooking, cleaning, child care, etc. I'm
>> sure it wasn't a luxurious life, but no one starved.
>>
>> Interesting contrast to today's approach: here's a check and some
>> foodstamps -- you're on your own.
>>
>> Here's a link to some info if interested:
>>
>> http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=3&id=56
>
> The suggestion was done tongue in cheek; but I agree that giving the
> check with no specific requirements isn't the way to break that
> dependence. What I find sad is when the emphasis is placed on "job
> training, placement and child care assistance" many will take that
> route only to have it yanked out a year or so later when the local
> govt's decide they can't afford it anymore. And then they're back to
> square one again.
Another big problem is that if you have no job skills already (be on
time, show up every day, don't dress weird, etc.) you're not likely to
be able to learn something that will qualify you for more than a minimum
wage job, which is nowhere near enough to raise the kids you already
have.
How do you make sure that THIS generation of hopeless losers is the last?
--
Cheers,
Bev
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Sign on restroom hand-dryer:
"Push button for a message from your congressman."
Marsha
> Another big problem is that if you have no job skills already (be on
> time, show up every day, don't dress weird, etc.) you're not likely to
> be able to learn something that will qualify you for more than a minimum
> wage job, which is nowhere near enough to raise the kids you already have.
>
> How do you make sure that THIS generation of hopeless losers is the last?
>
Sterilization?
Marsha/Ohio
Rod Speed
Sterilise them.
rick++
and didnt realize it.
Auntielle
> James wrote:
> > If you are at the line, what are you supposed to be able to do? Are
> > you supposed to be able to afford a certain size apartment with heat,
> > eat healthy, and dress warmly? Or is it just a number that qualifies
> > you for welfare?
>
> It probably depends on your own initiative and abilities as to what
> you'll be able to do? A clever person can find resources to help them
> fulfill their needs. A not very clever person will wait for someone else
> to meet their needs.
> Take food stamps for example-Some people are given assistance and
> squander it on expensive processed foods whereas others (those clever
> ones) take it to buy ingredients and cook more from scratch. Which one
> do you think will have food longer into the month.....?
I've belonged to this group for years, but have only posted once
before, so I apologize if I've put this message in the wrong place.
I wholeheartedly agree that one's own initiative and abilities can
have a big impact on how well one is able to live "at the poverty
line". For several years, I worked as a grocery clerk for Ralph's - a
grocery chain owned by Krogers. This was during the years where the
Double Coupon policies here in SoCal were very generous, as were the
number of excellent sale prices on various grocery items each week.
The store I worked at was in an economically depressed area; we had a
good percentage of our customers who were welfare check and food stamp
recipients. In spite of the savings available to them thru taking
advantage of sale prices and double coupons, it was extremely rare to
see a food stamp customer using coupons.
I never could understand why these customers who were supposedly
"needy" were unwilling to make the effort to buy a couple of Sunday
newspapers - which contained inserts full of coupons - and match them
up with sale items and other things on their grocery lists. I was a
first apprentice clerk - at the bottom of the union pay scale - and I
used coupons heavily which, when doubled by the store, gave me many
things free or for pennies: all sorts of food items as well as non-
food products such as shampoo and conditioner, toothbrushes and
toothpaste, deodorant, dishwashing liquid, bar soap, body wash, window
cleaner - you name it.
If the welfare/food stamp recipients had been willing to invest a
couple of dollars a week in Sunday newspapers (to get the coupons) and
a bit of time looking at the weekly ads and making a list, they could
have made both their welfare check (to buy non-food items) and food
stamps go so much farther. But maybe 5 out of every 100 food stamp
recipients used coupons. To me, it seemed like since it was the
government's money (in the form of food stamps and welfare checks)
they were spending, it was not worth it to them to take the effort to
learn to "play the coupon game" and get 5 to 10 times the value for
the money. It really made me kind of angry to see this kind of
complacency. I couldn't help but think that if they had had to work to
pay for those groceries, they would have been giving me a big stack of
coupons.
I worked in the grocery industry for almost 10 years, and I admit that
there were a small percentage of welfare check/food stamp customers
who truly tried to use the resources given to them to wisely buy
healthful, inexpensive items and used coupons to make the funds they
did have to go farther. But the majority used their food stamps for
convenience foods, sodas, chips, candy, AND expensive cuts of meat -
including prime rib, filet mignon, King Crab legs, large shrimp and
scallops, etc. No, I'm not kidding; it was common for me to look down
in the shopping cart as I started to ring up the order and see a bunch
of packages of expensive meat items in the front of the cart, while
the rest of the cart was filled with convenience foods and "junk".
Our store also cashed payroll, government(Social Security, disability,
etc.) and welfare checks, but we required a $25 minimum purchase in
order to cash one of these checks. So people would come in on the
first of the month, spend their food stamps as described above, and
then buy a carton of cigarettes and a couple of bottles of liquor to
cover their required purchase to cash the welfare check. It was
obvious to me that these people had another source of income, in
addition to what they were spending at my store, because they could
not afford to live on what was left of their welfare check and food
stamps after they finished shopping.
It is very sad, because I know that there truly are needy people who
need the help of welfare checks and food stamps and do not abuse them.
But the vast majority of the customers I had who used these programs
abused them by buying junk foods, non-essentials, and prime meats. And
they were not willing to help themselves by using coupons either. It
was just a handout to them, and it was clearly abused much of the
time, in my experience.
For anyone who is truly needy, please do what you can by using coupons
on items you need, and learn to live frugally. There are many, many
websites to help you to live and cook inexpensively; just do a Google
search. Take notes on anything you feel would help you to cut costs. I
apologize for the length of this post, but I felt my years as a
grocery clerk gave me a lot of experience as far as seeing how many,
many aid recipients spend their grocery (food stamp) dollar.
Dave Garland
> For anyone who is truly needy, please do what you can by using coupons
> on items you need, and learn to live frugally.
Indeed. Of course, you're preaching to the choir, anybody who is
"truly needy" and reads m.c.f-l is probably practicing those virtues.
In a major metro area (and some other areas as well) there may well be
ways to save even more by *not* using coupons.
For example, I find that almost anything involving national brands
(except perhaps a "double value of coupon" deal) even with a coupon
costs more than buying a different (not national brand) product.
Occasionally, the national brand is so much better or different as to
make the extra expense worth it, but not often.
Better yet are stores that specialize in "deals". They may have
national brands, but the products might be ones that didn't sell
elsewhere, or other vendors had overstocked, or that are past their
"sell by" date. (There are very few food products where honoring the
sell-by date is important.. the only one that comes to my mind is
things containing Nutrasweet, which as it gets old gets very nasty.)
Not everything they sell will be a good deal (stuff that they acquire
through regular distributor channels probably will cost more than at a
"warehouse supermarket"). But some things will be, and if you use
them they'll be worth stocking up on.
Dave
Strider
Every generation has had its hopeless losers. The difference is, decent
people once shunned them, so they used to quietly die off without reproducing
(self-sterilization, if you will). Now we have a massive welfare state that
encourages & rewards the HLs, along with a perverted "culture" that glorifies
them. So naturally they breed with wild abandon (the black illegitimacy rate
is ~70%), thereby creating even more HLs. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
warned about the impending catastrophe, but his own party demonized him as a
"racist" and ignored him in their quest for black votes. (LBJ reportedly
crowed to his advisors after signing his welfare bills, "We [Democrats] just
locked up the nigger vote for the next 100 years!")
Nor did previous generations have to contend with uncontrolled 3rd World
immigration. Instead of allowing in only the best and brightest, we now
import the worst and dullest. Another "Great Society" legacy, just in case
the welfare state didn't create enough home-grown HLs.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Rod Speed
> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> Another big problem is that if you have no job skills already (be
>>> on time, show up every day, don't dress weird, etc.) you're not
>>> likely to be able to learn something that will qualify you for more
>>> than a minimum wage job, which is nowhere near enough to raise the kids you already have.
>>> How do you make sure that THIS generation of hopeless losers is the last?
>> Sterilization?
> Every generation has had its hopeless losers.
Yes.
> The difference is, decent people once shunned them, so they used to quietly die off without reproducing
> (self-sterilization, if you will).
Never happened in enough numbers to matter.
> Now we have a massive welfare state that encourages & rewards the HLs, along with a perverted "culture" that glorifies
> them. So naturally they breed with wild abandon (the black illegitimacy rate is ~70%),
It always was that high amoungst the dregs.
> thereby creating even more HLs. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) warned about the impending catastrophe, but his
> own party demonized him as a "racist" and ignored him in their quest for black votes.
Plenty said the same thing about his irish ancestors.
> (LBJ reportedly crowed to his advisors after signing his welfare bills, "We [Democrats] just locked up the nigger vote
> for the next 100 years!")
He also claimed that they had lost the white vote too.
> Nor did previous generations have to contend with uncontrolled 3rd World immigration.
While they many not have come from the 3rd world, they did come from
the dregs of the first world, like ireland and eastern europe in huge numbers.
And there's the tiny matter of all those slaves from the 3rd world too.
> Instead of allowing in only the best and brightest, we now import the worst and dullest.
Another pig ignorant lie. There are still plenty of the best and brightest allowed in.
> Another "Great Society" legacy,
Just your pig ignorant fantasy, actually.
JonL
> If you are at the line, what are you supposed to be able to do? Are
> you supposed to be able to afford a certain size apartment with heat,
> eat healthy, and dress warmly? Or is it just a number that qualifies
> you for welfare?
There's no level of affluence you're "supposed" to have. There should
be no official Poverty Line. Back in the Old days, peeps didn't know
they were poor, yet they survived.
"Let them eat cake"
BigDog1
[snip]
Conservative to be sure - but "far right"?
What's your definition?
Dave Garland
categorizes neatly into a "left-right" spectrum.
To the left of white supremacist groups and the John Birch Society,
but to the right of the "business" or "Romney" wing of the
contemporary Republican Party. YMMV.
Dave
Seerialmom
Of the children? :)