• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

People on food stamps

nlsme said:
She is saying that there wasn't a net gain in jobs. For every job you know of someone landing, someone else lost theirs. The thing you are not getting, is there are 14million+ people out of work right now. There are not 14million+ jobs to be had. There isn't even a million. Sad thing is, to you, the 13+ million people with no hope of finding a job are free loaders, taking advantage of a system, because they WANT to.
Click to expand...

Sad how many people feel the same way we're seeing posted in here.
 
Bob Maxey said:
I think you are correct, Batgeek. I also observe it and have done so for many years. I know some people at Smith's (a local grocery chain) and they also report welfare is on the rise. They do not need to observe it, they look at the computers and hard data. We called them facts, back in the day.

I see mostly minorities but increasing numbers of white folk, too. I know their status because I see people swiping their Horizon cards. I listen to some of these people talk and why they are not employed is quite clear. I also know that a big issue with welfare is it is sometimes generational.

And to be fair, I see an increasing number of white people on the public dole, too."

But, as some have pointed out, observation is not proof. So perhaps people that disagree with your observations can prove you wrong with facts.
Click to expand...

This* is also subject to the criticism of observation, but worst, third hand. Welfare might not also generational, but institutional, as it becomes a full time job to retain.

""It was very difficult to identify myself as poor," she says. She recognized her own "little individual prejudices" against people on welfare, the shame and stigma that came with it. "I learned compassion -- the hard way."

This hard way turned into an odyssey. Instead of finding a job soon, Brown got entangled in the maze of the US welfare system.

Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" of 1996 privatized welfare in the US, turning it into a for-profit business. Nowadays, welfare seekers have to adhere to such strict criteria that "a large number of applicants will have their applications denied, mainly because of purported non-compliance with certain requirements," the FPWA recently found in a study. Many others would just give up.

Brown wasn't spared either. First the agencies couldn't determine how much help she was due. Then, because of a still-unresolved computer error, her cash allowance was denied completely.

She now gets just $242 in food stamps and $400 in rent subsidy per month. Every payment requires a new "application," for which she has to produce dozens of documents.

The Nouveau Poor: Recession Shadows America's Middle Class - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

*This refers to my citation of the Spiegal link, which is unclear in the original post.
 
nlsme said:
For every job you know of someone landing, someone else lost theirs.
Click to expand...

Here's an interactive graph of unemployment data beginning decades ago. You can check out individual states, as well as the overall U.S. data.

Unemployment in the U.S. - Google Public Data Explorer

The discussion in this thread has morphed into an old argument we see from time to time and that I think is in the back of many people's minds: chronically unemployed/under employed people don't want to work as much as successfully employed people do.

I see some of those. But I'm afraid it's misguided and cruel to superimpose that notion over the unemployment phenomena we see now.

For me to believe that there are large numbers of people not working because they don't want to or have done something wrong in the interview process I'd have to also believe that there are large sectors of the business establishment that are suffering from low staff issues, and that is only true in a few low paying jobs in a few prosperous areas of the country, such as Nebraska.

Things are pretty bad in most areas of the U.S. right now, and as you can see by that graph, it's been that way before.. but, we did pull out of it. Hopefully we can again.

Side note: from time to time you'll notice that posts around the forums (this thread included) are edited or even removed. It's a hard call sometimes about doing that. :( It is done in an effort to "depersonalize" some of the productive, back and forth discourse in here because we've often seen that point of communication in the forums turn into ugly fights.

Once the ugly stuff begins, we have a thread to lock and infractions or warnings to issue.

I apologize if it seems over done at times (the editing), PM me please so we can discuss each issue if you'd like to.

The very best thing is to stay within user guidelines and to treat one another in here with respect, no innuendos or personal remarks or anything that could wreck the great debates going on; don't get mad. ;)
 
Frisco said:
The discussion in this thread has morphed into an old argument we see from time to time and that I think is in the back of many people's minds: chronically unemployed/under employed people don't want to work as much as successfully employed people do.
Click to expand...

I think people want to work but it is hard to find work. Rather, it is hard to find work some like or want. I do not think every currently unemployed person is lazy. In some cases, they are not always willing to settle for work they consider demeaning or too menial. Like a writer becoming a lawn care helper or fast food cook.

The jobs are out there but I also see people that lost 20.00+/hr jobs wanting to find new 20.00/+hr jobs and it is not happening. They refuse to take lesser pay in some cases using the excuse that they can't live on the lower wages. Perhaps true, but why not take whatever you can find and work hard and then take a better job when it becomes available?

I know people that were well-paid writers, doc specialists, or what have you, that are settling for jobs they think are menial. Like labor or kitchen work. Not what they want to do, to be sure. I say take what you can get until things improve. And things will get better.

I think people need to be careful these days. Learn as much as you can about your job and be perfect. Give back to your employer more than he or she gives you.

Think out side of the box. My work has picked up considerably. I can do the assignments companies once had staff to do, like editing. They use freelancers to save money.
 
I sure wish you would have included the rest of what I said on that subject, when you quoted my post.. ;) .. all you quoted was, "The discussion in this thread has morphed into an old argument we see from time to time and that I think is in the back of many people's minds: chronically unemployed/under employed people don't want to work as much as successfully employed people do."

The rest is:

Frisco said:
I see some of those. But I'm afraid it's misguided and cruel to superimpose that notion over the unemployment phenomena we see now.

For me to believe that there are large numbers of people not working because they don't want to or have done something wrong in the interview process I'd have to also believe that there are large sectors of the business establishment that are suffering from low staff issues, and that is only true in a few low paying jobs in a few prosperous areas of the country, such as Nebraska.
Click to expand...

;)
 
I've seen a lot of speculation on fixing welfare/destroying it here so I figured I'd give you a tale. This is my story of welfare.

I worked at a restaurant thanks to a friend after a period of unemployment. It was here that I met my ex-girlfriend. We were happy together at the time and the meager amount of money I made allowed us to have a certain amount of fun. 10 months into my employment the business closed suddenly without any true warning (only rumors mind you). Two weeks later, I found out my ex was pregnant with my son. I spent time working towards finding a job but my town was dry. I eventually got on at another restaurant a mere three months before my son was born.

Since she lived with her parents and I with mine at that time, we elected to try and move out. We managed to get on at a place with Section 8 where I was capable of paying rent and utilities, but suffered due to the amount I took in. Our food budget was $50 every two weeks. We thankfully got formula for our son through a state program, but imagine trying to survive on that kind of money for two people. We ate mostly TV dinners and the occasional frozen pizza. Definitely not healthy in the long run.

We applied for food stamps and it took almost two months or so after applying due to all the forms that we had to send in. I can recall having to resend certain forms due to the incompetence of the local office. We were finally approved for $274 a month. Because of the food stamps, we were able to purchase healthier foods, afford low-end broadband DSL (we're talking $25 a month), purchase clothes for our son and us, and even occasionally go out once in a while.

I'll always be thankful for the food stamps because my ex could not work (we would later work towards obtaining her SSI due to mental disability) and I was already working full time and needed to be there to help her raise our son. We attempted to obtain food stamps later on after she had SSI and I had received several raises since then. We missed the cut off mark by $60. That was after two years and we only barely made more than the cut off. Point being, I can't think of anyone I know who isn't working or disabled that's on food stamps that's abusing it.

There are always going to be people looking for an easy way out. The system needs perhaps some better revision for weeding out freeloaders and fraud, but to take away the system entirely would cripple those who need it. There's no easy fix, but the people here who seem to be snubbing their nose or advocating drug tests (would have been wasted money to give me one) obviously have never been down on their luck. Also, complaining about people buying prime rib with food stamps is kinda dumb. I can't recall the link right now (I'm really tired), but I believe their were studies that showed when people in the poverty range were given food stamps they made healthier eating choices. Prime rib is most certainly better than a TV dinner health-wise. I know that better than anyone.
 
That's quite a story, DrHyde. I am having trouble finding words beyond, "I've seen it so many times." I work part time at a mission here in town, and we see that very story, with a few nouns changed, over and over and over, every week.

My heart goes out to you, and I applaud your air of responsibility to the child. :)

Hang in there, with your strength and desire, I am sure you'll do well in the long run.
 
Bob Maxey said:
The jobs are out there but I also see people that lost 20.00+/hr jobs wanting to find new 20.00/+hr jobs and it is not happening. They refuse to take lesser pay in some cases using the excuse that they can't live on the lower wages.
Click to expand...

You are missing one tiny point. Let us compare two cities. Flint, MI and Portland, Or.

If you have two people in the same house hold, making minimum wage. They would need to make 15,000 dollars more to live in portland oregon then to live in flint MI. Just to balance out the local cost of living. A person that can survive on minimum wage in one area is starving to death in another. Are you suggesting all the poor should be force to living in work camps? Because that is the bottom line, the poor would move out of the cities with high cost, forcing them into ghettos, remember the 1960's?

But that is the bottom line. A person needs to make 20 dollars an hour just to survive can not be paid 8 dollars an hour. If he takes the 8 dollars an hour job he will not be able to pay the bills, which will make him homeless.

It is not that they could not take the 8 dollar an hour job, but if they did, they would still not be able to survive in the city. They would also cut down the chances of getting a job that paid the full wage.

It is not always about "working". It what it takes to survive. In a city like portland, your chances of working minimum wage is very low, but possible. If you accept the minimum wage job, you more or less gave up on trying to get a job that you can survive on.

Which is why welfare is needed. Minimum wage jobs keep the economy going, but do not always make it possible to survive. By offering welfare, you can have your house keeper/burger flipper/ car wash guy at minimum wage and enjoy that cheap service. If you get rid of welfare, you will have to raise minimum wage, either by laws or supply and demands.

Oh, and expect the "savings" from welfare to be funneled back into prisons, police, and court system. Because once you have nothing to loose, you really will do anything to get ahead, mostly illegal things.

Oh you have a shiny new car!!!
 
My question is this. If your ex is mentally disabled (not criticizing, just repeating what you said-and I myself was on disability for a few years due to severe depression and panic attacks) and neither of you were making very much money, why weren't you using birth control? Yes, I know accidents happen, but my husband and I used BC (the pill and condoms) for years because we were not financially able to support a baby and never had a condom break or anything. Of course now that we are financially able, thanks to my business being successful, we ran into fertility issues. It sucks but it's the price we paid for being responsible and waiting until our finances were in order. I applaud you for being a responsible, involved father. I've known too many, including my own, who weren't/aren't. I'm not criticizing you for going on the public dole either-you and your family are prime examples of exactly what its meant for. Good people having hard times who need help to support their families, and I think most folks who get government assistance are just that.
 
Sue7M3 said:
Yes, I know accidents happen, but my husband and I used BC (the pill and condoms) for years because we were not financially able to support a baby and never had a condom break or anything.
Click to expand...
Because nothing works out the way you planned it. There is no form of birth control that is 100% effective. None. Unless you are sterile, you will always have that 1% chance. Because you dodge that bullet, does not mean there is no gun and bullet.
 
Well, a very good point is being made about people barely treading water financially who make matters far worse by having babies, either intentionally or by accident.

Birth control is a sore subject among a high percentage of folks acquiring or already on public assistance. I've seen it.

We deal with it at the mission by providing info, but again, as with info on substance/alcohol abuse, etc, most of it seems to fall on deaf ears. They're there for the survival assistance, not "advice," most often.

The connection to be made about the unfairness to the child itself is never made. The connection to be made about how it makes matters worse for the woman is often made. The connection to be made about how it makes matters worse for the man is so seldom made that "never" is close enough.
 
Frisco said:
Well, a very good point is being made about people barely treading water financially who make matters far worse by having babies, either intentionally or by accident.

Birth control is a sore subject among a high percentage of folks acquiring or already on public assistance. I've seen it.

We deal with it at the mission by providing info, but again, as with info on substance/alcohol abuse, etc, most of it seems to fall on deaf ears. They're there for the survival assistance, not "advice," most often.

The connection to be made about the unfairness to the child itself is never made. The connection to be made about how it makes matters worse for the woman is often made. The connection to be made about how it makes matters worse for the man is so seldom made that "never" is close enough.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, Frisco. You are correct. We always hear about the woman and her issues and problems but the child's welfare is often left out of the discussion. Suggesting that some people should be fixed or a limit should perhaps be placed on the number of children "the poor" can have will generally raise all sorts of hell, ending with mentioning Mr. Hitler.

So what do you think should be done? I have a few ideas, but they will raise all sorts of hell, progress towards mentioning Mr. Hitler, and end with a little lock glyph being placed on this thread.

Smiley.
 
The US's population isn't increasing fast enough to warrant limits on the number of children, although some natural increase control may be needed to contribute to a global reduction of population increase.
I can't really condemn the idea of a one child policy in China, what with its rapidly increasing population when it was introduced.
I think such a policy in places like India may be necessary (although I think a two child policy would be fairer and better overall)
I don't think its fair to curtail the amount of children a section of society can have however
 
I still think education is the closest thing to an ideal answer. But what is complicating every aspect of the poverty spectrum is the enormity of it: the numbers of people in need grow every year now, and it is now an issue that transcends other political hot issues, such as immigration, insurance or assistance coverage for birth control and abortion, etc.

It can't just be talked about as a simple challenge of poverty being overcome. There was a time when unemployment was the connector to poverty. Now that is a very one dimensional approach.

The education would have to begin long before a person is responsible for their own welfare, perhaps in middle school, as to strategies to remain solvent, etc, covering birth control right along with economic strategies.

Just my opinion.
 
ElasticNinja said:
The US's population isn't increasing fast enough to warrant limits on the number of children, although some natural increase control may be needed to contribute to a global reduction of population increase.
I can't really condemn the idea of a one child policy in China, what with its rapidly increasing population when it was introduced.
I think such a policy in places like India may be necessary (although I think a two child policy would be fairer and better overall)
I don't think its fair to curtail the amount of children a section of society can have however
Click to expand...

I am not in favor of limiting how many children a couple can have. I live in a state that tends to favor traditionally large families. But generally speaking, those families are Mormon and the Church has a very good system of welfare for their members.

I am seriously wondering if an uneducated single woman with no usable work experience that can only manage to find or hold on to a minimum wage job should be "allowed" to have two or three children.

It is a complex problem and if you agree with me, both of us will be hammered.

Dollars and cents seem to matter very little when it comes to children and family size limits. If a parent can't properly raise a child but tries, she is often praised for trying. If that parent can't feed the kid and the child becomes ill, those same people that praise her for trying turn and condemn her and the government for allowing this terrible thing to happen.
 
I don't like to get into limiting the size of families as a policy, matter of law, etc.

It seems that there are a number of things going on in the lives of those in need of assistance, unemployed, homeless, which distance many of them from taking birth control measures. If we could interrupt those things, then we'd get somewhere.

One thing is the mental illness that either put those people in dire straights to begin with, or develops later on as they begin to feel fewer and fewer options.

Mild to severe depression is very common out there.

When people are feeling extremely stressed, "out of it," not connected to the world in a productive way, they gradually might sink into depression, and that leads people into what I call "the line of least resistance," with regard to comfort or pleasure in their lives. Sex is real easy to fall into that category, and it will happen more often with no birth control protection for the reason that those things are just seen as something in the way of them feeling better for a few moments.
 
Frisco said:
Well, a very good point is being made about people barely treading water financially who make matters far worse by having babies, either intentionally or by accident. ....
Click to expand...

In the U.S., at least, we are making it harder for young females to obtain effective birth control. These are the most vulnerable. Note: The males need this service also, but childbirth falls on those with the XX chromosome.
 
Sue7M3 said:
My question is this. If your ex is mentally disabled (not criticizing, just repeating what you said-and I myself was on disability for a few years due to severe depression and panic attacks) and neither of you were making very much money, why weren't you using birth control? Yes, I know accidents happen, but my husband and I used BC (the pill and condoms) for years because we were not financially able to support a baby and never had a condom break or anything. Of course now that we are financially able, thanks to my business being successful, we ran into fertility issues. It sucks but it's the price we paid for being responsible and waiting until our finances were in order. I applaud you for being a responsible, involved father. I've known too many, including my own, who weren't/aren't. I'm not criticizing you for going on the public dole either-you and your family are prime examples of exactly what its meant for. Good people having hard times who need help to support their families, and I think most folks who get government assistance are just that.
Click to expand...

I won't lie, we were stupid and in love. I underestimated the gravity of my job's rumors and the callousness of the company in not giving any form of advance notice. It was also really shitty timing too. Like some kind of karmic ass-kicking for not using birth control.

After he was born, we made sure to get her on depo and later mirena (taking the pill was difficult for her due to the tendency to forget). She remains on it to this day (though that really doesn't matter to me anymore). In fact, a partial reason for the break-up was she wanted another child and I wasn't having that. We went through other problems because of her and we were financially strained to the breaking point. Having one kid was irresponsible, having two would have been a reckless disregard for human life in our state.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
In the U.S., at least, we are making it harder for young females to obtain effective birth control. These are the most vulnerable. Note: The males need this service also, but childbirth falls on those with the XX chromosome.
Click to expand...

This right here ^. They have been making it progressively worse in the past few years. I remember the fiasco with Planned Parenthood. Also, schools seem to want to preach abstinence rather than safe sex and birth control. I was an adult before I had my kid and I still think I could have waited a couple of years down the road. Teenagers with no possibility of job prospects are having kids and shows like "Teen Mom" glorify it. Very depressing.
 
Drhyde said:
I won't lie, we were stupid and in love. I underestimated the gravity of my job's rumors and the callousness of the company in not giving any form of advance notice. It was also really shitty timing too. Like some kind of karmic ass-kicking for not using birth control.

After he was born, we made sure to get her on depo and later mirena (taking the pill was difficult for her due to the tendency to forget). She remains on it to this day (though that really doesn't matter to me anymore). In fact, a partial reason for the break-up was she wanted another child and I wasn't having that. We went through other problems because of her and we were financially strained to the breaking point. Having one kid was irresponsible, having two would have been a reckless disregard for human life in our state.
Click to expand...

"...she wanted another child..." jumps out of that post like a flashing, neon sign.

I don't know what to say other than, I do hope she's in ongoing, long term therapy.

How many people can she put on a sinking lifeboat before it drowns them all?

And, yes, leaving birth control up to the female is the oldest negative dynamic in this issue.. the ancient analogy, that one female cat has about six or eight kittens in the same time span a male tomcat can be responsible for the births of between eighty and eight hundred kittens, is basically ignored by most of the guys.
 
Crude said:
People of Food Stamps
Click to expand...


I do think that birth control is a HUGE issue in this country and believe that they should be given to both girls and boys at the age of 11, with full sexual education at the age of 10.

My argument about people on food stamps was always been 3 parts.

1.) Minimum wage never pays a surviving wage and in order to keep your 99 cent value menu, you are going to have to pay someone minimum wage.
2.) The people that take food stamps and government welfare need the help.
3.) It is our moral obligation to help those that can not or will not help them selves.

I have already talk about part 1, and part 3. Let us focus on part 2.

Question 1
How many people derive any part of there income from food stamps?

Answer 1
43 million or 14% of the population.

Question 2

What is the poverty line?

Answer 2

The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living in a given country.

Question 3
How many people are currently living below that poverty line in the United States of America?

Answer 3
About 46 million people are below the poverty line, about 15% of all Americans.

Question 4
Is there really 3 million people in this country that are leveling below the poverty line, but do not accept food stamps?

Answer 4
Yes, there is. They wash your car, make your burgers, and provide you with cheap services every day, and if they where to increase their prices so they could survive, you would not afford them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom