poverty and protective services

[Homebody2]

Another option is just to actually have safe, available housing for low income. Not a waiting list that is years long. Housing first has been shown to help more than making people jump through hoops in order to "earn" housing.

This! We need to quit attaching strings to housing. This article was eye opening.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-state-may-be-the-first-to-end-homelessness-for-good-2015-2

 

I know the article talks about homelessness, but the same applies, in my opinion, to people living in poverty.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Homebody2

[teachermom2834]

Frugalmatrix -- not all church outreach is to church members or to Christians.

 

Church outreach can just be to the community. It doesn't mean converting people or only helping Christians.

My Catholic parish does all kinds of community outreach that has nothing to do with converting people or trying to get them to join our church.

 

But I have certainly seen the other side as well.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I see the poor choice poverty in my area (I am very poor, on assistance, so not judging from afar!). I guess it's not really "choices," but rather negative executive functioning skills. And drugs. And mental health difficulties. And there is some laziness in there.

 

But in the poor choice category... a family that is unable to keep their kids in clean clothes that fit and are weather appropriate, is dropping their housing assistance, because (their words!) they don't want to deal with inspections anymore. I know this winter the kids won't have coats because of rent payments, but that doesn't explain why no coats last year, or the year before.

 

We need *serious* teaching programs. Families that get more than enough in food stamps, yet can't provide meals, just because they don't know how to cook or wash a pan, therefore don't own pans or dishes or cups. Families of 7 that own a towel. Or buy a 2 pack of toilet paper for the month, not because they can't get more, but because there are no executive function skills. Or buy new clothes instead of washing. Can't wash because the kids are unsupervised so long they break the washer and dryer. Or unscrew the table legs and lose the screws. Not that it matters because there were only 2 chairs to begin with, for 7 people. Who don't prepare meals anyway.

 

A universal income would be amazing for my style poor. But I don't see how it would help the families I get involved with.

 

As for kids being removed; at least around here it doesn't happen purely due to poverty, not at first. But CYS will put them in an apartment. The parent(s) will lose that assistance either by choice or filth or lack of minimal payment or some other reason. They move again. And again. And sometimes the kids stay with friends while the parent is on the street. Or they're in a motel for a week. Or in a car. Eventually, yes, the kids are removed. But every agency has stepped in multiple times. Giving emergency funds on a regular basis. Sometimes the parents just can't provide minimally adequate parenting. It's a really low bar. Sometimes the kids are taken for the duration of a 30-60 day safety plan, and then instead of CYS taking dependency, the family will give physical custody to someone else. Again, in my area, CYS taking dependency of a kid means that CYS has tried EVERYTHING to keep that family together, often for a long time.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A hopeful note. NYC is scrapping 644,000 old warrants for petty crimes. There have been many articles about poorer people languishing in jail because they could not pay small fines. The Bronx court system had years-long backups.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/nyregion/644000-old-warrants-scrapped-for-crimes-like-public-drinking.html

 

The current bail bond system is also a major issue and is in serious need of reform.

[Ravin]

Universal basic income could be a start, but it, along with higher minimum wage, can only work to the extent that the free market isn't allowed to immediately divest it of meaning with respect to core issues like housing.

 

I was just listening on the news, and rental rates in Houston in the wake of Harvey are rapidly increasing. Many people are being made to pay rent on uninhabitable homes or break leases, which then allow landlords to flip said homes and charge more, and many homeowners are having to rent until they can repair their homes. The result is that poor people who live close to the margins without a disaster are being shut out of a stable escape route from untenable situations.

 

When you are poor, the simplest things can have the same impact as a natural disaster. Your car breaks down. You get sick. Your kid gets sick. Etc.

 

Illness and poverty should be reasons for the state to step in and help, not take kids away.

 

If a state is doing their job properly for family reunification, a parent whose only remaining problem is their house isn't up to snuff should get assistance in changing the housing situation--if you think about it, a housing subsidy for a bio parent is likely to be much less expensive, short and long term, than foster care or adoption subsidies.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

Another benefit to Basic income is it doesn't get yanked from you if you start making too much. There isn't that dip in actual income/benefits where you're worse off if you start to earn just a little more money.

This is where I'm at. I've been out of work for 10 years because of my son. My kids are now both old enough for me to get some part time evening work (in previous years I had been able to work parking at the county fair, but it's only 9 days. This year I couldn't because of my teen's mental health). I can't just go apply to Home Depot because I'll lose more in benefits than I could make. And if my daughter crashes again, I'm out of work, yet would not be able to quickly get back the benefits, and we'd be screwed for 3-6 months.

[shawthorne44]

My mom calls that false pride.

 

Yeah, they had that.   But, I'm also remembering the chocolate bar the mom ate under the blanket, and the scenic joy ride the parents took while the kids were in the back of the U-Haul with the furniture.  

False pride was the least of those parent's issues.  

 

For these kids more family programs wouldn't have helped.   Probably the only thing would have been where the schools just don't charge for food.  

[Bootsie]

Hmm. I see many of you saying the church should step up for the poor among them and provide care / resources / aid. It's interesting the way people automatically assume that everyone is some variant of Christian or at the very least some faith. And tied into a faith community 

 

 

Out of curiosity, what are people who aren't religious supposed to do? Fake religion? Go without? Is it supposed to be a "come to Jesus" moment? 

As a Christian I think it is the role of the church to help the needy, serve the poor, advocate for those without a voice.  I do not think that is limited to helping needy Christians, serving poor Christians, etc.  and definitely not limited to doing this things only within a particular faith community.  

[Bootsie]

Over a decade ago, my community built a prototype homeless shelter that included everything from dormitory style beds to transitional apartments for families.  All of the services are provided in a centralized location--drug counseling, money management lessons, nutrition classes, child care, tutoring, job training....  

 

It seems to have been highly successful in meeting the needs of some and a total failure at meeting the needs of others.  As part of this plan, churches in the area were strongly encouraged to stop many programs.  The idea was that the homeless would be forced to go to the shelter if there weren't alternatives.  Laws were passed, for example, that made it illegal to give anyone who is homeless anything on the street.  This law meant that I could be arrested for giving a homeless person a granola bar, but I could give Bill Gates $1000 if he were on the street. (The law was that it was illegal to give a HOMELESS person something--you could give things to other people)  All types of food regulations were passed making it extremely difficult for churches to run a soup kitchen.  

 

[shawthorne44]

Over a decade ago, my community built a prototype homeless shelter that included everything from dormitory style beds to transitional apartments for families.  All of the services are provided in a centralized location--drug counseling, money management lessons, nutrition classes, child care, tutoring, job training....  

 

It seems to have been highly successful in meeting the needs of some and a total failure at meeting the needs of others.  As part of this plan, churches in the area were strongly encouraged to stop many programs.  The idea was that the homeless would be forced to go to the shelter if there weren't alternatives.  Laws were passed, for example, that made it illegal to give anyone who is homeless anything on the street.  This law meant that I could be arrested for giving a homeless person a granola bar, but I could give Bill Gates $1000 if he were on the street. (The law was that it was illegal to give a HOMELESS person something--you could give things to other people)  All types of food regulations were passed making it extremely difficult for churches to run a soup kitchen.  

 

That seems like a horrible idea.  I meant the second part about stopping over means of help.    If the central location was so fabulous then they wouldn't have had to force other places to stop.  I think I know where you are are talking about though.  

[Sdel]

I beg to differ. I live in poverty. Pretty darn deep in poverty. A universal income? Would allow me to stop relying on a patchwork safety net of programs. It'd mean covering my bills without worrying I'll lose my state healthcare {because no insurance means no meds which means hospital stay which means my child goes into foster care because I have no one to watch her}. 

 

Are there people who'll make bad decisions? Sure. Just like there are now - people who sell their benefits to buy drugs and cigarettes. But if anything they'll be weeded out faster with a universal income, if it's enough to truly cover basic needs. But if charities know that people should have enough because everyone gets XYZ amount monthly, then they can change how they administer aid. Change it to only with an emergency. Change to non-monetary forms of aid, like clothing, transportation vouchers, etc. Make the aid change towards work goals. 

 

You would lose your state healthcare and all your welfare benefits.  That is part and parcel as to how universal income works.  It replaces ALL welfare.  You don't get an income from the government AND welfare.  The thing about universal income is that you don't get penalized for working above and beyond by means testing out of it.  

 

Foundational to universal income is:

 

1.  Massive tax reform (never going to happen)

2.  replaces ALL government assistance

 

I could get on board with trying universal income, except it wouldn't even be 5 years and we'd start getting calls for "more" because people are still in poverty. 

[Crimson Wife]

I think boarding schools where the parents could get inpatient substance abuse and/or mental health treatment would be a good idea.

 

Not in favor of "universal basic income" because of the potential for abuse. I don't want my family's hard-earned tax dollars being squandered by whatever percentage of the recipients are irresponsible.

[Bootsie]

That seems like a horrible idea.  I meant the second part about stopping over means of help.    If the central location was so fabulous then they wouldn't have had to force other places to stop.  I think I know where you are are talking about though.  

The idea was supported by some successful, influential businessmen who are used to control.  IMO they thought that if they could run everything and people just did what they wanted them to do that they could solve the homeless problem just like they solved problems in their businesses.  

[ktgrok]

I always love the calls for churches and church members to help people or for the community to step up, like in the post about healthcare. As long as "stepping up" doesn't mean paying more in taxes of course. 

[Sdel]

I see the poor choice poverty in my area (I am very poor, on assistance, so not judging from afar!). I guess it's not really "choices," but rather negative executive functioning skills. And drugs. And mental health difficulties. And there is some laziness in there.

 

But in the poor choice category... a family that is unable to keep their kids in clean clothes that fit and are weather appropriate, is dropping their housing assistance, because (their words!) they don't want to deal with inspections anymore. I know this winter the kids won't have coats because of rent payments, but that doesn't explain why no coats last year, or the year before.

 

We need *serious* teaching programs. Families that get more than enough in food stamps, yet can't provide meals, just because they don't know how to cook or wash a pan, therefore don't own pans or dishes or cups. Families of 7 that own a towel. Or buy a 2 pack of toilet paper for the month, not because they can't get more, but because there are no executive function skills. Or buy new clothes instead of washing. Can't wash because the kids are unsupervised so long they break the washer and dryer. Or unscrew the table legs and lose the screws. Not that it matters because there were only 2 chairs to begin with, for 7 people. Who don't prepare meals anyway.

 

 

This is what I mean by poor choice and bleeding hearts.  There will always be people like this.  You can't force them to shape up.  You can't always teach them better skills.  You can't really do anything but take the kids (or let the kids suffer) and let them suffer the consequences of their poor choices.  But honestly, I think there are more of them than people realize. 

 

Stefanie

[frugalmamatx]

Over a decade ago, my community built a prototype homeless shelter that included everything from dormitory style beds to transitional apartments for families.  All of the services are provided in a centralized location--drug counseling, money management lessons, nutrition classes, child care, tutoring, job training....  

 

It seems to have been highly successful in meeting the needs of some and a total failure at meeting the needs of others.  As part of this plan, churches in the area were strongly encouraged to stop many programs.  The idea was that the homeless would be forced to go to the shelter if there weren't alternatives.  Laws were passed, for example, that made it illegal to give anyone who is homeless anything on the street.  This law meant that I could be arrested for giving a homeless person a granola bar, but I could give Bill Gates $1000 if he were on the street. (The law was that it was illegal to give a HOMELESS person something--you could give things to other people)  All types of food regulations were passed making it extremely difficult for churches to run a soup kitchen.  

 

I know the place you're talking about. Most of my friends who initially volunteered there now say it's a spectacular failure. And MANY of the resources available initially like medical, eye care, dental, etc are no longer available to residents OR the general public, as they became associated with the center and the assumption that the city / county / etc was paying for things so donations were no longer needed. 

 

That seems like a horrible idea.  I meant the second part about stopping over means of help.    If the central location was so fabulous then they wouldn't have had to force other places to stop.  I think I know where you are are talking about though.  

 

It was. Mostly the city forced them to stop as a means of forcing the homeless to go into the center vs living on the streets. 

[Crimson Wife]

One thing that would really help is to streamline the application process for assistance and stop doing idiotic things like requiring annual verification of continued eligibility for permanently disabled folks. My daughter's hearing impairment is never going away and, in fact, almost certainly will get worse over time. Her neurological disorder is also genetic and never going to be cured.

 

This year at least I got the continued eligibility verification request for Medicaid. It's a complete pain since I need to get some other paper from her Regional Center case manager saying that yes, she's still disabled. But at least I am aware that I need to jump through the hoops.

 

Last year Medi-Cal never sent me any request but just dropped her without even notifying us. I only found out when a different social service agency (CA Children's Services) sent me a notice saying they were discontinuing coverage through them since my DD no longer had Medi-Cal. It took from November through April just to get her back on. :cursing: Now here it is September and they are threatening to kick her off again in October if I can't get them whatever paperwork they are looking for.

 

What a waste of taxpayer resources to process all this paperwork!

[Guest]

This is what I mean by poor choice and bleeding hearts.  There will always be people like this.  You can't force them to shape up.  You can't always teach them better skills.  You can't really do anything but take the kids (or let the kids suffer) and let them suffer the consequences of their poor choices.  But honestly, I think there are more of them than people realize. 

 

Stefanie

 

I just finished a book that addresses this: The Broken Ladder.  Many of the poor choices we associate with irremediable character flaws are actually a product of the changes in our thinking patterns which certain situations and stresses can induce (in a short period of time with stable, "normal" volunteers, btw).

[Guest]

One thing that would really help is to streamline the application process for assistance and stop doing idiotic things like requiring annual verification of continued eligibility for permanently disabled folks. My daughter's hearing impairment is never going away and, in fact, almost certainly will get worse over time. Her neurological disorder is also genetic and never going to be cured.

 

This year at least I got the continued eligibility verification request for Medicaid. It's a complete pain since I need to get some other paper from her Regional Center case manager saying that yes, she's still disabled. But at least I am aware that I need to jump through the hoops.

 

Last year Medi-Cal never sent me any request but just dropped her without even notifying us. I only found out when a different social service agency (CA Children's Services) sent me a notice saying they were discontinuing coverage through them since my DD no longer had Medi-Cal. It took from November through April just to get her back on. :cursing: Now here it is September and they are threatening to kick her off again in October if I can't get them whatever paperwork they are looking for.

 

What a waste of taxpayer resources to process all this paperwork!

 

...which is one of many reasons universal health insurance and basic income can *save* us taxpayer money. 

[Sdel]

I just finished a book that addresses this: The Broken Ladder.  Many of the poor choices we associate with irremediable character flaws are actually a product of the changes in our thinking patterns which certain situations and stresses can induce (in a short period of time with stable, "normal" volunteers, btw).

 

Quite frankly, in practice, people like these rarely want to change their behaviors....even with help.  When you've spent 10 years trying to help someone make better choices and they just want you to give them money so they can go buy the latest video game, come back to me.

 

 

Stefanie

[Scarlett]

I think boarding schools where the parents could get inpatient substance abuse and/or mental health treatment would be a good idea.

 

Not in favor of "universal basic income" because of the potential for abuse. I don't want my family's hard-earned tax dollars being squandered by whatever percentage of the recipients are irresponsible.

 

 

It is not your money once you pay your taxes.  

[Crimson Wife]

...which is one of many reasons universal health insurance and basic income can *save* us taxpayer money. 

 

So you would be okay with your family's hard-earned dollars to a substance abuser who refused treatment and will just use the money to buy more drugs and/or alcohol?

 

I don't have a problem with funding support services for that individual but I am dead-set opposed to "no strings attached" cash payments.

 

[kroe1]

Working in an ER for so many years has totally changed my inherent values regarding social benevolence. While you may see the sweet parents, victims of their environment, I now see something else:

 

1. I see the bruises on the back of the toddlers legs along side the round, little cigarette burn scars.

2. I see the screaming lunatic demanding another narcotic prescription even though this is her 3rd ER visit this month and 67 for the year.

3. I see the shaking 8 y.o. raped for the 3rd time by another one of mom's boyfriends.

4. I see the father so destroyed by crystal meth use, that he no longer has the ability to reason.

5. I see the gang member, age 13, who was raised by the streets rather than his drunken mother.

6. I see the children who are now older, thus less adoptable, being put on antipsychotics because judges keep throwing the kids back to the once again reformed parents.

7. I see children who have no role models other than the stoned adults laid out on the couch who claim the system fails them and they cannot get a job. Somehow they can afford drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol.

8. I see parents arguing that the cigarettes and marijuana they smoke do not interfere with their child's asthma.

9. I see paramedics who beg the doctors to admit a child so he can get away from the home's filth.

10. I see a mom with a sex addiction who has strangers climb through her window when her sleeping child is in the room next door.

11. I see parents who claim they should not work so they can stay home with their kids who are, instead, on the internet all day.

12. I see parents incapable of flipping burgers at McDonalds, yet, feel they are capable of raising children. (I would guess raising a child is considered harder than holding most jobs.)

 

I could go on and on and on about the stories I have seen over the years. Rather than wasting time on rehabilitating addicted and/or incapable parents, I would rather see a system that makes adoption quicker and easier. While adoptions are no guarantee that a child will have a better life, it is certainly a guarantee that a child escapes a current horrific life.

[Bluegoat]

You would lose your state healthcare and all your welfare benefits.  That is part and parcel as to how universal income works.  It replaces ALL welfare.  You don't get an income from the government AND welfare.  The thing about universal income is that you don't get penalized for working above and beyond by means testing out of it.  

 

Foundational to universal income is:

 

1.  Massive tax reform (never going to happen)

2.  replaces ALL government assistance

 

I could get on board with trying universal income, except it wouldn't even be 5 years and we'd start getting calls for "more" because people are still in poverty. 

 

I am pretty sure people understand that UBI replaces most other types of benefits - she is saying that right NOW if she loses those things it is a problem because then there will be NO income.

 

The test cases that have been done with UBI have performed pretty well, of course we don't know for sure until it is tried.  It has a lot of potential to help things like people who want to start a business, or need to stay home with kids or the elderly, which could take stress of other kinds of programs.

 

It's also likely to be much more efficient than the current patchwork of programs, all requiring many different kids of documentation.

[Crimson Wife]

It is not your money once you pay your taxes.  

 

Which are confiscated from our family through threat of jail time.

 

I'm not against paying taxes to help fund a social safety net, but don't ask me to pay for "no strings attached" cash handouts.

 

[Guest]

So you would be okay with your family's hard-earned dollars to a substance abuser who refused treatment and will just use the money to buy more drugs and/or alcohol?

 

I don't have a problem with funding support services for that individual but I am dead-set opposed to "no strings attached" cash payments.

 

 

I would support it because it saves money for taxpayers and offers better help for most individuals.  Strings cost money and energy for everyone involved and don't improve outcomes.    They can feel better to those who want to keep the 'undeserving' from getting anything, but they cause more harm than they prevent.

[frugalmamatx]

You would lose your state healthcare and all your welfare benefits.  That is part and parcel as to how universal income works.  It replaces ALL welfare.  You don't get an income from the government AND welfare.  The thing about universal income is that you don't get penalized for working above and beyond by means testing out of it.  

 

Foundational to universal income is:

 

1.  Massive tax reform (never going to happen)

2.  replaces ALL government assistance

 

I could get on board with trying universal income, except it wouldn't even be 5 years and we'd start getting calls for "more" because people are still in poverty. 

 

I'm well aware of that. I could stretch my funds FAR more with actual cash vs the amount of benefits I receive. 

 

As an example, Here's a recent purchase I made. 

 

~I can buy Gluten free pasta on Amazon.com for $1.28 a box. Shipping is free {well $5.99 a month for prime, but I get unlimited shipping}

~My local store sells the exact same box for $1.98. Plus I have to pay anywhere from $1.45 to $2.75 to get to said store and back, depending on how long it takes me to shop. 

 

Because I'm tied to SNAP benefits, I'm forced to buy the more expensive box of pasta. Why? Because the local store takes SNAP and Amazon doesn't {yet anyway}. Plus I have to devote the time, effort, and energy to travel to said store {half mile each way walk to & from the bus, 10 minute bus ride each way}. That means either I have to drag my child along or find childcare or risk a neglect charge by leaving her home alone, despite the fact that I'm maybe 10 minutes away and in contact via skype. 

 

Same thing with medical - I can get my needed labwork done at a walking labs clinic for $150. When I have it done through the clinic state insurance covers? It's well over $500. My doctor does't care which one does it, just that it's done and I bring the results if I do it out of system. 

 

 

And the biggest pro towards a universal income is CHOICE. When you empower people in poverty to make choices, the vast majority will learn to do so and learn well. Right now the system is set up to remove choice. You have this benefit that can only be used on XYZ items. And that benefit that is only good for ABC items. And lord help if you try to get yourself out of the system because unless you win the lotto, you're going to be behind for a long time before you can gain ground.

 

Give people the cash and they will decide what they truly need. Sometimes it's food. But maybe mom has a garden and dad hunts on the weekends and they don't need much food. Right now? They are still tied to a set benefit amount of SNAP based on income with no regards to lifestyle and needs. Under universal income? They won't be. Maybe the house desperately needs a plumbing repair. Or a roof replaced. Universal income lets people make the choice to do things like that with their income. 

[Scarlett]

Working in an ER for so many years has totally changed my inherent values regarding social benevolence. While you may see the sweet parents, victims of their environment, I now see something else:

 

1. I see the bruises on the back of the toddlers legs along side the round, little cigarette burn scars.

2. I see the screaming lunatic demanding another narcotic prescription even though this is her 3rd ER visit this month and 67 for the year.

3. I see the shaking 8 y.o. raped for the 3rd time by another one of mom's boyfriends.

4. I see the father so destroyed by crystal meth use, that he no longer has the ability to reason.

5. I see the gang member, age 13, who was raised by the streets rather than his drunken mother.

6. I see the children who are now older, thus less adoptable, being put on antipsychotics because judges keep throwing the kids back to the once again reformed parents.

7. I see children who have no role models other than the stoned adults laid out on the couch who claim the system fails them and they cannot get a job. Somehow they can afford drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol.

8. I see parents arguing that the cigarettes and marijuana they smoke do not interfere with their child's asthma.

9. I see paramedics who beg the doctors to admit a child so he can get away from the home's filth.

10. I see a mom with a sex addiction who has strangers climb through her window when her sleeping child is in the room next door.

11. I see parents who claim they should not work so they can stay home with their kids who are, instead, on the internet all day.

12. I see parents incapable of flipping burgers at McDonalds, yet, feel they are capable of raising children. (I would guess raising a child is considered harder than holding most jobs.)

 

I could go on and on and on about the stories I have seen over the years. Rather than wasting time on rehabilitating addicted and/or incapable parents, I would rather see a system that makes adoption quicker and easier. While adoptions are no guarantee that a child will have a better life, it is certainly a guarantee that a child escapes a current horrific life.

 

 

I don't work in an ER but I too see a lot of this. For instance the bio parents of my many friend's foster children.  

 

The trouble is finding a way to find the ones who really need help vs the drug addicts who have no intention of stopping.  For instance my mom was not an addict.  She didn't gamble, smoke, drink or date. She was able to raise us with dignity in poverty.  We never one time had a utility cut off.  She took the aid she qualified for (which I am sure many would begrudge since it is 'their' hard earned tax dollars). and we never went hungry, or homeless or without medical care.  Eventually by the time I was graduating high school she was graduating college with a teaching degree.  

[Scarlett]

Which are confiscated from our family through threat of jail time.

 

I'm not against paying taxes to help fund a social safety net, but don't ask me to pay for "no strings attached" cash handouts.

 

 

I repeat---you aren't being asked to pay for anything.  You live in a society that makes decisions. Decisions like paying for medical care for your dd who has a hearing impairment.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Just a quick comment regarding universal income...

 

We are on the verge of significant technological changes that could lead to a massive labor surplus in many first world countries.  I would argue that we already have a labor surplus at this time, which is one of the (many) reasons we have had low wage growth.  If these changes are as significant as I believe they will be, we will be forced to have long, hard conversations about guaranteed incomes. 

[Bluegoat]

Which are confiscated from our family through threat of jail time.

 

I'm not against paying taxes to help fund a social safety net, but don't ask me to pay for "no strings attached" cash handouts.

 

 

 

You could always go without the benefits the collective offers, and go it alone.

 

UBI isn't a cash handout.  It's a solution to an economy where relatively few people control the jobs, and where it is difficult to account for the real value of unpaid work.

[frugalmamatx]

I don't work in an ER but I too see a lot of this. For instance the bio parents of my many friend's foster children.  

 

The trouble is finding a way to find the ones who really need help vs the drug addicts who have no intention of stopping.  For instance my mom was not an addict.  She didn't gamble, smoke, drink or date. She was able to raise us with dignity in poverty.  We never one time had a utility cut off.  She took the aid she qualified for (which I am sure many would begrudge since it is 'their' hard earned tax dollars). and we never went hungry, or homeless or without medical care.  Eventually by the time I was graduating high school she was graduating college with a teaching degree.  

 

That's fine and dandy. But I guarantee you that the resources she used probably aren't available today. The world has changed massively for those in poverty over the last 10 years. 

 

As I said earlier - I'm deep in poverty. IMO, the aid and resources are drying up. Places I went a year or two ago for assistance with bills either no longer do aid or have closed all together. Donations are down, and that trickles down even further. And trying to get assistance? It's a full time job. Waking at the crack of dawn to start making phone calls trying desperately to be one of the TEN callers they take that day. And I'm one of the lucky ones. I can read. I have internet and can figure out city and county programs. Many can't. 

 

I'm terrified of how Hurricane Harvey will affect the local resource network tbh. Everything locally went to hurricane relief. Which is fine and dandy, but in 3 months or 6 months how many donors are going to say "well I donated a ton after the hurricane, I don't need to now". How much of our food bank items went to hurricane relief instead into local pantries? And who will feel the brunt of it? The local community in need. 

[Scarlett]

That's fine and dandy. But I guarantee you that the resources she used probably aren't available today. The world has changed massively for those in poverty over the last 10 years. 

 

As I said earlier - I'm deep in poverty. IMO, the aid and resources are drying up. Places I went a year or two ago for assistance with bills either no longer do aid or have closed all together. Donations are down, and that trickles down even further. And trying to get assistance? It's a full time job. Waking at the crack of dawn to start making phone calls trying desperately to be one of the TEN callers they take that day. And I'm one of the lucky ones. I can read. I have internet and can figure out city and county programs. Many can't. 

 

I'm terrified of how Hurricane Harvey will affect the local resource network tbh. Everything locally went to hurricane relief. Which is fine and dandy, but in 3 months or 6 months how many donors are going to say "well I donated a ton after the hurricane, I don't need to now". How much of our food bank items went to hurricane relief instead into local pantries? And who will feel the brunt of it? The local community in need. 

 

 

I am sorry you have such a difficult time

 

But yes the aid my mother accepted all those years ago is still available.  I have friends making use of the same aid.  My mother never went to a food pantry.  Or got anyone to pay her utilities.  

[kroe1]

I, too, have lived in poverty. I did not have time to apply for aid. I was too busy working 3 jobs, going to college at night, and taking care of a toddler. I was blessed that DS was a great toddler who could behave while going to school and some of the jobs with mom. But, daycare, rent in the slum, and McDonald's hamburgers sustained us for years. I always wished I had family, a church, or a knight in shining armor to help. But, I was too proud to ask, and too smart to become dependent on handouts. I lost weight because there wasn't always food for me, but, I kept everyone clean and happy. And, I never stopped

 

No, poverty is not a reason to fail. Poverty is a reason to work harder if one wants to get out. Poverty is not a reason to become an addict, beat one's kids, take from others, or whine while surfing the internet and using one's cell phones. That time could be spent digging out of the hole. There is nothing wrong with giving up dependence, sleeping 4 hours a night, and working nonstop for a short time in order to get a lifetime of freedom and comfort.

 

There are countless stories of those climbing out of poverty. Their stories are vastly different except that they all got up from the couch and never sat back down until it was done. Heck, most never owned the couch to begin with.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Minniewannabe

[Mergath]

I, too, have lived in poverty. I did not have time to apply for aid. I was too busy working 3 jobs, going to college at night, and taking care of a toddler. I was blessed that DS was a great toddler who could behave while going to school and some of the jobs with mom. But, daycare, rent in the slum, and McDonald's hamburgers sustained us for years. I always wished I had family, a church, or a knight in shining armor to help. But, I was too proud to ask, and too smart to become dependent on handouts. I lost weight because there wasn't always food for me, but, I kept everyone clean and happy. And, I never stopped

 

No, poverty is not a reason to fail. Poverty is a reason to work harder if one wants to get out. Poverty is not a reason to become an addict, beat one's kids, take from others, or whine while surfing the internet and using one's cell phones. That time could be spent digging out of the hole. There is nothing wrong with giving up dependence, sleeping 4 hours a night, and working nonstop for a short time in order to get a lifetime of freedom and comfort.

 

There are countless stories of those climbing out of poverty. Their stories are vastly different except that they all got up from the couch and never sat back down until it was done. Heck, most never owned the couch to begin with.

 

That's all well and good if you're physically and mentally healthy, and well-educated enough to know how to get out of poverty to begin with. A lot of people aren't so lucky.

[6packofun]

But if anything they'll be weeded out faster with a universal income, if it's enough to truly cover basic needs. But if charities know that people should have enough because everyone gets XYZ amount monthly, then they can change how they administer aid. Change it to only with an emergency. Change to non-monetary forms of aid, like clothing, transportation vouchers, etc. Make the aid change towards work goals. 

 

You really think that people who take advantage will be weeded out?  How?  All the people making poor choices will become another "class" of people being discriminated against, will be given even MORE assistance without requiring them to get real help with the causes of their poor decision-making, and what qualifies as an "emergency" will become so diluted as to be pointless.  Then, we'll have the most irresponsible people receiving the most.  (That's happening now, of course, but there are too many factors that have to be just RIGHT in order for this kind of system to work. And with enough in government willing to spend other people's money in order to prop up the poor without any qualification, it just seems like a disaster to me. :( )

 

I think the devil is in the details of what we have NOW.

 

We, too, have lived in what counts as poverty in this country.  As an example of how people can be disincentivized to work, here is how we stopped receiving food stamps.  Dh lost his job well over a decade ago.  He got part-time and then finally full-time work over a period of a couple years and during that time we tried to stay off of assistance because we at least had medical benefits from his job.  We spend basically all of our savings.  Then we applied for food stamps which greatly helped us for about 2 years.  But before dh could make enough money to allow us to leave the system, we were kicked off.  Why?  Because our two oldest graduated, could not/did not want to go directly to college, and started working.  In essence, their income counted as part of our household's income so that they could not save anything FOR college or even a car and the amount we lost in food stamps was equal to over 80% of the money they brought home.  So they had to basically contribute most of their earnings to groceries.  They were penalized for working at age 18, basically, and thus began one of the catch-22's that so many families get stuck in.  I'm not sure if the system is set up this way to try to get kids to go to college, but we all know that not everyone is college material, if not right away sometimes ever.  It felt like a punishment for them to start being independent and for having a good work ethic!  And this is just one small aspect of the crazy, complex system.

[TechWife]

I always love the calls for churches and church members to help people or for the community to step up, like in the post about healthcare. As long as "stepping up" doesn't mean paying more in taxes of course.

Or helping people who aren't like you, or who aren't willing to jump through the hoops your church has designed.

 

I am a Christian who is discouraged at the lack of concern for others and the requirements many church organizations have in order to get help. Sigh.

[Sdel]

So you would be okay with your family's hard-earned dollars to a substance abuser who refused treatment and will just use the money to buy more drugs and/or alcohol?

 

I don't have a problem with funding support services for that individual but I am dead-set opposed to "no strings attached" cash payments.

 

 

I would rather do no strings attached and then hold them accountable for their actions than to be constantly spending money on trying to provide services.

 

My hold out is the hold them accountable.  If I'm giving someone an income, I don't want to be whined at how I now need to subsidize food, housing, childcare, etc through taxes on top of it because it 'isn't enough' and there are still poor people.  

 

I'm just not 100% convinced it'll have the effect people want or that it'll be "enough".

 

Stefanie

[MotherGoose]

Just a quick comment regarding universal income...

 

We are on the verge of significant technological changes that could lead to a massive labor surplus in many first world countries. I would argue that we already have a labor surplus at this time, which is one of the (many) reasons we have had low wage growth. If these changes are as significant as I believe they will be, we will be forced to have long, hard conversations about guaranteed incomes.

I see help wanted signs All the time where I live, and it's for decent jobs, not just fast food. There's definitely not a labor surplus where I live. (southeast us). Dh company is constantly looking for people. And they offer benefits, etc. it's hard work, but it pays well.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I'm well aware of that. I could stretch my funds FAR more with actual cash vs the amount of benefits I receive.

 

As an example, Here's a recent purchase I made.

 

~I can buy Gluten free pasta on Amazon.com for $1.28 a box. Shipping is free {well $5.99 a month for prime, but I get unlimited shipping}

~My local store sells the exact same box for $1.98. Plus I have to pay anywhere from $1.45 to $2.75 to get to said store and back, depending on how long it takes me to shop.

 

Because I'm tied to SNAP benefits, I'm forced to buy the more expensive box of pasta. Why? Because the local store takes SNAP and Amazon doesn't {yet anyway}. Plus I have to devote the time, effort, and energy to travel to said store {half mile each way walk to & from the bus, 10 minute bus ride each way}. That means either I have to drag my child along or find childcare or risk a neglect charge by leaving her home alone, despite the fact that I'm maybe 10 minutes away and in contact via skype.

 

Same thing with medical - I can get my needed labwork done at a walking labs clinic for $150. When I have it done through the clinic state insurance covers? It's well over $500. My doctor does't care which one does it, just that it's done and I bring the results if I do it out of system.

 

 

And the biggest pro towards a universal income is CHOICE. When you empower people in poverty to make choices, the vast majority will learn to do so and learn well. Right now the system is set up to remove choice. You have this benefit that can only be used on XYZ items. And that benefit that is only good for ABC items. And lord help if you try to get yourself out of the system because unless you win the lotto, you're going to be behind for a long time before you can gain ground.

 

Give people the cash and they will decide what they truly need. Sometimes it's food. But maybe mom has a garden and dad hunts on the weekends and they don't need much food. Right now? They are still tied to a set benefit amount of SNAP based on income with no regards to lifestyle and needs. Under universal income? They won't be. Maybe the house desperately needs a plumbing repair. Or a roof replaced. Universal income lets people make the choice to do things like that with their income.

Same.

 

I can get my CPAP mask online for under $90, with just the insert even cheaper. But Medicaid only pays the local DME and each mask is $300+. I can get a new mask every 3 months.

 

Kids in families on food stamps get free breakfast and lunch at school. Mine are in cyber so we don't have access. And we somehow don't qualify for the max for a family of 3 despite $0 income. Yet you can own a successful business, technically not draw a paycheck from said business, have the business own all of your property, and get max food stamps and disability money for the child (who is rightly disabled, but has the same profile as my son, who does not qualify for max).

[Bootsie]

I always love the calls for churches and church members to help people or for the community to step up, like in the post about healthcare. As long as "stepping up" doesn't mean paying more in taxes of course. 

I think there are a number of reasons a person may have this viewpoint. One is that they may feel that the government methods of redistribution are inefficient compared to other methods.  They may think that the government programs have negative consequences such as destabilizing family units.  Or, they may think that the current tax structure is unfair and contributes to more inequality.  Or, they may be of the belief that they, as Christians, and the church are called to help people but that it is not their place to insist that their neighbor also contribute.  

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I, too, have lived in poverty. I did not have time to apply for aid. I was too busy working 3 jobs, going to college at night, and taking care of a toddler. I was blessed that DS was a great toddler who could behave while going to school and some of the jobs with mom. But, daycare, rent in the slum, and McDonald's hamburgers sustained us for years. I always wished I had family, a church, or a knight in shining armor to help. But, I was too proud to ask, and too smart to become dependent on handouts. I lost weight because there wasn't always food for me, but, I kept everyone clean and happy. And, I never stopped

 

No, poverty is not a reason to fail. Poverty is a reason to work harder if one wants to get out. Poverty is not a reason to become an addict, beat one's kids, take from others, or whine while surfing the internet and using one's cell phones. That time could be spent digging out of the hole. There is nothing wrong with giving up dependence, sleeping 4 hours a night, and working nonstop for a short time in order to get a lifetime of freedom and comfort.

 

There are countless stories of those climbing out of poverty. Their stories are vastly different except that they all got up from the couch and never sat back down until it was done. Heck, most never owned the couch to begin with.

What do you do when your 1 year old child is kicked out of daycare? Then by 2 you've tried every possible daycare and babysitter you can afford?

 

You think kindergarten will be different. But then he's sent home for behavior or illness 2 or more times every week. Now that single crap paying job you found during school hours tosses you and you've got nothing.

 

How do I work 3 jobs when I couldn't even get kid help for a 10-20 hour a week job?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I see help wanted signs All the time where I live, and it's for decent jobs, not just fast food. There's definitely not a labor surplus where I live. (southeast us). Dh company is constantly looking for people. And they offer benefits, etc. it's hard work, but it pays well.

 

Unemployment rates still vary greatly by region, and labor is still less mobile than many imagine.

 

It should also be noted that when times are better we have more labor mobility within local labor markets, and those help wanted signs you see tend (obviously not always) to be at the lower end of the wage scale.   This doesn't mean that the overall trend has been reversed.

[QueenCat]

My Catholic parish does all kinds of community outreach that has nothing to do with converting people or trying to get them to join our church.

 

But I have certainly seen the other side as well.

 

In my opinion, Catholic parishes seem to do much better at this than many other churches. They just serve and help. No strings attached. Where we used to live was where I saw the worst. A local Southern Baptist church REQUIRED that you hear a spiel about how to get saved before they would give you Christmas gifts for your kids. This was done one-on-one (or as a couple, if both parents were there) so that they could make sure you understood and to answer questions and pray with you.

[Murphy101]

Yeah, this isn't true. Believe me, I'd be happy to pay more taxes in order to have a properly-functioning society with a decent social safety net. Most nearly all liberals I know feel the same way.

I'm not liberal and agree.

 

Universal healthcare and a minimum income would save the govt and the general citizenry millions of dollars while providing more for more people. I'm all for that bc it's just good economics and good social policy.

[MotherGoose]

I also wanted to say that I worked as a social worker for awhile before having kids, with kids removed for abuse/neglect. I never saw anyone removed JUST because they were poor, didn't have food, water, etc. there was always some deeper issue going on, in our society. My father, who was born in 1939, said that even though he grew up without any running water and in poverty, he was always clean and fed. They might have eaten the same thing every day and had no frills, but they ate. I remember my grandmother ironing the Christmas wrapping paper to use again, as an example of frugality. He was a schoolteacher and couldn't understand how children who had running water would still come to school dirty. Even if he had to walk to the spring to get water, his parents were organized enough to make sure he was clean. ETA many families who send kids to schoo dirty today have deeper issues than no running water.

 

Most families with chIldren in school do qualify for housing and services to help with food and shelter. My experience also indicates that there are deeper issues, like executive function, mental illness, addiction, etc going on most of the time. CPS doesn't want to remove kids, and if they see a caring family who need food stamps or something, they will help them, not just snatch the kids. If you spank your kid too hard and leave a mark, but you cooperate with treatment, they will most likely not take your kid. I'm not talking about a serious beating, I'm talking about over-discipline.

 

The families I saw had more severe issues. I remember One family in particular who could not understand why they had an unaffordable power bill but left the door open all the time, as well as had an empty refrigerator, in addition to the one they used for food, running all the time with an open door because the freezer was so frosted over the door wouldn't close. And they had General filth, and replaced the nasty carpet with more whIte carpet, instead of the linoleum we suggested. And let kids drink soda and spill it on the carpet. As far as I know, the kids never went back home. All the services in the world could not fix this. Yes they had serious EF issues, but they weren't fixable. We tried. There is a fair proportion of the people with whom social services comes into contact that just do not understand. They will make terrible decisions about money, no matter how much they get.

 

I don't know what all the answers are to this, and basically no one else does either. It's a complex problem. One thing I I'd

Like to see happen is enforcement of Termination of parental rights quickly especially for young children. I think the law is 15/24 months in care and then they do TPR but it definitely drags on longer and of course the older kids are the harder it is to secure adoption.

 

From some of the PP, it definitely sounds like money would help you. But money will not fix many of the problems causing poverty.

Edited September 18, 2017 by MotherGoose

[lauraw4321]

If people are getting fired for missing one day then the labour laws need to be rewritten and the unions more active.

Labor unions are a rare and dying breed in the US. Almost all jobs can fire you for missing a day of work.

[Murphy101]

There are not countlesss people rising out of poverty. It's actually very countable. That's why it's so newsworthy and inspirational when it happens.

 

A minimum income would not fix everything, but it would streamline and fix many things.

 

There are always going to be people that just flat out need to be provided for by society at large. That's just a fact of life. They will never "learn to fish" and they will never "get it". My sister is one of them. A minimum income and universal healthcare will not make her able to hold down a job or buy healthy foods over junk or ditch her alcoholic husband. But it would mean she would not go without lupus medications and a social worker could set up her income to autopay her rent on her section 8 apt so she isn't homeless. It would mean that instead of having to seek 4-8 different places for assistance for basic needs, she would only need maybe 2-4. That's no small thing to people living at or below the poverty level and with little ability to transport themselves to or research ways to access help.

[AimeeM]

There are not countlesss people rising out of poverty. It's actually very countable. That's why it's so newsworthy and inspirational when it happens.

 

A minimum income would not fix everything, but it would streamline and fix many things.

 

There are always going to be people that just flat out need to be provided for by society at large. That's just a fact of life. They will never "learn to fish" and they will never "get it". My sister is one of them. A minimum income and universal healthcare will not make her able to hold down a job or buy healthy foods over junk or ditch her alcoholic husband. But it would mean she would not go without lupus medications and a social worker could set up her income to autopay her rent on her section 8 apt so she isn't homeless. It would mean that instead of having to seek 4-8 different places for assistance for basic needs, she would only need maybe 2-4. That's no small thing to people living at or below the poverty level and with little ability to transport themselves to or research ways to access help.

 

And I guess this is my main concern with UBI. If a contributing factor within neglect, that is based on poverty, is the inability (of, say, parents) to prioritize where monies go, so the government still needs to take control on such a level that they also give each family an "overseer" who sets up that family's UBI in such a way that shelter, health, and food is paid for consistently from that money, how is it any different than the services we have now? 

 

UBI may not be needs' based, but we couldn't provide a social worker to oversee that money distribution to everyone, so that would have to be based on need -- and then it isn't "no strings" money, because (just like food stamps, childcare vouchers, and section 8 vouchers) someone else is deciding where the money goes and when. 

 

I was also under the impression that most countries with things similar to a UBI, didn't also have section 8 housing or food stamps or childcare vouchers (at least to the extent that we have them here). Childcare alone would eat up most of that UBI -- and if the parents are still only bringing in, say, 30-40K a year, besides the UBI, then foot costs, clothing, shelter, and healthcare isn't going to be paid for at all. Let's even assume that we throw Universal Healthcare into the mix... what about dental or procedures not covered by a UHC system? 

 

For the record, I'm asking because I'm sincerely curious. Although I identify as politically conservative, I'm not actually against a Universal Basic Income... I just don't understand how it's better than the resources we have now, save the obvious headache that goes into getting the services we have now. Again, though, if we throw into the mix the government somehow ensuring that the basics are covered with that UBI, it's no less restrictive than the system we have now. Right?

Edited September 19, 2017 by AimeeM

[Sk8ermaiden]

For starters, everyone gets it regardless of income. No stigma. Secondly, it is actually enough to live off of. No hoops to jump through. No separate food stamps/section 8 housing/heating help/etc. Just money to cover the basics. This would of course need to be paired with excellent mental health, drug addiction counseling, etc. 

 

Another option is just to actually have safe, available housing for low income. Not a waiting list that is years long. Housing first has been shown to help more than making people jump through hoops in order to "earn" housing. Maybe even a set up where there is someone that lives in the apartments or what not to provide help finding other assistance, etc. 

 

I'd love to see set ups with apartments where one of the apartments is used for tutoring/daycare/parenting classes/cooking classes/money management classes/resume help/job search help/etc. And you could stay there for one year or 6 months or whatever AFTER getting a job, so no worries that you would be kicked out before building up a safety net. Could charge a small percentage of income as rent, but not enough to disincentive working or keep them from saving up money. 

 

I volunteer at Catholic Charities in my city and they have an apartment complex like this for homeless women veterans (especially those with children.) They provide all that and more, and slowly transition women out when they are stable. Of course all the money comes from grants. I am not even Catholic, but I have really liked working there. There is zero evangelizing to recipients, daycare provided is secular, etc.

 

They also handle all the refugee resettlement in the city (I think in the whole state of Texas actually.) And yes, we handle all their needs. They're not competing for anyone's section 8 housing.