Americans tread water in gulf between rich and poor

[Contrary1]

I'm starting in the middle of this article. We must do something. Now.




"And it's the story of Charles Fox. Fox, 68, has claimed a bench on High Street in Morgantown, W.Va. It's tucked between a pizza shop and a gelato stand he can't afford to visit. Beside him are two black trash bags stuffed with his belongings.

He had a home until last month, when a fire burned down one of the last cheap motels in town. Now he sits in the morning sunshine, worrying about the approach of winter.
"I ain't found no place to live yet," he says, staring down at the sidewalk.

<snip>

He used to work in a coal mine, but a blocked artery in his leg makes walking and standing — and holding a job — difficult. At night, he finds a bunk at a packed homeless shelter.

"I sit up here on the street in the daytime and just wonder, 'Where am I going to go?'" he says. Tears fall as he adds, "Sometimes I go two or three days without anything to eat."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39466469/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

[FirstLight]

1. i am just so done

today i went from feeling good watching the rally this morning, to feeling desperation and disgust at the waves of poverty and awfulness we are facing.

i wonder how we will ever make things change...? :cry: :shrug: :mad: :cry:

[whathehell]

2. I'm not offering this up as a "salvo" or an "ideal solution" at all..

but can't this man and the other long-term unemployed (like the 99ers) go on Welfare?...They SHOULD be able to by my reasoning, NO ONE in this country should have to go hungry!

As I said, I'm NOT offering this up as a great alternative. I think the situation we're in.is disgraceful.

The US really never had a "permanent class" of homeless people until the early to mid eighties, and those of us who grew up in earlier decades (boomers, for instance) actually thought it would only be a "short term" situation before the government, somebody, would "do something"...We had no idea, and were shocked at the realization that, as my spouse put it.."America apparently doesn't mind having a beggar class".

Truly it's disgusting...and I urge these people to go to the Welfare office only because the EFFING Government OWES our citizens at least basic sustenance!...This is appalling.

[Hannah Bell]

3. tanf (today's 'welfare') = for people with kids. the only other 'welfare' out there i know about is

ssi -- you have to be disabled in some way, or elderly:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

- It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income; and

- It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

*****

To apply for most charity benefits you need to have an address, & it usually takes at least a couple of tries.

people think there are lots of benefits for the poor until they need them. it's not so easy.

[whathehell]

4. So a single unemployed person

cannot apply for welfare on the basis of need anymore?...

Is this part of Bill Clinton's "welfare reform"?..If so, it's worse than I thought...I was always opposed to the "reform" based on the time limits and the imperative to "work" at a time when there were few jobs and even less paying a living wage, but I didn't know it would be taken away from single people.

That REALLY sucks, especially in this economy!

Thanks for the information, Hannah Bell..You're posts are always interesting.

[Hannah Bell]

5. no -- & in general, they never could, unless they had kids. clinton's deform didn't

change that -- it put a cut-off on the amount of time people could stay on welfare.

there has never been much of a safety net for people without kids.

[whathehell]

6. I think this may have varied by state...

I applied for benefits in Pennsylvania in the eighties as a single person and I was found ineligible only because they thought I made too much money.

[Hannah Bell]

7. that may be, but state programs were somewhat restricted by federal regs if they took fed $.

was it *welfare* specifically you applied for?

Because welfare, prior to clinton, meant "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" -- AFDC.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1996, which was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services. This program provided financial assistance to children whose families had low or no income.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aid_to_Families_with_Dependent_Children


There may have been other state programs that helped people without children, but afdc was the program that was meant when people spoke of "welfare".

average benefit of today's tanf is smaller than in the 60s:

[whathehell]

8. Not the case in Pennsylvania..

AFDC may be the sole agency the people you've talked to called "welfare" but in my state it wasn't the case.

In Pennsylvania, it's called the Department of Public Assistance and it's commonly referred to as "welfare".

It is the office I went to, and now that I look back, I realize that about ten years prior to my application in the eighties, they once actually gave me about $100 in emergency cash.

[Hannah Bell]

9. at the federal level, afdc was welfare. it's not just "the people i talked to."

clinton's "welfare reform" reformed afdc.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor.

The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.<1> Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it".<2>

PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which had been in effect since 1935 and also supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program of 1988.

The bill's primary requirements and effects included:

Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds;
Aiming to encourage two-parent families and discouraging out-of-wedlock births.
Enhancing enforcement of child support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act


pennsylvania may have had state-funded programs they called "welfare," but any discussion of federally-funded "welfare" meant afdc.

looking through penn's dept of public welfare i'm not finding much aid for individuals without dependents under "cash assistance":

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ServicesPrograms/CashAsstEmployment/003676615.htm

fact is, if you're unemployed & can't get UE, there's not much out there but food stamps & sometimes medical assistance unless you're disabled & can qualify for SSI.

[whathehell]

10. Well, my post didn't address only "federal level" payments, or afdc, did it?

My post addressed WELFARE.

You are SO unpleasant when found "wrong".....Get over yourself.

[Hannah Bell]

11. huh? the conversation wasn't about pennsylvania. & i wasn't being unpleasant. you read too much

into things. you made the link to clinton's welfare reform in your first response to me.

whathehell (1000+ posts)

4. So a single unemployed person
cannot apply for welfare on the basis of need anymore?...

Is this part of Bill Clinton's "welfare reform"?..


i acknowledged there may be other programs funded by individual states that give benefits to singles w/o children -- but the only one i know that's funded by the feds besides food stamps & medicaid is SSI -- & you have to be old or disabled to get it.

i have no idea what was available in pennsylvania back in the day, but it has nothing to do with the national discourse on "welfare". and if things have changed with that special state-level program, it has nothing to do with clinton's welfare reform.

[whathehell]

13. Huh?, ....

In response to the OP, I suggested that the man and other long-term unemployed apply for Welfare.

You mentioned that things had changed under Clinton's reform and said that single people weren't entitled to welfare, only people with kids..You said "people I know refer to AFDC as welfare.

I related my OWN EXPERIENCE and suggested that things may have been different in the past. You challenged me.

I then related my experience as being IN PENNSYLVANIA and mentioned that giving welfare to people with children ONLY may have been something that "varies from state to state"..You challenged THAT asking if I was "sure" I had been in a welfare office.

When I GAVE you the link showing that "welfare" in Pennsylvania is NOT called "AFDC" and is not restricted to aid for dependent children, you failed to acknowledge even the possibility of a mistake on your part and got snarky via quotation marks on your own words.

You are one of those who MUST win, or risk some sort of ego-meltdown. Case in point: I offered you a compliment in one of my early responses to you and you didn't so much as acknowledge it. Typical.

You are "not being unpleasant"? I honestly doubt if you'd notice if you were. Your over competitive value system, like too many others manifests as: "Winning" = 10. Courtesy = 0.

I now remember why I had you on ignore for so long. I was right the first time. Buh bye.

[Hannah Bell]

14. "You challenged me." - i acknowledged your point twice, glad to be on your ignore list.

[xchrom]

12. recommend