Poverty in America

RACIST??  Do you think we need to take children away from single head of households with less than 12 years of schooling?  Now THAT would be a truly evil thing!  We need to do more of what we're doing now ... keep telling kids to stay in school, and try not to have children until they are in a stable relationship.  When children have children that is when we get into many of these situations.

The article is written for flash, it said only two groups were studied (black & white), and the white group was less.  But never said how much less?  are they 89%, 50%, 20%? It says 97%

Perhaps we should look at this that we have a social program that provides immediate help to single head of household parents, so their children can get to school and not be hungry.  They even adjusted the program so people use a debit style card, rather than the Monopoly colored money they forced them to use in the past.  So it is less of a stigma when shopping.

I personally do not believe this study.

lol are you joking? What about this is racist?

Ok, I've let a lot of borderline offensive comments go, but this one crosses the line.

Jaye, your insinuation that people who receive food stamps are stupid is offensive and obviously uninformed.  As are your views on birth control, apparently.

The racial divide in food stamp recipients highlights one of the major fundamental inequalities that still exist in this country.  It absolutely does not say anything about the character of the people who receive them.

Greg, I respect the work you do and admire your drive toward equality. The title of your article is striking, but in a way it feeds the stereo type many productive citizens have of those recieving benefits. It also does little to contradict the idea that most african americans families depend on welfare. To be fair to Marvin, an increase in education and access to birth control may help reduce the number of children that are born to parents who cannot support them, but we must be careful not to punish the children. In my opinion all children deserve three meals everyday.

I would prefer to see the numbers crunched without race to find causes of poverty which we can address (since we cannot change people's race). What percentage of foodstamp recipients are unmarried? what percentage are uneducated? finished highschool? went to college? are unemployed? live in rural areas? live in urban areas? Have been incarcerated? Have access to church sponsered outreach?

Unlike race these are underlying issues we can address. We must find solutions or a generational problem becomes a permanant way of life. How many of those 90% will have the oppertunity to go to college or learn a trade and become middle class? How many of them will go onto have children and require aid themselves? How many of them consider foodstamps part of a normal family life? I would argue that there are populations in this country where the statistcs for whites are strikingly simular.

I would also take the time to argue for those who live just outside the limits of assistance. If you get foodstamps at least you get food. How many people don't qualify because they earn wages, but still do not have enough money after the bills are paid to buy food. Looking back on my life, I felt more secure that I would have food during the time we qualified for food stamps because of my mother's unemployment than I did some of the time she was working and we got no assistance. I would hear her say I have no money for groceries because the car ins. is due this week or we have to get a new refridgerator, or the electric bill went up, or the car broke down or daycare got more expensive. Working at low wages and surving is harder in this country than not working and surviving on assistance.

Rebecca, your post, and several on this thread, are disturbing on several levels.  But for now, i'll limit my comments to your statement about us not being able to address race.  While we certainly cannot change anyone's race (contrary to Sammy Sosa's efforts), we certainly can change the way that race impacts and is impacted by public policy. 

In your comments you suggest that we examine issues that CAN be addressed such as education, employment and housing patterns.  Are you of the opinion that race is not interwoven into each of those issues?  The reality is that while poverty impacts ALL people, it does not do so in the same manner.  Even the extent to which poverty is concentrated is certain neighborhoods varies depending on race.  White poverty tends not to be as concentrated; thus poor White households tend to have slightly more access to services and opportunities than you find with Black poverty.

Again, this is not to say that ANY poverty is ok.  I despise all poverty, and I agree with Dr. King that at some point we need to stop feeling good about giving beggars some change and start changing structures that SYSTEMATICALLY produce beggars.

Some say that such change require universal solutions, such as social security, FHA loans and the GI bill.  But we often forget that these universal solutions were far from race neutral.  They actually broadened the gap between Black and White, and I fear that your sentiment that because we can't change someone's race we can only focus on the other stuff would perpetuate the same results.

We must HUMBLE ourselves.

All are created EQUAL.

My, my, what utter tripe. The study doesn't explain that in many places (like here in Oregon)just everybody is on food stamps. Whether at the supermarket of the convenience store I see the 17, 18, 19, 20 year olds whip out their Oregon Trail card to buy their chips and soda. Oh, and that 40 year old with the four kids getting the cart full of Sugar Pops, soda and cookies are all counting on that stat also. I don't know where they "ended the entitlement to aid" but it certainly wasn't anywhere near the west coast. In the present economic condition drawing breath seems to be the only requirement for aid so put your hankies up and get back to work to pay for it as the House of Reps has decided you should pay for everyones medical also...

The study neglects one factor as well ...the number of people who choose a lifestyle that quailifies them for assistance. I grewup in urban poverty and yes my mother (who became a single mother as a result of a divorce) briefly recieved food stamps so I understand the value of the program, but now living in a poor rural area I am appalled at the effects of these programs. Every one is on foodstamps. Many of them intentionally make life changing descisions solely based on how it will effect their ability to receive government assistance.

I recently became unemployed and found out we cannot cancel the insurance until next years open enrollment even if it means we cannot afford groceries. My husband still works so we do not qualify for assistance because they count the insurance premiums as income even though we never see them. I now breastfeed and use cloth diapers because I cannot afford the pampers and formula. If we have more children we might qualify but if we cancel the insurance I cannot afford to give birth again.

We pay those with the least potential and education to have the most children and many of the hardworking people cannot even afford one child.

I never thought that looking back at my life the one thing I would regret most was the descision to get married. I love my husband but we really messed up. This system favors those who are irresponsible and make mistakes and severely punishes those who try to "do the right thing". Maybe my friend who got knocked up an 18 (while I was busy working three jobs and paying for classes at the community college) had the right idea. She got a free ride to the university because she was a single mom.

This system also undermines the men in our society. In areas with a high percentage of the population depending on goverment assistance, men become uneeded and disposable. Women do not want any connection to men because it may jeopardize their entitlements. Men who are not needed or wanted have little reason to be upstanding and productive. Without dependents men also have no way of qualifying for the benefits which may help them survive the low wages they are offered. It is sad all around.

If my generation is any indication, marriage will soon become an antiquated idea as people adapt in an effort to survive. If the goverment cannot make family life affordable to the working class, the working class will socialize the system by qualifying themselves for the existing programs.

I agree Rebecca, I know (some) people take advantage of the system. Because the system is set up badly. But we can not group 'everyone' in that same basket. I also agree that the middle class is being totally ignored in their needs. There should be some middle ground.

James,

It is kind of disturbing that in Oregon (which is also my home state as well) some of the things that can be purchased with food stamps. I think there was another blog awhile back ago by someone about changing what could be purchased with food stamps. It definitely goes to keeping people health, but then again, you have people crying that big brother can't always monitor what we buy (even if that's where the money is coming from).

As to the article, I didn't look at the study, but single parent families seem to be the ones who struggle the most. My mom was also a single parent who survived on a mere $400 a month child support for two children. I remember being on food stamps a few times as a child. Sometimes we worried whether the check was in the mail. My mom had a decent job, but one income for three people made it very hard.

Rebecca, just a few quick thoughts:

1) I would hardly call safety net assistance programs a "reward".  They are meager allotments at best.  SNAP (food stamps) are designed not to provide complete food security, but only a partial asistance for your food bill.  Thus, you're still spending a lot of your time looking to put food on the table, instead of looking for work or taking class or training programs.  Bad idea.  If we're going to give assistance, let's at least give full assistance and a continuum of support.

2) At the same time, I agree with you in some ways, that they don't necessarily incentivize advancement or create the conditions for people to get ahold of their life and work to improve themselves and their family.  However, instead of bemoaning this, I believe we can make smart changes to make the programs more sophisticated and empowering. 

For instance, a believe you are right in saying that people organize some life decisions around keeping the benefits.  Now ask: Why is that?  I believe the answer is that the programs aren't sophisticated in their design.  There is the problem, for instance, of getting dropped from the program if you pass a certain income threshold, you get dropped.  This is not smart and does not incentivize work.  We should work to implement an "off-ramp" strategy, where beneifts are scaled down, or you are put automatically on other benefits you become eligible for, once you are no longer eligible for others.

Thu, there are programs, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), that support working families through tax rebates who might not be elligible for more basic cash assistance.  Knowledge of these programs is low.  They need to be harmonized into a continuum of services which communicate with each other, in order to provide an off-ramp into employment and self-sufficiency.

There are other practices that are designed to be "tought", but just end up being punitive and wasting money, like finger printing people to get benefits.  Another bad idea.  There are some challenges in life that build you up, but there are others that just waste your time.  Finger imaging and like practices are a big WOT (and money), as they say.

So, I share your frustration, and I think we can turn it into intelligence and resolve for a better way of ensuring basic human rights.

You ready?

You need to RE-EVALUATE your WORDS. I have a distrubing thought that you don't have much of an EDUCATION. These are not typic WORDS or meaningful sentences. Please RE-THINK your "THOUGHT" process, your article to me, is like a CHIP on the shoulder, you would not make a good leader!

Thank you for this article.  Glad to see some responders care to know so many are struggling.  Sorry that some responders feel it important to demean the poor by listing their own successes. 

We never know where true genius lies their head at night ex:    William Smith was an early British geologist and cartographer.  He created the world's first geologic map in 1815.  He was homeless for 10 years.  Later in life he was recognized by King William IV and given a lifelong pension. He is known as "The Father of English Geology

TOO MANY CHILDREN are growing up impoverished, hungry, homeless and sick without adequate medical care.

Where have we ourselves erred and succeeded in our own life decisions? 

What did we learn that is helpful, non-judgemental, that may aid others who struggle?  

Rub shoulders with others - we are the same - educated or not, healthy or not, rich or poor.  Where we see weakness in others it is but a mirror of ourselves.  By seeing strength and potential we are all stronger.

Please reach out to just one person, charity or something of the sort and focus on building up humanity.  You know, break bread with your brothers and sisters.

Laurie, I as a single mom after taking 19 years of abuse  while married,workd 2 full time jobs and raised my two daughters. Women even with some education still are not paid thesame as men. My childrens friends were from moms on welfare who had better clothes and the latest ipod things that I could not give them. What I wanted them to learn was not to depend on The System that victimizes you. All this poverty and welfare is set up to keep you in the system and this goes on generation after generation. I like what you said about determination and faith in God. That is what got me through.

Mary Ann, did you ever ask them how they bought the iPod?

@Bobby Steele- yes I am talking about growing up in the 50-70's.

Have you ever been checked for Paranoid Schziophenia?

Who are you making that 'Alinsky' comment to ?

Are you another of the ilk who try to suggest 'insanity' to anyone who QUESTIONS AUTHORITY ?

Do you realize that your exact words echo those of the STALINISTS ?

Like john Edwards said during the 2004 elections - "You have to be INSANE to vote for George Bush" - he was suggesting that those who disagree with the totalitarian LEFT WING are 'insane' and must be shipped off the "re-education" camps.

Yuor application to the Nazi Party would be well accepted based on you comment.

I don't want to rub people the wrong way, but the truth is.... the reason so many black children depend on foodstamps is because so many black children are born out of wedlock and therefore qualify for food stamps. I don't know the actual number, but I believe its close to 80% of all black children are born out of wedlock. (I laughed when they said on the news last year that the african american community in California turned out in large numbers to vote against Gay marriage. The gay community took it so personally but what they failed to see is that the african american community in California is opposed to marriage in general but only gay marriage was on the ballot) The same dynamics also exist in mostly white poor rural areas where wages are low and work is scarce. (It just so happens that there are huge urban epicenters full of wealthy white people that are averaged in to make the percentage of white people on foodstamps much lower)

This has not always been the case. As Laurie mentioned there was a time in this country when relying on goverment aid was a more temporary thing that helped hardworking people survive a difficult event in their lives. Two generations ago there actually was a black middle/working class. Although it was extremely difficult for them many african americans coming out of the civil rights movement wanted nothing else but the chance to attain middle class and they strived hard toward that end. They got married, started businesses and families, worked very hard and wanted what every other american at the time wanted, a house and a white pickett fence.

The thing that has changed is the system. Welfare has become more generous and easier to collect on a full time basis. The benefits used to be temporary and so minimal that is was miserable to try and live on them. People who had benefits then did not drive nice cars or have TV's and computers (I know we didn't when we were recieving benefits) But now most of the recipients do. The bottom line is that it has gotten harder to attain working/middle class status as a family unit. Any community where wages are low and an education is more difficult to get soon finds that being unmarried on assistance puts them in the same place financially as being married and employed (only it requires alot less work). To an african american woman (who was most likely raised without a father) the government is a far more dependable and consistant provider than an uneducated black man earning low wages. Sad how the system discards black men in favor of a matriarchalcommunity. Boys who never see fathers never learn to become fathers. And men who do not have the opportunity to be a father to their children have little incentive to be productive. Two generations ago men worked two, three, even four jobs because their families DEPENDED on them. Not because it was a fun way to pass the time. 

I'm not saying we can or should eleminate these benefits but what I am saying is that we should bring jobs and higher education to these communities, rebuild the working middle class, stop penalizing families for being married, make things like healthcare and childcare affordable to productive citizens and incentivise healthy family units.

Instead of pushing employment so hard on single mothers (because lets face it if you are a single parent to 3 kids making low women's wages it does NOT pay to work) why don't they push marriage. Then the women can work at home (raising and educating the children) and the men can share the financial burden of raising the family with the government. Women's Libbers will shoot me for implying that women should become dependent on men, but if they cannot provide for themselves maybe they do need the men.

Lets just say (for sake of argument) they made marriage at the time of conception OR marriage at the time of application a requirement for recieving full benefits. All children who did not fit into this category would, I admit, suffer but perhaps churches and private citizens could step up during the transition.

Use your imagination for a minute... sure it will result in sham marriages, but if every child in the system had a man attatched to their file, men would become part of the system and at least partly responsible for the children. Better to be part of this sytem than the prison system. Men would become needed (if only for "sham" marriages its a start). The men in these communities will have to learn how to deal with and relate to the women (not just in the bedroom) and I think that, with time the role of husband and father will grow on them. Now we will need jobs for these men, and an oppertunity to be educated, but for once they may have the desire to take advantage of these oppertunities (if they are provided). Things would not change immediately but it took 30 years to get this way.

I welcome comments! As a community we must discuss any posssible solutions.

It just seems that the Welfare system was gradually set up to break down Black families.

I've brought this up elsewhere, but I never find a real solid answer... WHAT HAPPENED ? I've seen pictures of Harlem in the early 1900s. The people were Black, but always dressed to the nines. They were prosperous and clearly financially well-off and independent. What tore that apart ?

The United States of America.

No. NOT the USA, which has brought more freedom and opportunity than any other country in history.

SOCIALISTS.

The SOCIALISTS - the American Left Wing... the 'Progressives' who inspired Adolph Hitler, and who despised the Right Wing's anti-Racist policies... hobbled the Blacks with Welfare.

I'd recommend that you do some reading at the National Black Republican Ass'n www.nbra.info for some truth.

Yeah Ted thats just it. I worked with a lady who quit her job had two daughter and got housing, medical and dental and $3,000 for vacation tax break whereas it took me two full time jobs to keep myself and two daughters afloat and no vacation and tax refund.

Mary Ann, you realize that it's not uncommon for people to receive cash assistance while working under the table?  It's possible that your acquaintance was working.

Did you ask her about her situation? Or are you guessing?

I'm tired of everyone's ungrounded perceptions of welfare queens.

On top of that, SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) is not a welfare program.

It's a nutrition assistance program, and it boosts GDP.  And it costs a lot less and is more efficient than charity.  I guarantee you pay more tax dollars on this system.

If you want to rag on something, rag on charity.  I will join you.

Hi James,

Firsrt of all, where do you live?

Second, SNAP is technically not welfare.  It is a nutrition assistance program to give people capital so they can go to the store and buy food, i.e. cash designated for food.

Third, charitable food is not freely given.  You pay for a tremendous amount of it.  The vast majority of it is government purchased.  The whole system is massively expensive and inefficient.  Sorry to burst your bubble.

Please read this report: The Economic Cost of Domestic Hunger. (http://www.sodexofoundation.org/hunger_us/Images/Cost%20of%20Domestic%20Hunger%20Report%20_tcm150-155150.pdf).

It lays out all the costs of addressing food insecurity.  Take special note of the part on the expenses of charity (nearly $14 billion per year).

We have a choice as a country.  Spend a whole lot of money doing the charity thing, and making ourselves feel better and pretending we are being independent, or we can wise up and start promoting smarter social policy and market-based solutions that help people get on their feet.  One is more expensive and is getting us nowhere, the other is cheaper, lifts all boats, and helps people actually get on their feet.

In addition to being expensive, the food at charities is demonstrably lower quality and less nutritious than healthy options at the store.  It is leftover food bought by the government or donated by food companies.  Mostly canned, mostly processed, in order to store longer.  It's a bad idea. 

When I was on SNAP, I much rathered shopping at the store.

Also note, that SNAP is smart spending and boosts GDP. See: (http://frac.org/news/real_stimulus.htm).  This shows how much smarter this policy is than charity or commondity food purchasing.

Hope this helps.  I look forward to your responses to the Cost of Domestic Hunger report.

James.. I'd be curious as to your response to this: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-mccown_27edi.State.Edition1.18e6133.html

Also, I'm not sure you read the Economic Cost Burden study very carefully.  The overwhelming majority of Food Bank food is government purchased, through commodity purchasing programs.  The programs are actually price support programs for farmers and big food companies, since they buy surplus and unmarketable goods, and then distribute them to Food Banks to be given to individuals.  Very cumbersome system.  It's all tax money.

Get back to me.

Michael

Nice article about hard working case workers in Texas.

I'll check with the local food bank for percentages of government food here. Actually what you point out about the price support programs more or less underscores my belief that the 14.5 billion cost of charity is an inflated number. That money would be spent regardless of food give aways and is incorrectly added to the cost total. In the bad old days it was burned or dumped or buried (some still is).

Hi James,

I don't follow you that the $14.5 billion would be spent regardless.  Could you clarify?

Yes. A good treatment of the origins and nature of food assistance is Janet Poppendieck's book "Breadlines Knee-Deep in Wheat": http://www.amazon.com/Breadlines-Knee-Deep-Wheat-Assistance/dp/0813511216/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259347363&sr=1-1

She talks about how in the post-Hoover era, America wrestled with the paradox of "want admist plenty", where there was enough food being grown, but nobody could afford it.  The result was the first Farm Bill as we know it today, and the tradition of commodity purchasing by the public sector.

 the best policy is to track down the welfare Queens who lies to get Foodstamps and give it too the ones who really needs it.

Because the welfare Queens has buddies in the welfare department that is why they are accepted automatically  and why the ones who are honest are left out in the cold.

Sherry 

I have lost my job I am an american and I get no help from no one, because I have been denied by all those free welfare crappy organizations. My bills are about the same as yours, but yet i still can not get help for foodstamps or unemployment..

why is that ?

 ask the racists welfare community who runs the establishment most who works there are  "low and behold" African Americans.

 why is that ?

Because the other americans are worthless in their eyes and many of us dont get the needed help, but yet  I have seen people drive to these welfare offices and drive brand new cars, gold teeth and gold rings and they get a lot of foods stamps. But a person who doesn't lie and tells the truth cant get any kind of help..

I think the goverment needs to raid some of these welfare offices and investatgate the workers who are allowing people to lie to get on welfare.

Then maybe people who needs the actualy help can get the help and people who lies to get on it can be sent to prison.

Lara,

You nailed it right on the head. It's the people who abuse these programs that give the legit recipients a bad name.

Ronald Reagan managed to clean up Social Security fairly well, eliminating numerous frauds, like Hollywood celebs who were cashing checks for long deceased relatives. After he 'cleaned house' he was able to increase legit payments by about 60%, and still cut spending on the program.

Of course, at the time, the Left -wing was using scare tactics, claiming that Reagan was going to 'end' Social Security. As typical, the Left lied.

What the Leftists don't CARE t recognize is that, for every undeserving person added to these programs, at least one disabled person falls through the cracks.