The difficult choices facing families seeking welfare assistance
August 28, 2013 2:07 PM Subscribe
'Damned if you do, doomed if you don't' - When it comes to violating welfare rules, recipients sometimes do so after suggestions from caseworkers. Published by Al Jazeera America (previously), which opened for business just this month. Consider it a sequel piece to Planet Money's controversial report on dissability fraud (previously).
I can't finish this. This U.S. is what's doomed.
posted by IvoShandor at 2:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by IvoShandor at 2:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
So, basically this article is just about an isolated incident in Oklahoma.
posted by Ardiril at 2:32 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Ardiril at 2:32 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
Oh God, she's dead of a heart attack at 30 and he still has to pay the state her restitution of $55,000.
As in David’s case, eligibility ignores the income a parent devotes to child support, but calculates it as income for those who receive it.
Of course, of course. So he's not eligible because his income is a smidgen too high and they don't let him deduct child support. But SHE'S also not eligible because she receives child support, making HER income a smidgen too high. This is what happens when each state can just make their own rules. This is also the danger of letting states make their own rules with ACA and anything else. Some of them are filled with people who hate the poor (many of them are almost-poor themselves) and people who just don't care.
The result is a system that, at times, can seem remote and inaccessible, and then, like in the case of David and Candice, fiercely personal.
Something like this happened to me. I lost my Medicaid because I called my caseworker during her lunch break. I had never called before and just had a simple question. It was after 1pm and I had no idea she was on lunch. She answered the phone and barked at me that she was on lunch. I immediately responded that she shouldn't have answered the phone. OOPs. Here follows two years of my renewal applications being "lost", my calls never returned, and tension and stress around each renewal with me having to go "down there" and do it manually.
But usually the problem is as the article says: a system that is remote and inaccessible. This past winter, for some reason I do not know, something bad happened to the various county assistance offices in Philadelphia. Funding problems or something backed them up terribly. Customer service could NOT be reached by phone (I think at some point the service center just stopped taking calls for days). Going to ones' local office meant all day waiting (and then I was told they couldn't help due to computer problems). I went weeks without medicaid and, even worse, 10 days without food stamps. I had completed my applications 6 weeks in advance but they were just so far behind. So many other sad, angry, desperate people at that office, I don't think I can ever forget.
And now today, right now, I am filled with tension because I JUST FOUND OUT that my mother's "independent caseworker" (a private contractor which is what a lot of people have to deal with now) who filled out her application for Medicaid last year may have lied about the income. It's time for her renewal and her home health aide was filling out the application when she came to the part about spousal resources and income. When she asked my mom about it, my mom recalled the contractor saying he wasn't going to include the "spousal stuff". The aide panicked because how do we fill the app out now? With or without? WHAT DID HE PUT ON THAT APPLICATION? This is the home health aide who helps provide the 42 hours of care my mom gets each week, and who will not be able to come back after Saturday if this goes poorly. We're all frantically trying to find out what that application said.
My inclination is to be straightforward and tell the truth because that's the easiest and honest way, but that could also mean my mom loses everything (and I guess could be prosecuted for fraud). It's all so scary.
posted by Danila at 2:40 PM on August 28, 2013 [28 favorites]
As in David’s case, eligibility ignores the income a parent devotes to child support, but calculates it as income for those who receive it.
Of course, of course. So he's not eligible because his income is a smidgen too high and they don't let him deduct child support. But SHE'S also not eligible because she receives child support, making HER income a smidgen too high. This is what happens when each state can just make their own rules. This is also the danger of letting states make their own rules with ACA and anything else. Some of them are filled with people who hate the poor (many of them are almost-poor themselves) and people who just don't care.
The result is a system that, at times, can seem remote and inaccessible, and then, like in the case of David and Candice, fiercely personal.
Something like this happened to me. I lost my Medicaid because I called my caseworker during her lunch break. I had never called before and just had a simple question. It was after 1pm and I had no idea she was on lunch. She answered the phone and barked at me that she was on lunch. I immediately responded that she shouldn't have answered the phone. OOPs. Here follows two years of my renewal applications being "lost", my calls never returned, and tension and stress around each renewal with me having to go "down there" and do it manually.
But usually the problem is as the article says: a system that is remote and inaccessible. This past winter, for some reason I do not know, something bad happened to the various county assistance offices in Philadelphia. Funding problems or something backed them up terribly. Customer service could NOT be reached by phone (I think at some point the service center just stopped taking calls for days). Going to ones' local office meant all day waiting (and then I was told they couldn't help due to computer problems). I went weeks without medicaid and, even worse, 10 days without food stamps. I had completed my applications 6 weeks in advance but they were just so far behind. So many other sad, angry, desperate people at that office, I don't think I can ever forget.
And now today, right now, I am filled with tension because I JUST FOUND OUT that my mother's "independent caseworker" (a private contractor which is what a lot of people have to deal with now) who filled out her application for Medicaid last year may have lied about the income. It's time for her renewal and her home health aide was filling out the application when she came to the part about spousal resources and income. When she asked my mom about it, my mom recalled the contractor saying he wasn't going to include the "spousal stuff". The aide panicked because how do we fill the app out now? With or without? WHAT DID HE PUT ON THAT APPLICATION? This is the home health aide who helps provide the 42 hours of care my mom gets each week, and who will not be able to come back after Saturday if this goes poorly. We're all frantically trying to find out what that application said.
My inclination is to be straightforward and tell the truth because that's the easiest and honest way, but that could also mean my mom loses everything (and I guess could be prosecuted for fraud). It's all so scary.
posted by Danila at 2:40 PM on August 28, 2013 [28 favorites]
So, basically this article is just about an isolated incident in Oklahoma.
No I disagree. First of all, Oklahoma has millions of people and a lot of poor folks, so even if this particular type of overzealous enforcement is limited to that state, that is a lot of people who could suffer. In addition, this isn't "isolated" because it's a matter of policy. It's not like anyone is saying they made a mistake. The man still has to pay the state $55,000 for the charges against his dead wife. They have no problem with that.
The article lays out the decades of invasive, dishonest enforcement tactics used in multiple states across the country along with the justifications for same. This is an example, not an isolated incident.
posted by Danila at 2:43 PM on August 28, 2013 [21 favorites]
No I disagree. First of all, Oklahoma has millions of people and a lot of poor folks, so even if this particular type of overzealous enforcement is limited to that state, that is a lot of people who could suffer. In addition, this isn't "isolated" because it's a matter of policy. It's not like anyone is saying they made a mistake. The man still has to pay the state $55,000 for the charges against his dead wife. They have no problem with that.
The article lays out the decades of invasive, dishonest enforcement tactics used in multiple states across the country along with the justifications for same. This is an example, not an isolated incident.
posted by Danila at 2:43 PM on August 28, 2013 [21 favorites]
Christ, that was depressing.
In the early 80s, my mom had to go on disability for a while and we had to go on welfare. I still remember how humiliating it was to have the social worker come to our house, look through the closets (to make sure no other adults or secret husband or boyfriend was living there) and interrogated my barely-able-to-walk mom about her medical condition and relationships and income. Awful. It was awful. Thirty years later and I remember how awful it was.
posted by rtha at 2:50 PM on August 28, 2013 [15 favorites]
In the early 80s, my mom had to go on disability for a while and we had to go on welfare. I still remember how humiliating it was to have the social worker come to our house, look through the closets (to make sure no other adults or secret husband or boyfriend was living there) and interrogated my barely-able-to-walk mom about her medical condition and relationships and income. Awful. It was awful. Thirty years later and I remember how awful it was.
posted by rtha at 2:50 PM on August 28, 2013 [15 favorites]
The Planet Money piece I mention was so bad that I basically stopped listening to NPR...
Yeah...PM is a cretinous show. Generally, it's just a big sloppy soul-kiss to Wall Street. My local NPR station plays it Saturday mornings, and I just turn-off the radio for that hour.
It's criminal what poor families have to go through just to get a drop of assistance.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:53 PM on August 28, 2013 [6 favorites]
Yeah...PM is a cretinous show. Generally, it's just a big sloppy soul-kiss to Wall Street. My local NPR station plays it Saturday mornings, and I just turn-off the radio for that hour.
It's criminal what poor families have to go through just to get a drop of assistance.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:53 PM on August 28, 2013 [6 favorites]
Generally, it's just a big sloppy soul-kiss to Wall Street.
I think Planet Money does a pretty good job explaining things in detail that most of the media just brushes over. Their coverage of what the hell CDOs are was really good.
And it is a business reporting show - what exactly do you expect it to report on? It doesn't seem to have a very pro-Wall Street bias except in that it talks a lot about, you know, money.
posted by GuyZero at 2:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think Planet Money does a pretty good job explaining things in detail that most of the media just brushes over. Their coverage of what the hell CDOs are was really good.
And it is a business reporting show - what exactly do you expect it to report on? It doesn't seem to have a very pro-Wall Street bias except in that it talks a lot about, you know, money.
posted by GuyZero at 2:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [6 favorites]
So, basically this article is just about an isolated incident in Oklahoma.
A ha, a ha ha, ahahaha. No.
From TFA: A 2008 study in San Diego found that the average annual income of people convicted of welfare fraud, when researchers factored in every penny, including all public assistance and unreported earnings, was $13,356.
It uses the common journalistic trope of taking one story and using it to illustrate something larger and more impactful.
But, hey, snark is cheap, why care?
posted by IvoShandor at 2:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [37 favorites]
A ha, a ha ha, ahahaha. No.
From TFA: A 2008 study in San Diego found that the average annual income of people convicted of welfare fraud, when researchers factored in every penny, including all public assistance and unreported earnings, was $13,356.
It uses the common journalistic trope of taking one story and using it to illustrate something larger and more impactful.
But, hey, snark is cheap, why care?
posted by IvoShandor at 2:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [37 favorites]
Everybody I know who is on food stamps cheats on some level or another. You have to. There isn't any way to actually live on the amount that they give you; it's totally impossible. I was making $800 a month and supporting my two grown kids without jobs and they gave me . . wait for it. . . $200 a month. Yes, I know this is Metafilter and the people here all feed entire villages of 350 people on organic artisanal cheeses for $11 a month, but I haven't learned that one crazy trick yet somehow and I found feeding three people on $200 a month to be quite literally impossible.
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:16 PM on August 28, 2013 [63 favorites]
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:16 PM on August 28, 2013 [63 favorites]
On the campaign trail in 1992, Bill Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it,” and the Newt Gingrich Congress that arrived in Washington two years later, most of them self-identified Reaganites, took him at his word, and then some. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), passed in August 1996, allowed states to independently set various restrictions on cash assistance, like prohibiting benefits to unwed mothers under the age of 18 and forbidding increases to women who have children while receiving welfare. In some states, a household can lose benefits if any member is convicted of a drug charge. In others, a family’s benefits are revoked if a child misses too many days of school. As in David’s case, eligibility ignores the income a parent devotes to child support, but calculates it as income for those who receive it. “There was a qualitative transformation, a windfall of ill will, that presented a political opportunity to create a climate to chase people away from their entitlements,” says Sanford Schram, a professor of public policy at Bryn Mawr College.
Clinton really doesn't get enough blame for the gratitious pain he inflicted on the poor in the name of re-election.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:17 PM on August 28, 2013 [40 favorites]
Clinton really doesn't get enough blame for the gratitious pain he inflicted on the poor in the name of re-election.
posted by T.D. Strange at 3:17 PM on August 28, 2013 [40 favorites]
The other thing I thought while skimming my way through that long, depressing article was how unsurprising it was. I wish I still had the capacity to be shocked by stories like this but they are just so bone crushingly, soul killingly familiar. And the feeling that something must be done, while knowing that nothing will be done, except that things will keep on getting worse, is desperately familiar as well.
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [8 favorites]
4 children prior to their marriage, pregnant in 2 months while managing Type I diabetes( apparently uncontrolled), chronic kidney problems, other complications of uncontrolled diabetes and subject to extended hospitalizations. Of course it is a system and human tragedy and also a failure of care, compassion and personal responsibility. You could have a legal and welfare system that was stellar and the odds are a significant portion of the human suffering, fear and isolation would have continued unabated. The institutional and personal need to work in concert if the system is to work. Poorly controlled Type I diabetes (I am confident she was not diet and insulin compliant which is difficult in the best of times) is a recipe for disaster. I have no idea what a solution is except the exercise of mutual responsibility from all parties--whether welfare system, legal system or recipient(s). None are blameless nor innocent. Incompetence, malice, corruption and foolishness mixed together is never going to get a good result.
posted by rmhsinc at 3:23 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 3:23 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's everywhere at the US local, state, and Federal levels. Here's a personal anecdata point on medical care alone:
Although I could probably work part time, I am on permanent disability because the work I could do would not provide the extensive medical support required to work in the first place. My various problems are life-threatening, chronic and very well documented clinically and bureaucratically.
Last year, as my state faced budget shortfalls and also looked forward to implementing the ACA, the state legislature decided all Medicaid enrollees would be moved from the state Health Care Authority acting as their direct medical insurer, to various HMO and Cost Containment entities. Perhaps those work for folks with good health or common chronic illnesses. It has been a medical, personal, and financial disaster for me.
First, there was no notice that I was being switched, or when. In December, I showed up for a GP visit, where I've been a patient for over 20 years, and was informed I had no medical insurance. My pharmacy later that week informed me the same. Without daily medication costing several thousand dollars a month, my symptoms will return within days, not the least of which are daily tonic-clonic seizures that leave me unable to walk or use language for hours. Of course, physical therapy, necessary to deal with the sprains, tears, and joint dislocations from seizures, was cancelled as well. I had perhaps 10 days backup on my medications. My monthly income can't even cover the cost of my epilepsy medication. much less any of the rest.
From December 2012 until June 2013 I spent 10 to 30 hours a week on the phone or trying to collect the same HIPAA-protected medical information from a dozen different providers. I was shuttled from an HMO which flat-out stated they did not have the resources (NP, GP) in-network to even act as my care coordinator, to two CCOs that claimed they could but would not authorize a single doctor, PT session, lab test, imaging, or medication because they had no diagnosis! Umm, why else would I be medically disabled...?! I ended up being told by the CCOs own nursing line to go to the ER for my meds.... which I did about once a week for 4 months. Some cost containment.
During this entire time I was also battling for an exception from HMO/CCO from the state HCA.
I finally found an att'y willing to help me sue for treatment, any treatment, and mysteriously was returned back to the HCA. Immediately my providers and I started scheduling appointments, treatments, tests of all kinds. All but two office visits have been denied. Most of my medications aren't covered any more (some of which are generics that are the standard treatments worldwide) because the previous documentation of trying alternatives is not acceptable.
As of September 1st I am being switched back to the same CCO that I was suing in June. I have started ANOTHER appeal to stay on direct HCA - but in the meantime, no treatments or even routine lab work (so we could further document my illnesses and get appropriate treatment/meds).
I have no idea where my rx will come from in two weeks. I guess if I start puking blood or thrashing around in the street, I'll end up back in the ER.
And this in a state that is actively trying to implement ACA.
posted by Dreidl at 3:24 PM on August 28, 2013 [18 favorites]
Although I could probably work part time, I am on permanent disability because the work I could do would not provide the extensive medical support required to work in the first place. My various problems are life-threatening, chronic and very well documented clinically and bureaucratically.
Last year, as my state faced budget shortfalls and also looked forward to implementing the ACA, the state legislature decided all Medicaid enrollees would be moved from the state Health Care Authority acting as their direct medical insurer, to various HMO and Cost Containment entities. Perhaps those work for folks with good health or common chronic illnesses. It has been a medical, personal, and financial disaster for me.
First, there was no notice that I was being switched, or when. In December, I showed up for a GP visit, where I've been a patient for over 20 years, and was informed I had no medical insurance. My pharmacy later that week informed me the same. Without daily medication costing several thousand dollars a month, my symptoms will return within days, not the least of which are daily tonic-clonic seizures that leave me unable to walk or use language for hours. Of course, physical therapy, necessary to deal with the sprains, tears, and joint dislocations from seizures, was cancelled as well. I had perhaps 10 days backup on my medications. My monthly income can't even cover the cost of my epilepsy medication. much less any of the rest.
From December 2012 until June 2013 I spent 10 to 30 hours a week on the phone or trying to collect the same HIPAA-protected medical information from a dozen different providers. I was shuttled from an HMO which flat-out stated they did not have the resources (NP, GP) in-network to even act as my care coordinator, to two CCOs that claimed they could but would not authorize a single doctor, PT session, lab test, imaging, or medication because they had no diagnosis! Umm, why else would I be medically disabled...?! I ended up being told by the CCOs own nursing line to go to the ER for my meds.... which I did about once a week for 4 months. Some cost containment.
During this entire time I was also battling for an exception from HMO/CCO from the state HCA.
I finally found an att'y willing to help me sue for treatment, any treatment, and mysteriously was returned back to the HCA. Immediately my providers and I started scheduling appointments, treatments, tests of all kinds. All but two office visits have been denied. Most of my medications aren't covered any more (some of which are generics that are the standard treatments worldwide) because the previous documentation of trying alternatives is not acceptable.
As of September 1st I am being switched back to the same CCO that I was suing in June. I have started ANOTHER appeal to stay on direct HCA - but in the meantime, no treatments or even routine lab work (so we could further document my illnesses and get appropriate treatment/meds).
I have no idea where my rx will come from in two weeks. I guess if I start puking blood or thrashing around in the street, I'll end up back in the ER.
And this in a state that is actively trying to implement ACA.
posted by Dreidl at 3:24 PM on August 28, 2013 [18 favorites]
Average income in OK is 44k. They made 40k. They wouldn't have been poor at all, except for medical expenses and child support costs. I would argue the government should subsidize medical expenses much more than it does, but they were paying for nine kids total (3 each from 3 marriages) and I don't see any solution for that.
posted by miyabo at 3:31 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 3:31 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
Well nobody would be poor if they didn't have to pay for things. The kids existed, they need to be supported, the cost of supporting them impoverished the parents, so they're poor.
posted by Danila at 3:45 PM on August 28, 2013 [14 favorites]
posted by Danila at 3:45 PM on August 28, 2013 [14 favorites]
danilla--does not change miyabo's point. There is no realistic, politically acceptable or even pragmatic solution. That number of children plus Type I diabetes is a real and potential social burden/responsibility that is unmanageable in almost any political system. I completely agree that healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility but I do not want to feel responsible for their children. I am more than willing to contribute but that is all.
posted by rmhsinc at 3:54 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 3:54 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Dreidl, have you considered "personal responsibility" as a solution? (I kid, your situation sounds horrible, I hope you find a way to make things work.)
People make bad life choices sometimes. Everyone does. Some of us have a support network, or personal wealth, or good health, or some other advantageous bit of luck that helps us deal with it when it happens. Many, many other people don't.
(Even more maddening, often the type of folk who posit "personal responsibility" as the solution to everything are also the people who want people to be ignorant of things like family planning, or receiving enough assistance to eat well, or have an opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Whether you think nine kids is not a wise way to go through life if you're poor [and I don't think it is, for anyone, actually], the fact is those kids exist and punishing them because their parents may not have made the best decision is disgusting and a sure-fire way to ensure the next generation faces the very same problems.)
People get so worked up about the very minor percentage of people who abuse social-welfare systems that they're willing to let the huge number of people who don't needlessly suffer (or even die) just to feel better about themselves. That's despicable--frankly, people who think like that are pieces of shit.
The interesting thing is the flip-side never seems to be true. Corporations and wealthy people abuse other government systems all the time--using technically legal but morally laughable vehicles to avoid taxes (or outright cheating on them), over-charging the government for goods and services, using the government to socialize their losses when they make awful business decisions, having the government pay for palaces where millionaire players make money for billionaire owners, etc., etc.--and this is all A-OK. "You're a rube if you don't take advantage of this stuff", or "it's only a few bad apples who do this, the program is necessary to 'incent business'" or some other excuse that is derivative of brain-dead "tickle-down" thinking.
posted by maxwelton at 3:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [36 favorites]
People make bad life choices sometimes. Everyone does. Some of us have a support network, or personal wealth, or good health, or some other advantageous bit of luck that helps us deal with it when it happens. Many, many other people don't.
(Even more maddening, often the type of folk who posit "personal responsibility" as the solution to everything are also the people who want people to be ignorant of things like family planning, or receiving enough assistance to eat well, or have an opportunity to escape the cycle of poverty. Whether you think nine kids is not a wise way to go through life if you're poor [and I don't think it is, for anyone, actually], the fact is those kids exist and punishing them because their parents may not have made the best decision is disgusting and a sure-fire way to ensure the next generation faces the very same problems.)
People get so worked up about the very minor percentage of people who abuse social-welfare systems that they're willing to let the huge number of people who don't needlessly suffer (or even die) just to feel better about themselves. That's despicable--frankly, people who think like that are pieces of shit.
The interesting thing is the flip-side never seems to be true. Corporations and wealthy people abuse other government systems all the time--using technically legal but morally laughable vehicles to avoid taxes (or outright cheating on them), over-charging the government for goods and services, using the government to socialize their losses when they make awful business decisions, having the government pay for palaces where millionaire players make money for billionaire owners, etc., etc.--and this is all A-OK. "You're a rube if you don't take advantage of this stuff", or "it's only a few bad apples who do this, the program is necessary to 'incent business'" or some other excuse that is derivative of brain-dead "tickle-down" thinking.
posted by maxwelton at 3:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [36 favorites]
I completely agree that healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility but I do not want to feel responsible for their children
Society is worth nothing if it doesn't want to feel responsible for children in poor situations. But I hope you at least have the common sense and consistency to be constantly, loudly angry about the systematic defunding of Planned Parenthood and other contraceptive providers - coincidentally, the Oklahoma Senate just voted to do that in May! And also voted to refuse insurance coverage for contraception because 'Christian' assholes who will have no part of caring for these children also want no part of preventing them from happening.
posted by jacalata at 4:28 PM on August 28, 2013 [26 favorites]
Society is worth nothing if it doesn't want to feel responsible for children in poor situations. But I hope you at least have the common sense and consistency to be constantly, loudly angry about the systematic defunding of Planned Parenthood and other contraceptive providers - coincidentally, the Oklahoma Senate just voted to do that in May! And also voted to refuse insurance coverage for contraception because 'Christian' assholes who will have no part of caring for these children also want no part of preventing them from happening.
posted by jacalata at 4:28 PM on August 28, 2013 [26 favorites]
I completely agree that healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility but I do not want to feel responsible for their children.
So healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility, as long as those parties don't exist?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:32 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
So healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility, as long as those parties don't exist?
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:32 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
I mean seriously, why not just shoot the kids, that would be so much cheaper, right?
posted by wuwei at 4:38 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by wuwei at 4:38 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
I have someone sleeping on my couch because 2 kids and a divorce later he cannot afford to live on his own after child support. He works full time at well-above minimum wage. $12k/yr bring home.
And OUR household of three? We make $100/mo too much to get foodstamp assistance.
Guess I have to cheat the system?
posted by TangerineGurl at 5:03 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
And OUR household of three? We make $100/mo too much to get foodstamp assistance.
Guess I have to cheat the system?
posted by TangerineGurl at 5:03 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
We could try having home health aids for parents coping with illness or disability, or who are overwhelmed and under-supported with growing the life skills to care for their families.
I know supporting people is wrong (sarcasm). However when seeing how children with disabilities develop given supported environments where their ACTUAL SKILLS are the measurement of what they are personally responsible for, they tend to be able to grow and develop new skills, whereas if you put the bar above where they can reach and then continual check on them and write plans about what they should do and tell them they aren't good enough over and over and over (which is often how family services work) you actually worsen people's well being and performance ability.
You can actually make people and families worse providing badly designed services. Parents should be healthy and capable parents but many are not.
Would we rather feel morally superior or provide the kind of assistance that will actually support and strengthen parents well being and abilities to care for their children, or provide supportive services to help with the life management areas they are too mobility impaired/depressed/ill/in crisis to manage?
Which is better for the kids? Shaming the parents to make sure they know their failing and feel like shit about it (increasing negative and escape coping mechanisms) or forgive parents for being ill/poor/having life issues and actually helping them with the appropriate resources?
Many people are highly uneducated about the range of skill impairments that can affect people in specific ways, for specific reasons and are not qualified to determine what another person could be responsible for if they were "really" trying and yet such people often work in and design and plan the funding for such assistance programs (or try to ruin such programs with their desire to ensure families suffer more to force "personal responsibility")
Maybe all the people who have been through really terrible lives and never got any help (and thus want to make sure no one else ever does either) could have used more support, because clearly they didn't get what they needed to develop compassion or the capacity to imagine other human beings have different skill sets and challanges than they do even in similar situations.
posted by xarnop at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
I know supporting people is wrong (sarcasm). However when seeing how children with disabilities develop given supported environments where their ACTUAL SKILLS are the measurement of what they are personally responsible for, they tend to be able to grow and develop new skills, whereas if you put the bar above where they can reach and then continual check on them and write plans about what they should do and tell them they aren't good enough over and over and over (which is often how family services work) you actually worsen people's well being and performance ability.
You can actually make people and families worse providing badly designed services. Parents should be healthy and capable parents but many are not.
Would we rather feel morally superior or provide the kind of assistance that will actually support and strengthen parents well being and abilities to care for their children, or provide supportive services to help with the life management areas they are too mobility impaired/depressed/ill/in crisis to manage?
Which is better for the kids? Shaming the parents to make sure they know their failing and feel like shit about it (increasing negative and escape coping mechanisms) or forgive parents for being ill/poor/having life issues and actually helping them with the appropriate resources?
Many people are highly uneducated about the range of skill impairments that can affect people in specific ways, for specific reasons and are not qualified to determine what another person could be responsible for if they were "really" trying and yet such people often work in and design and plan the funding for such assistance programs (or try to ruin such programs with their desire to ensure families suffer more to force "personal responsibility")
Maybe all the people who have been through really terrible lives and never got any help (and thus want to make sure no one else ever does either) could have used more support, because clearly they didn't get what they needed to develop compassion or the capacity to imagine other human beings have different skill sets and challanges than they do even in similar situations.
posted by xarnop at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
He works full time at well-above minimum wage. $12k/yr bring home.
From my non-US perspective, I cannot understand how these two sentences go together.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:11 PM on August 28, 2013 [16 favorites]
From my non-US perspective, I cannot understand how these two sentences go together.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 5:11 PM on August 28, 2013 [16 favorites]
rmhsinc: I completely agree that healthcare for all parties should be a shared and social responsibility but I do not want to feel responsible for their children.
Well, the problem is, the children are absolutely not responsible for their situation. So if you take it out on them, you're taking it out on absolute innocents.
Also, it's more justifiable financially to invest society's resources in caring for children, because resources invested can be balanced against greater productivity from the children later in their lives. If society takes good care of those kids, they will probably end up paying more than enough in taxes to cover their support when they were little. If society leaves the to their fate, they are much more likely to end up in prison or on some sort of support in the future, costing more money. This is especially notable when you consider that one prisoner costs the combined tax revenues of 2-5 middle class adults. So if you can improve the outcomes for those kids, you're almost certainly going to be better off in the long term, just in terms of money.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:18 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, the problem is, the children are absolutely not responsible for their situation. So if you take it out on them, you're taking it out on absolute innocents.
Also, it's more justifiable financially to invest society's resources in caring for children, because resources invested can be balanced against greater productivity from the children later in their lives. If society takes good care of those kids, they will probably end up paying more than enough in taxes to cover their support when they were little. If society leaves the to their fate, they are much more likely to end up in prison or on some sort of support in the future, costing more money. This is especially notable when you consider that one prisoner costs the combined tax revenues of 2-5 middle class adults. So if you can improve the outcomes for those kids, you're almost certainly going to be better off in the long term, just in terms of money.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:18 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
Although I could probably work part time, I am on permanent disability because the work I could do would not provide the extensive medical support required to work in the first place.
And if the system weren't so fucked up, people who have work, but can't manage, or could work, even partially, wouldn't have to lie or cheat the system. Everyone needs and deserves the minimum of enough to eat, somewhere decent to live, and adequate healthcare. Anything else you can do for yourself is a step up. There are very few of us who wouldn't want a step up.
...they were paying for nine kids total (3 each from 3 marriages)
I wonder how many kids there would have been if all US women over the age of 15 had access to free birth control and other family planning without questions asked.
posted by BlueHorse at 5:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [17 favorites]
And if the system weren't so fucked up, people who have work, but can't manage, or could work, even partially, wouldn't have to lie or cheat the system. Everyone needs and deserves the minimum of enough to eat, somewhere decent to live, and adequate healthcare. Anything else you can do for yourself is a step up. There are very few of us who wouldn't want a step up.
...they were paying for nine kids total (3 each from 3 marriages)
I wonder how many kids there would have been if all US women over the age of 15 had access to free birth control and other family planning without questions asked.
posted by BlueHorse at 5:20 PM on August 28, 2013 [17 favorites]
"[R]ecipients sometimes do so after suggestions from caseworkers". Nope, only one recipient and only one caseworker.
"It uses the common journalistic trope of taking one story and using it to illustrate something larger and more impactful."
Except, it didn't. Other than this singular case in Oklahoma, the article does not mention caseworkers encouraging fraud at all.
At this rate, Al Jazeera America will soon join cnn.com and FoxNews.
posted by Ardiril at 5:33 PM on August 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
"It uses the common journalistic trope of taking one story and using it to illustrate something larger and more impactful."
Except, it didn't. Other than this singular case in Oklahoma, the article does not mention caseworkers encouraging fraud at all.
At this rate, Al Jazeera America will soon join cnn.com and FoxNews.
posted by Ardiril at 5:33 PM on August 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
So, basically this article is just about an isolated incident in Oklahoma.
You know, you got ripped for snarking here, but i agree with you to an extent. I was just crapping on that same problem in this thread.
I agree with the premise, so i believe(and also from experience in my own life, just fucking know) there are tons of cases like this out there. But it would really help sell this to to the Rush Limbaugh-listening crowd if there was more than one from the horses mouth account in the story here.
This isn't the local news, this is a national organization. As it stands this pretty much clears the bar for a local news story that basically goes "One guy got fucked, and because of the situation it seems extremely likely other people are getting fucked, more at 11". That doesn't hold up as a national news story.
I don't know how alone i am in this, but "taking one story and using it to humanize the big picture" isn't an easy sell for everyone, especially the people who need to buy this the most.
From my non-US perspective, I cannot understand how these two sentences go together.
Minimum wage is appalling low in the entire country. Washington, where i live, has the highest in the entire country of $9.19. After taxes and fees, there isn't a single place in the entire fucking town where you could even rent a single room occupancy shithole on that. The few places you possibly could would be extremely scummy and full of pests/convicted sex offenders/violent assholes and falling apart. I would know, i lived in one! Nearly all places have rules in a new york city style of "your income must be X times the rent". This locks you out of well, everywhere. A friend of mine was told they were too poor for low income housing.
You literally can't even live on that unless someone lets you move in to an already established place, possibly even illegally, as in without notifying the landlord. I know people who were 4 or 5 up in a 2 bedroom apartment, and once 4 up in a studio. I've done 2 up in a tiny studio that didn't even have a closet, it was like living in a dorm... with my mom.
Fuck this shit.
posted by emptythought at 5:35 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
You know, you got ripped for snarking here, but i agree with you to an extent. I was just crapping on that same problem in this thread.
I agree with the premise, so i believe(and also from experience in my own life, just fucking know) there are tons of cases like this out there. But it would really help sell this to to the Rush Limbaugh-listening crowd if there was more than one from the horses mouth account in the story here.
This isn't the local news, this is a national organization. As it stands this pretty much clears the bar for a local news story that basically goes "One guy got fucked, and because of the situation it seems extremely likely other people are getting fucked, more at 11". That doesn't hold up as a national news story.
I don't know how alone i am in this, but "taking one story and using it to humanize the big picture" isn't an easy sell for everyone, especially the people who need to buy this the most.
From my non-US perspective, I cannot understand how these two sentences go together.
Minimum wage is appalling low in the entire country. Washington, where i live, has the highest in the entire country of $9.19. After taxes and fees, there isn't a single place in the entire fucking town where you could even rent a single room occupancy shithole on that. The few places you possibly could would be extremely scummy and full of pests/convicted sex offenders/violent assholes and falling apart. I would know, i lived in one! Nearly all places have rules in a new york city style of "your income must be X times the rent". This locks you out of well, everywhere. A friend of mine was told they were too poor for low income housing.
You literally can't even live on that unless someone lets you move in to an already established place, possibly even illegally, as in without notifying the landlord. I know people who were 4 or 5 up in a 2 bedroom apartment, and once 4 up in a studio. I've done 2 up in a tiny studio that didn't even have a closet, it was like living in a dorm... with my mom.
Fuck this shit.
posted by emptythought at 5:35 PM on August 28, 2013 [9 favorites]
So, basically this article is just about an isolated incident in Oklahoma.
As it stands this pretty much clears the bar for a local news story that basically goes "One guy got fucked, and because of the situation it seems extremely likely other people are getting fucked, more at 11".
The article relies on statements from an academic with a specialty in the field and who has apparently written extensively on the issue to establish that the practice is widespread:
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:14 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
As it stands this pretty much clears the bar for a local news story that basically goes "One guy got fucked, and because of the situation it seems extremely likely other people are getting fucked, more at 11".
The article relies on statements from an academic with a specialty in the field and who has apparently written extensively on the issue to establish that the practice is widespread:
To make ends meet, many SNAP recipients have to supplement monthly benefits — about $133 per person — with ad hoc work or by housing a partner or relative, and hide the additional income from authorities. “Everybody has to do something that makes them a criminal,” says Kaaryn Gustafsen, a law professor at the University of Connecticut and author of Cheating Welfare: Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty.I agree that some stats and some further investigation of the wider problem would be good to flesh out the story, but the claim that there is no discussion of the wider problem at all is not accurate.
...
According to Gustafsen, “When it comes to violating the welfare rules, most welfare recipients are damned if they do and doomed if they don’t.”
...
As Gustafsen told me, “It’s Kafkaesque. You have offices and investigators with a lot discretion targeting an already stigmatized population.”
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:14 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
"the claim that there is no discussion of the wider problem at all is not accurate"
Quote anything from that article beyond the OK instance regarding caseworkers encouraging clients to misrepresent their status.
posted by Ardiril at 6:28 PM on August 28, 2013
Quote anything from that article beyond the OK instance regarding caseworkers encouraging clients to misrepresent their status.
posted by Ardiril at 6:28 PM on August 28, 2013
Quote anything from that article beyond the OK instance regarding caseworkers encouraging clients to misrepresent their status.
Touche.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:56 PM on August 28, 2013
Touche.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:56 PM on August 28, 2013
Just remember that instead of being the single biggest boon to both big- and small-business as well as the working poor this nation has ever seen single-payer health insurance is SOCIALISM! I'm sure that Mrs. Lynn's children will come to appreciate her sacrifice on the altar of personal responsibility. God Bless America.
posted by ob1quixote at 7:00 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by ob1quixote at 7:00 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
jacalata--for the record I have been on Board of our local Planned Parenthood, support it wholeheartedly and I am very troubled tthat ZPG (Zero Population Growth) or similar initiatives appears to be completely off the table.. Between the insane rhetoric and acts of the religious conservatives, pandering right wing politicians and equally destructive rhetoric that ZPG is racist or a form of genocide I am very discouraged about the failure of public policy and discussion to support rational family planning.
posted by rmhsinc at 7:11 PM on August 28, 2013
posted by rmhsinc at 7:11 PM on August 28, 2013
And, i find it disappointing that my comments were edited and some posters felt comfortable deleting my last sentence " And I am willing to contribute but that is all". I assure you I have contributed and will continue to contribute to progressive social policy for children but I am equally committed to supporting policy and discussions and lead to personal responsibility for pregnancy and birth. I am a bit frustrated that this never seems to be part of the discussion. There can not be real welfare reform until there is accountability on all sides.
posted by rmhsinc at 7:16 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 7:16 PM on August 28, 2013 [2 favorites]
I mean seriously, why not just shoot the kids, that would be so much cheaper, right
Jonathan Swift would like to make a modest proposal along those lines
posted by pullayup at 7:24 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
Jonathan Swift would like to make a modest proposal along those lines
posted by pullayup at 7:24 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
Basically it is damned near impossible in some of these small towns. Mr. Roquette and I have an Islamic marriage, but not a civil one. We did it that way because we can't either of us afford to lose benefits. We could not get our nikah in the local mosque. A sheikh who understood our situation helped us.
I keep my place here and he keeps his. We help each other out practically and emotionally. He doesn't read well. He has dyslexia. He's a smart guy. But working at actual jobs, that ship sailed a long time ago for us both.
I have a close friend who was in the terrible situation of having to divorce her very much loved husband in order to feed their kids.
He was temporarily disabled because he stopped a the husband of his sister from slashing her face with a knife.
To me he was a hero for doing that. I actually was able to help them get a little help.
They got set back further when the state quit covering birth-control. There was no Planned Parenthood clinic to go to.
Another friend worked despite having a fibroid the size of a teacup. She bled non-stop and worked in florist shops and espresso stands. She had three children taken away by the state. She was afraid of the system and that led to the very situation which cost her two sons and a daughter.
In this town ( in Washington State) to rent even a crappy apartment, you do need roughly twice the rent as income. It's quite true about places inhabited by sex offenders, violent thugs, and pest infested. My town has a serious issue with homelessness. People who can't afford a place, used to live by the river. Now it's been made illegal to live by the river. They are in town, overfilling the mission and begging. Some of the beggars though live better than a working person with a decent job and even have good places to live. They aren't the same as the folks who used to live by the river. A casual observer can't tell the difference. It is extremely hard for single men to get any help. The result is more than a few prey on women on welfare.
We have people camped out in decrepit R.V.s all over town.
I have health conditions as well. These health conditions hurt me a lot when I did work.
The ACA resulted in a huge wind-fall for HMOs. The state randomly assigned everyone. Stuff my doctor prescribes for me is sometimes not available for me, not covered.
Mr. Roquette hasn't had the same problems on prescriptions.
We do our best to keep within our means.
We wish we could afford a place together, just something small, but to keep our two places here is cheaper than one place together.
Still SSI is less horrible as a life than welfare. It also is less awful than my work life was.
By the way, staying diet compliant for diabetes on a SNAP budget is simply not doable. You can't afford things you need if you are diabetic. I suspect also that she had very little idea how to improve or stabilize her own health. That takes some patient education.
I don't have diabetes. I do have two diabetic primary relatives. So far my blood-sugar is ok. I use powdered camel milk for my IBS.
Camel milk isn't cheap. It's cheaper than diapers though. It's probably helped me avoid diabetes.
Probably the poor lady in this story loved babies and children.
She most likely did not have good access to reliable birth-control. She could have had medical conditions which precluded taking the Pill.
She might have had religious objections to it.
We don't know that part of the story.
Her husband may not have realized how dangerous it was for her to even have children.
She got pregnant within a month of them getting married. Don't forget, all those sets of children lost a mother. Was that necessary to fulfil some fine point of policy?
And there was all that personal, inside dealing you get in small towns.
What they did to this family is horrible. And it was personal. Very personal.
In a country which bails out all the banksters and tolerates useless people like Donald Trump, they should quit being so hateful with poor people.
Poor Americans of any race are arguably as hated, if not more hated than illegal immigrants.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:26 PM on August 28, 2013 [30 favorites]
I keep my place here and he keeps his. We help each other out practically and emotionally. He doesn't read well. He has dyslexia. He's a smart guy. But working at actual jobs, that ship sailed a long time ago for us both.
I have a close friend who was in the terrible situation of having to divorce her very much loved husband in order to feed their kids.
He was temporarily disabled because he stopped a the husband of his sister from slashing her face with a knife.
To me he was a hero for doing that. I actually was able to help them get a little help.
They got set back further when the state quit covering birth-control. There was no Planned Parenthood clinic to go to.
Another friend worked despite having a fibroid the size of a teacup. She bled non-stop and worked in florist shops and espresso stands. She had three children taken away by the state. She was afraid of the system and that led to the very situation which cost her two sons and a daughter.
In this town ( in Washington State) to rent even a crappy apartment, you do need roughly twice the rent as income. It's quite true about places inhabited by sex offenders, violent thugs, and pest infested. My town has a serious issue with homelessness. People who can't afford a place, used to live by the river. Now it's been made illegal to live by the river. They are in town, overfilling the mission and begging. Some of the beggars though live better than a working person with a decent job and even have good places to live. They aren't the same as the folks who used to live by the river. A casual observer can't tell the difference. It is extremely hard for single men to get any help. The result is more than a few prey on women on welfare.
We have people camped out in decrepit R.V.s all over town.
I have health conditions as well. These health conditions hurt me a lot when I did work.
The ACA resulted in a huge wind-fall for HMOs. The state randomly assigned everyone. Stuff my doctor prescribes for me is sometimes not available for me, not covered.
Mr. Roquette hasn't had the same problems on prescriptions.
We do our best to keep within our means.
We wish we could afford a place together, just something small, but to keep our two places here is cheaper than one place together.
Still SSI is less horrible as a life than welfare. It also is less awful than my work life was.
By the way, staying diet compliant for diabetes on a SNAP budget is simply not doable. You can't afford things you need if you are diabetic. I suspect also that she had very little idea how to improve or stabilize her own health. That takes some patient education.
I don't have diabetes. I do have two diabetic primary relatives. So far my blood-sugar is ok. I use powdered camel milk for my IBS.
Camel milk isn't cheap. It's cheaper than diapers though. It's probably helped me avoid diabetes.
Probably the poor lady in this story loved babies and children.
She most likely did not have good access to reliable birth-control. She could have had medical conditions which precluded taking the Pill.
She might have had religious objections to it.
We don't know that part of the story.
Her husband may not have realized how dangerous it was for her to even have children.
She got pregnant within a month of them getting married. Don't forget, all those sets of children lost a mother. Was that necessary to fulfil some fine point of policy?
And there was all that personal, inside dealing you get in small towns.
What they did to this family is horrible. And it was personal. Very personal.
In a country which bails out all the banksters and tolerates useless people like Donald Trump, they should quit being so hateful with poor people.
Poor Americans of any race are arguably as hated, if not more hated than illegal immigrants.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:26 PM on August 28, 2013 [30 favorites]
I know it's anecdata but a friend of mine was telling me how when she went to get WIC for her son they were over by about $12 and the woman redid her paperwork and left off her husbands weekend job so they would qualify. When my husband and I were first married I was working full time and he was finishing college and we were disqualified for food stamps initially by ~$50 so my caseworker told me to ask my boss to cut my hours short one week and come back with that pay stub, so there's that. On our shoestring budget I nearly cried over missing that work, but the $97/month in food stamps was worth it. I do not miss being that poor, we were lucky to escape that.
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:42 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by julie_of_the_jungle at 7:42 PM on August 28, 2013 [3 favorites]
This system is not designed to work for actual human beings. It uses systematic shaming and bureaucratic obfuscation to discourage enrollment; it forces people to commit fraud. It puts bean-counting and ideology ahead of conscience and commonsense. Everybody ought to know how this stuff really works, because the status quo undermines the health of our communities and economically burdens the people who need help most.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [12 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 7:55 PM on August 28, 2013 [12 favorites]
Brave New Welfare, Stephanie Mencimer, Mother Jones, January/February 2009
Lies about surgical sterility requirements. Questions about their sex lives. Outright threats. Here's what faces families in Georgia when their luck runs out.
This Week in Poverty: Georgia Tries to Get to Zero Welfare Recipients, Greg Kaufmann, The Nation, 20 April 2012
Georgia’s Hunger Games, Neil deMause, Slate, 26 December 2012
Fewer than 4,000 adults in the southern state receive welfare, even as poverty is soaring. How Georgia declared war on its poorest citizens—leaving them to fight for themselves.posted by ob1quixote at 8:17 PM on August 28, 2013 [5 favorites]
Hey, we're in recovery, Folks! Not to worry!
This is the beginning of the most severe term of economic dislocation social adaptation since the Great Depression, and it's going to be more severe than that time because we have learned high expectations.
This story is heartbreaking, but it's being repeated over-and-over again as the unbridled wheels of "market capitalism", greased by paid off politicians, roll over those who are unable to make the kinds of contributions that our plutocratic overlords deem necessary. People become chattel, or less.
America is certainly no more moral a place than any other, so-called, "developed nation" Never thought I would see the day.
posted by Vibrissae at 9:25 PM on August 28, 2013
This is the beginning of the most severe term of economic dislocation social adaptation since the Great Depression, and it's going to be more severe than that time because we have learned high expectations.
This story is heartbreaking, but it's being repeated over-and-over again as the unbridled wheels of "market capitalism", greased by paid off politicians, roll over those who are unable to make the kinds of contributions that our plutocratic overlords deem necessary. People become chattel, or less.
America is certainly no more moral a place than any other, so-called, "developed nation" Never thought I would see the day.
posted by Vibrissae at 9:25 PM on August 28, 2013
ob1quixote, I can't read any more of those articles without flying into a blind rage towards the people who are so fucking heartless.
posted by Talez at 9:42 PM on August 28, 2013
posted by Talez at 9:42 PM on August 28, 2013
That number of children plus Type I diabetes is a real and potential social burden/responsibility that is unmanageable in almost any political system.
Mwoah.
Type 1 diabetes is the sort of disease that is managable if you have a properly run, free at the point of entry health care system and a decent child support system that doesn't have artificial limits "to discourage misuse" can handle nine children families as well.
It's not that this couldn't be done in the US, it's that too many people don't want it to be done.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:18 PM on August 28, 2013 [10 favorites]
Mwoah.
Type 1 diabetes is the sort of disease that is managable if you have a properly run, free at the point of entry health care system and a decent child support system that doesn't have artificial limits "to discourage misuse" can handle nine children families as well.
It's not that this couldn't be done in the US, it's that too many people don't want it to be done.
posted by MartinWisse at 11:18 PM on August 28, 2013 [10 favorites]
Since the US, as one of the richest countries in the world, can afford to support a parasitic punditocracy (sic) siphoning off more than $100,000,000 from the economy every year for nothing more than rancid hot air, we certainly can afford to give our poorest citizens the benefit of the doubt on their welfare claims.
posted by monotreme at 11:54 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by monotreme at 11:54 PM on August 28, 2013 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Comment deleted; personal snark toward people talking about their experiences here isn't so great. If you want to ask about circumstances, go ahead and ask and/or discuss reasonably.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:13 AM on August 29, 2013
posted by taz (staff) at 6:13 AM on August 29, 2013
Everyone needs and deserves the minimum of enough to eat, somewhere decent to live, and adequate healthcare.
It would be nice if people could acknowledge that this is not a universally held position. What you mean is that you think everyone deserves that.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on August 29, 2013
It would be nice if people could acknowledge that this is not a universally held position. What you mean is that you think everyone deserves that.
posted by corb at 9:09 AM on August 29, 2013
What you mean is that you think everyone deserves that.
Telling people what they mean/feel is actually not super helpful in dealing with difficult topics and it would be great if this did not become a derail into talking to you personally about your political beliefs on these specific topics.
Folks can MeMail you if they'd like to get more information on your set of worldviews but injecting them in this way at this point in this thread reads more like trolling than you probably intend it to.
posted by jessamyn at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2013 [5 favorites]
Telling people what they mean/feel is actually not super helpful in dealing with difficult topics and it would be great if this did not become a derail into talking to you personally about your political beliefs on these specific topics.
Folks can MeMail you if they'd like to get more information on your set of worldviews but injecting them in this way at this point in this thread reads more like trolling than you probably intend it to.
posted by jessamyn at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2013 [5 favorites]
Well, to be honest, anybody who doesn't believe this isn't worth hearing from.
posted by MartinWisse at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2013 [8 favorites]
posted by MartinWisse at 9:18 AM on August 29, 2013 [8 favorites]
A society with a better educational system where children don't come to school hungry, and who live in homes where parents don't have to choose between food, medicine, rent, and childcare costs is a more stable, productive society.
We pay the consequences of inadequate housing, the lack of a living wage, and poor access to health care anyway, so why not, you know, buckle down and actuly admit that we should pay for it?
I mean, despite my family having been on welfare and food stamps for parts of my childhood, I grew up to be a fairly productive member of society. But I didn't get here just because of bootstrapping. I've had a lot of help. I'm standing on a lot of shoulders.
posted by rtha at 9:21 AM on August 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
We pay the consequences of inadequate housing, the lack of a living wage, and poor access to health care anyway, so why not, you know, buckle down and actuly admit that we should pay for it?
I mean, despite my family having been on welfare and food stamps for parts of my childhood, I grew up to be a fairly productive member of society. But I didn't get here just because of bootstrapping. I've had a lot of help. I'm standing on a lot of shoulders.
posted by rtha at 9:21 AM on August 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
And oh the irony of telling people what they really mean.
posted by rtha at 9:22 AM on August 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by rtha at 9:22 AM on August 29, 2013 [6 favorites]
Telling people what they mean/feel is actually not super helpful in dealing with difficult topics and it would be great if this did not become a derail into talking to you personally about your political beliefs on these specific topics.
Sorry, I should clarify: I meant to say that treating objectives as universal rather than personal - as all of our opinions and beliefs can only really be personal, as we are the people who are creating those opinions and beliefs - sometimes seems to make things and other people seem more incomprehensible than they perhaps are. And I think that contributes to making difficult topics harder. I absolutely should have phrased that better, and it was not my intention to derail the thread.
posted by corb at 9:46 AM on August 29, 2013
Sorry, I should clarify: I meant to say that treating objectives as universal rather than personal - as all of our opinions and beliefs can only really be personal, as we are the people who are creating those opinions and beliefs - sometimes seems to make things and other people seem more incomprehensible than they perhaps are. And I think that contributes to making difficult topics harder. I absolutely should have phrased that better, and it was not my intention to derail the thread.
posted by corb at 9:46 AM on August 29, 2013
treating objectives as universal rather than personal - as all of our opinions and beliefs can only really be personal, as we are the people who are creating those opinions and beliefs - sometimes seems to make things and other people seem more incomprehensible than they perhaps are.
Understanding that for most people in Westernized countries these are very normal commonly held social objectives and beliefs is also an important part of realizing how to discuss these with a generalized group of people. It's fine, totally fine, if you do not share these beliefs, but it's also worth understanding that you are in a discussion with people who mostly do hold them and they may not want to have a first principles discussion with you about them (see all discussions of feminism 101 we've had lately).
I know you are honestly not trying to be "that guy" here but that is what is happening. Folks can come discuss this issue in MeTa if they want to talk further or MeMail you personally but what actually makes difficult topics harder is turning them into arguments with one person on a topic that is not the topic of this thread.
posted by jessamyn at 9:57 AM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
Understanding that for most people in Westernized countries these are very normal commonly held social objectives and beliefs is also an important part of realizing how to discuss these with a generalized group of people. It's fine, totally fine, if you do not share these beliefs, but it's also worth understanding that you are in a discussion with people who mostly do hold them and they may not want to have a first principles discussion with you about them (see all discussions of feminism 101 we've had lately).
I know you are honestly not trying to be "that guy" here but that is what is happening. Folks can come discuss this issue in MeTa if they want to talk further or MeMail you personally but what actually makes difficult topics harder is turning them into arguments with one person on a topic that is not the topic of this thread.
posted by jessamyn at 9:57 AM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
Part of the reason that these kinds of stories don't get as much purchase within the community as they should is that they feed into this overwhelming feeling that this is such an intractable problem, what can I do to help alleviate it other than wring my hands and shout about how unfair and terrible the system is? There has to be something people can be told that they can do to help, otherwise the terminal compassion fatigue is going to set in (if it hasn't already) and nothing is going to be done.
posted by tafetta, darling! at 10:09 AM on August 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by tafetta, darling! at 10:09 AM on August 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
The Criminalization of Poverty (PDF) by Kaaryn Gustafson
posted by phoque at 10:19 AM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by phoque at 10:19 AM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
this overwhelming feeling that this is such an intractable problem
Absolutely. These kinds of threads are great for reminding me about others' stories and struggles and also they are great for making me want to go take a long nap. Like, a Rip-Van-Winkle, wake-me-up-when-the-bombs-start-falling nap.
I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple days, rereading chapters of David Garrow's incredible history Bearing The Cross in honor of the March on Washington's 50th.
We have to organize. We have to stand up together. And it has to begin locally. It has to be soup kitchens and shelters and clinics and churches and neighborhood associations sitting at table together and exploring new ways forward in our era of big money, austerity and constant, constant distraction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:30 AM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. These kinds of threads are great for reminding me about others' stories and struggles and also they are great for making me want to go take a long nap. Like, a Rip-Van-Winkle, wake-me-up-when-the-bombs-start-falling nap.
I've been thinking about this a lot the last couple days, rereading chapters of David Garrow's incredible history Bearing The Cross in honor of the March on Washington's 50th.
We have to organize. We have to stand up together. And it has to begin locally. It has to be soup kitchens and shelters and clinics and churches and neighborhood associations sitting at table together and exploring new ways forward in our era of big money, austerity and constant, constant distraction.
posted by tivalasvegas at 10:30 AM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
monotreme--while I share the sentiment that there should be enough money to go around I am not so sure that the numbers support that, it may or may not. I am not sure what a parasitic punditry is ( I get the idea ) or where $100,000,000.00 came from--let's divide that up by the 10% of poorest Americans ( roughly 35,000,000) that means each person get $2.85 or we might redirect it to he number of uninsured ($3.00. per person) Or lets say it is ten billion (10,000,000,000) now we get to $300.00 per person. One months health insurance. Or we could make it $100,000,000,000 ( 100 billion ) which is real money. Then we have $3,000.00 which would make a serious change in the income of the bottom 10%. But at that level you have to start seriously worrying about jobs lost or macroeconomic impact. let alone what you are going to do with the next 10% who are poor. Absolutely we need to reform healthcare, provide affordable housing and have a caring and sensitive food assistance program. But it is just not that easy. We are so far down the road in inequality it is going to take either radical change of a long term slog it out strategy. can not do this in fits and starts.
posted by rmhsinc at 10:52 AM on August 29, 2013
posted by rmhsinc at 10:52 AM on August 29, 2013
But it is just not that easy.
You have to start somewhere. $100M taken from the off-shore accounts of your local Walton family member and distributed to the poor may only give them a few dollars each, but that few dollars is immediately spent which creates jobs. The idea that jobs come from a chosen few who need vast piles of money to create them is one of the stupidest ideas to emerge as a "thing" in the past few years.
Even it's only $3, hey, that's a burger and a coke you don't have to worry about finding the money for. That at least would be a small bright spot in an otherwise grim day.
posted by maxwelton at 12:05 PM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
You have to start somewhere. $100M taken from the off-shore accounts of your local Walton family member and distributed to the poor may only give them a few dollars each, but that few dollars is immediately spent which creates jobs. The idea that jobs come from a chosen few who need vast piles of money to create them is one of the stupidest ideas to emerge as a "thing" in the past few years.
Even it's only $3, hey, that's a burger and a coke you don't have to worry about finding the money for. That at least would be a small bright spot in an otherwise grim day.
posted by maxwelton at 12:05 PM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
monotreme--while I share the sentiment that there should be enough money to go around I am not so sure that the numbers support that,
Meanwhile, we spend $52,600,000,000.00 on Black Budgets we're not even allowed to see every year, and we recently spent an estimated total of $29,616,400,000,000.00 on bailing out Wall Street.
So just between those two priorities--spying and bailing out Wall Street--we were demonstrably able to pull together $29,669,000,000,000.00 in working capital. That would be enough to give every one of those approximately 35,000,000 people in the bottom 10% $847,685.71 (granted, not over the course of a single year, but spread out over a couple of years).
But at that level you have to start seriously worrying about jobs lost or macroeconomic impact.
When a tax code adjustment benefits the wealthiest Americans to the tune of hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in additional revenue per year, we haven't worried so much historically about the knock-on effects for the economy as a whole (other than assuming they would be a beneficial stimulant). So I don't find this argument at all persuasive.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:10 PM on August 29, 2013 [9 favorites]
Meanwhile, we spend $52,600,000,000.00 on Black Budgets we're not even allowed to see every year, and we recently spent an estimated total of $29,616,400,000,000.00 on bailing out Wall Street.
So just between those two priorities--spying and bailing out Wall Street--we were demonstrably able to pull together $29,669,000,000,000.00 in working capital. That would be enough to give every one of those approximately 35,000,000 people in the bottom 10% $847,685.71 (granted, not over the course of a single year, but spread out over a couple of years).
But at that level you have to start seriously worrying about jobs lost or macroeconomic impact.
When a tax code adjustment benefits the wealthiest Americans to the tune of hundreds of thousands of extra dollars in additional revenue per year, we haven't worried so much historically about the knock-on effects for the economy as a whole (other than assuming they would be a beneficial stimulant). So I don't find this argument at all persuasive.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:10 PM on August 29, 2013 [9 favorites]
"So I don't find this argument at all persuasive"--I did not think you would. We both know that your figure includes loans, pledges, guarantees in addition to direct asset transfers and that a significant share has been, or will be payed back. Also, your figure does not include the assets that would have gone belly up( lost to investors and depositors) if the banks/housing market/AIG would have failed. The US has recovered from the recession better than any other major economy. But really, I was responding to the specific post and not done a calculation on the bank/wall street bailout. I will absolutely grant you that if we redistributed the wealth of the USA, or even its debt, in an reasonably equitable manner it would provide a floor for all of its citizens. I will leave it to you to figure out how to do it, it is beyond me. You can count on my absolute support for a more equitable tax code that consistently strengthens the working/middle class, those traditionally covered by SSI and an improved public infrastructure.
posted by rmhsinc at 1:31 PM on August 29, 2013
posted by rmhsinc at 1:31 PM on August 29, 2013
We could try offering no-interest, limited risk short/long-term loans to people in bad economic circumstances. Poor people can be much more exposed to short term liquidity problems (miss just one relatively small bill at a crucial point in time, or take out a pay day loan to cover it at an exorbitant interest rate you'll never be able to pay back, and you could potentially end up sunk for years to come).
Of course, the devil is always in the details.
The part I don't buy, specifically, is that suddenly transferring a lot more money to the bottom income earners would potentially have devastating economic consequences. Transferring more to the upper income earners definitely seemed to, though, especially when we didn't impose any conditions on the transfers by making them in the form of lowered tax burdens.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:56 PM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
Of course, the devil is always in the details.
The part I don't buy, specifically, is that suddenly transferring a lot more money to the bottom income earners would potentially have devastating economic consequences. Transferring more to the upper income earners definitely seemed to, though, especially when we didn't impose any conditions on the transfers by making them in the form of lowered tax burdens.
posted by saulgoodman at 1:56 PM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
My concerns with a transfer of wealth to the poor is that it will not be saved or reinvested(understandably)--it might provide a time limited economic stimulus to service/retail and less so manufacturing but will not be put to work/saved/reinvested to stimulate and finance business loans, auto/home loans, education etc. I would prefer to see transferred wealth primarily invested in schools, education, public transportation, parks, libraries/museums/arts, healthcare, research etc. I am hesitant to trust either the wealthy or poor to use money to stabilize and reinvest in the public good (for very different reasons). Granted there are vast individual differences including personal generosity and huge Foundations. I tend to have more trust in the working/middle/professional class. No data based reason--just life. Take care
posted by rmhsinc at 2:30 PM on August 29, 2013
posted by rmhsinc at 2:30 PM on August 29, 2013
Whoa! I just don't ....
Trust in the working/middle/professional class. Way to marginalize.
So the poor being able to buy a house, further their education, buy decent food for their families, get a real car instead of a $500 beater doesn't stimulate your economy, eh? Education is all--teach people how to open small business and get better jobs. You might even be surprised--if small business loans in third world countries work, what makes you think it couldn't work here?
I'm all for using funds to support the infrastructure, but we would do better giving jobs to people to work on infrastructure (think WPA and CCC) rather than giving money to big construction and administration. Granted, some of that needs to happen, but so much money goes to the top and doesn't trickle down, except in the form of shit and scorn.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:53 PM on August 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
Trust in the working/middle/professional class. Way to marginalize.
So the poor being able to buy a house, further their education, buy decent food for their families, get a real car instead of a $500 beater doesn't stimulate your economy, eh? Education is all--teach people how to open small business and get better jobs. You might even be surprised--if small business loans in third world countries work, what makes you think it couldn't work here?
I'm all for using funds to support the infrastructure, but we would do better giving jobs to people to work on infrastructure (think WPA and CCC) rather than giving money to big construction and administration. Granted, some of that needs to happen, but so much money goes to the top and doesn't trickle down, except in the form of shit and scorn.
posted by BlueHorse at 2:53 PM on August 29, 2013 [2 favorites]
Come on--put the whole sentence in. "hesitant to trust either the wealthy or poor to use money to stabilize and reinvest in the public good (for very different reasons)". The working poor, what ever that is, are a different matter. As I said, I have a fair amount of confidence in the working poor, etc. I do participate in micro and small loans in developing nations (women only) but I am not overwhelmed with objective measures of success--but my interest is in supporting an individual not broader economic growth.I am most intrigued by initiatives to support a working/middle class in emerging nations. I am in favor of using the unemployed for infrastructure development but not if it undercuts/undermines trade unions and competitive wages. This is not the depression and is a much different economy. Remember, I am all about middle class, working class, etc. I have limited time and energy--I made a personal decision sometime ago to put most of my energy and charitable focus into supporting initiatives to strengthen the middle/working class and ones that support the economic and political independence of women.. Just pragmatic on my part--not a moral decision. I get overwhelmed by poverty and have quite a bit of confidence the rich will do just fine. I completely agree with you about trickle down--I prefer to have it trickle up from the working and middle class. I will take a normal/bell shaped distribution anytime. Thanks for the discussion.
posted by rmhsinc at 4:20 PM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by rmhsinc at 4:20 PM on August 29, 2013 [3 favorites]
The US has recovered from the recession better than any other major economy.
Cite? I thought Australia did far better.
posted by jacalata at 4:39 PM on August 29, 2013
Cite? I thought Australia did far better.
posted by jacalata at 4:39 PM on August 29, 2013
I am not sure if Canada and Australia went into a recession--I believe both of them fared better than US and Europe. If Au. did go into a recession you may be right.
posted by rmhsinc at 6:19 PM on August 29, 2013
posted by rmhsinc at 6:19 PM on August 29, 2013
Australia did not go into recession. There was one quarter of negative growth in 2008, but that was all.
Since then, Australia's - and Canada's - GDP per capita has surpassed the US, with the US's growth rate slowing considerably.
I haven't checked European nations.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:53 PM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
Since then, Australia's - and Canada's - GDP per capita has surpassed the US, with the US's growth rate slowing considerably.
I haven't checked European nations.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 6:53 PM on August 29, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older "The Hero who Created a Thousand Heroes." | The Decline of the Serial Killer Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by The Devil Tesla at 2:18 PM on August 28, 2013 [6 favorites]