Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I repeat: if what you say is true, why are there so many low income people struggling to scrape by?
It is not true as you claim. Period. Think. Use your brain rather than listen to extremist propaganda.
Your links are right-wing and liberal extremist think tank sources. They are building hypotheticals and you are sucking it up.
I'm using my brain. You're using emotion and pure homerism.
People struggle to get by anywhere, even if they're on welfare. However, if you're going to struggle, why not do it in California? I mean, its not like they'd do any better in Texas. Probably worse. Conversely, a lot of white collar workers would do a lot better in Texas.
I guess you just don't get it. That's fine. Meanwhile, reality is happening. Those droves you hear people talking about are real.
I repeat: if what you say is true, why are there so many low income people struggling to scrape by?
It is not true as you claim. Period. Think. Use your brain rather than listen to extremist propaganda.
Your links are right-wing and liberal extremist think tank sources. They are building hypotheticals and you are sucking it up.
I can say that in my area many are struggling to get by because they can not manage their benefits. For example, they get food assistance through SNAP--a card that allows them to buy stuff at the grocery stores, pizza shop, fast food chicken shop, 7-11 convenience store for hot dogs, etc. They can also go to numerous food banks for food going weekly at each food bank, and they can stock up of stuff at the Department of Agriculture food day monthly. Oh and their kids get free breakfast and lunch at school. Oh, and during the school year the kids bring home a backpack of snacks for after school and dinner. It seems that no one should be hungry.
However, the parents get used to not feeding the kids during the school year, so when Summer or school breaks come the kids are hungry. The parents are used to using the SNAP card to eat out at fast food places (we are considered underserved as we only have 2 grocery stores for our 5,000 people, so fast food is ok with the SNAP cards.) or else they openly sell the card value to people outside of the grocery store e.g. can I buy you $200 of food and you give me $100? Many people will do this with the SNAP cards in my area.
But now they have benefits for the kids, but are not used to using them to feed the kids, so they cry out, we need support for our kids. They are hungry --they never think that their benefits were not cut when the school program fed their kids, they can only see they want more now. And then they do not want to change their lifestyle because they 'deserve' to go out to eat too!
Gross mismanagement of the benefits is why they are so needy!
I'm using my brain. You're using emotion and pure homerism.
People struggle to get by anywhere, even if they're on welfare. However, if you're going to struggle, why not do it in California? I mean, its not like they'd do any better in Texas. Probably worse. Conversely, a lot of white collar workers would do a lot better in Texas.
I guess you just don't get it. That's fine. Meanwhile, reality is happening. Those droves you hear people talking about are real.
You are not using your brain. My comments are strictly logical. Yours are hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense. You are all wound up by fictitious fear that the poor are somehow getting over on us all. They're not. They are scraping to get by, as always.
If people could get $55,000 for earning only half that, they'd live really really well in lots of places better than they would in California. If just anyone could get $55,000 for earning half or less, no one would live on less - but ten's of millions of Americans do. Why? Because the hypotheticals are not actuals. You have not supplied me or anyone with the figures / answers I have challenged you to find. Not once in any post have you supplied the data that would prove your claims.
Find us a figure of how many people get those hypothetical benefits. Then explain to us why it's so very few.
I have no idea what you mean by your use of "homerism" in this context. What am I "homering"?
I can say that in my area many are struggling to get by because they can not manage their benefits. For example, they get food assistance through SNAP--a card that allows them to buy stuff at the grocery stores, pizza shop, fast food chicken shop, 7-11 convenience store for hot dogs, etc. They can also go to numerous food banks for food going weekly at each food bank, and they can stock up of stuff at the Department of Agriculture food day monthly. Oh and their kids get free breakfast and lunch at school. Oh, and during the school year the kids bring home a backpack of snacks for after school and dinner. It seems that no one should be hungry.
However, the parents get used to not feeding the kids during the school year, so when Summer or school breaks come the kids are hungry. The parents are used to using the SNAP card to eat out at fast food places (we are considered underserved as we only have 2 grocery stores for our 5,000 people, so fast food is ok with the SNAP cards.) or else they openly sell the card value to people outside of the grocery store e.g. can I buy you $200 of food and you give me $100? Many people will do this with the SNAP cards in my area.
But now they have benefits for the kids, but are not used to using them to feed the kids, so they cry out, we need support for our kids. They are hungry --they never think that their benefits were not cut when the school program fed their kids, they can only see they want more now. And then they do not want to change their lifestyle because they 'deserve' to go out to eat too!
Gross mismanagement of the benefits is why they are so needy!
You are babbling. Just as I have challenged 'things and stuff': post data to support your AM talk radio hyperbole.
I'm spreading the truth. If you're going to be low income and get super cheap housing, free daycare, etc; why not do it in California?
I've already answered this, namely, living costs in most areas of California are more than other areas so even if you can manage to get more welfare benefits you still end up with less. There is also the fact that many of these programs have wait lists and serve only a limited number of people. And this is to say nothing of the fact that the majority of people have friends and family in particular areas, friends and family that they often depend on.
And you are still ignoring the fact that the census data is inconsistent with your position, that is, California has a lower percent of low income workers than the national average.
You started out talking about a family of 4 in California, now you're citing a a national report on for single mother with 2 children. By this data, California isn't at the top so by your reasoning low income workers should be flooding the states that top the charts instead of California.... But as the other poster mentioned, these are all hypothetical numbers, in reality many welfare programs have budget limitations and as a result can only serve a limited number of people:
"Very few people actually qualify for all eight of the programs Cato looks at. Particularly, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (cash welfare) and housing assistance can provide some very expensive benefits. But fewer than two million households get TANF and only about four million get housing assistance. It is much more typical for a welfare beneficiary to be getting SNAP (food stamps) and Medicaid (health insurance), but no assistance with housing or cash. So, the typical welfare benefit is much lower than Cato makes out, making staying on welfare less appealing."
I don't live in California, actually, I don't even live in the USA, but I see a lot of people on this forum saying "California is super expensive, full of immigrants, no jobs, high poverty etc.." but yet, people keep moving here (according to Wikipedia) so there must be something good if people keep moving here. So, what is it ?(except the weather)
I'm not here to accuse anybody but some people seem like italians (I live in Italy) that say "oh my god I hate working so much (7-8 hours a day) and I'm poor, Italy sucks. (most of italians go on vacation in other european countries 2-3 times a year, especially during summer). What do you think ?
I think people do move to CA for the weather. And the potential for employment in so many different industries. Even our state colleges are dirt cheap. But really, most come here for what.they perceive the life to be in CA.
Some people have sticker shock after they move. Then they complain. Others of us have lived here for yrs and have realized as we've grown older justvhow difficult it can be to get ahead in CA compared to other states.
The high COL is a reality here. But a lot of what the state has to offer makes up for it.
The hills were fragrant with Orange blossoms. Heaven, unless you were an Okie starving for work, many of whom already viewed their new home as Paradise Lost.
LA was a suburban paradise. Except when the smog was so thick, parents were reluctant to let the kids play outside and were nervous about the neighborhood “changing”.
The good old days are now, and we need to act that way.
If you really think the good old days are now (in California), take a walk on the streets of Pacoima or Panorama City. Back in the 1950s and '60s, they were considered up-class, desirable places. Now, the crime rate is high and half the signs are in Spanish.
Yes, there was more smog then, but that won't kill you instantly like a bullet can.
Whoa. Those supposed "welfare pays better than working" studies are so skewed. Please notice the little phrase "equivalent pre-tax dollars." According to whose figures? Assuming what tax rate? Hah. Baloney.
Anybody can mismanage their money. It's pretty rude for someone who's probably never been on welfare to say welfare recipients are blowing their food stamp money going out to eat.
The reality is, that to get any state welfare in CA, you have to work to pay it back. It's not free. Unless you are disabled, you work, or you lose your benefits.
And the amount of food stamps they get is very minimal. Yes, if they are careful with it, and go to the food banks, they can eat just fine.
They can qualify for low-income housing, but it depends on the housing complex. Some require you to be working and earning a certain amount of money. And depending on the area, even the low income housing apartments can cost too much for them to afford.
I know, because I've been there. I qualify for low income housing, but low income housing in the SF Bay Area is out of my reach. Cheapest apt I could find was about $750/month. You have to earn at least twice the rent. My SSI is $877. And if you are on welfare, you don't earn twice the rent. So, unless you're working, you probably can't get into subsidized housing.
There are programs where if a welfare recipient gets training, they can collect without having to work, and I think they can get free day care. But, they have to tow the line. And if they don't, then they have to work for the state to pay it back.
Lots of those people picking up garbage with the orange vests on the side of the freeway are welfare recipients "paying" for their benefits.
I'd like an actual case study of a real person in CA collecting welfare benefits who is doing better than someone working, instead of all of this baloney. Give me a real case study. None of this supposed "estimated pre-tax income" stuff.
I don't know that CA is a magnet for welfare recipients. As an SSI recipient, I like the fact that CA subsidizes my federal benefit by around $150, I think, instead of just giving me SNAP, which is what most other states do. This way, I can stretch my food dollars the way I want, and I can go to the food banks, and use the $150 for my electric bill or my gas tank, etc. Forcing people to use the $150 for food, creates situations like mentioned above. What if they need money for the electric bill? And they can go to the food bank, and are okay with what they get there?
But, I also don't think it's so easy to "sell" your SNAP benefits. They come on a debit card now, and if you sell it, you're going to have to explain what happened to your card to the state. I don't think it's that easy. Gone are the days of the paper food stamps.
Well, you'll all believe your AM talk show hosts, anyway.
Whoa. Those supposed "welfare pays better than working" studies are so skewed. Please notice the little phrase "equivalent pre-tax dollars." According to whose figures? Assuming what tax rate? Hah. Baloney.
Anybody can mismanage their money. It's pretty rude for someone who's probably never been on welfare to say welfare recipients are blowing their food stamp money going out to eat.
The reality is, that to get any state welfare in CA, you have to work to pay it back. It's not free. Unless you are disabled, you work, or you lose your benefits.
And the amount of food stamps they get is very minimal. Yes, if they are careful with it, and go to the food banks, they can eat just fine.
They can qualify for low-income housing, but it depends on the housing complex. Some require you to be working and earning a certain amount of money. And depending on the area, even the low income housing apartments can cost too much for them to afford.
I know, because I've been there. I qualify for low income housing, but low income housing in the SF Bay Area is out of my reach. Cheapest apt I could find was about $750/month. You have to earn at least twice the rent. My SSI is $877. And if you are on welfare, you don't earn twice the rent. So, unless you're working, you probably can't get into subsidized housing.
There are programs where if a welfare recipient gets training, they can collect without having to work, and I think they can get free day care. But, they have to tow the line. And if they don't, then they have to work for the state to pay it back.
Lots of those people picking up garbage with the orange vests on the side of the freeway are welfare recipients "paying" for their benefits.
I'd like an actual case study of a real person in CA collecting welfare benefits who is doing better than someone working, instead of all of this baloney. Give me a real case study. None of this supposed "estimated pre-tax income" stuff.
I don't know that CA is a magnet for welfare recipients. As an SSI recipient, I like the fact that CA subsidizes my federal benefit by around $150, I think, instead of just giving me SNAP, which is what most other states do. This way, I can stretch my food dollars the way I want, and I can go to the food banks, and use the $150 for my electric bill or my gas tank, etc. Forcing people to use the $150 for food, creates situations like mentioned above. What if they need money for the electric bill? And they can go to the food bank, and are okay with what they get there?
But, I also don't think it's so easy to "sell" your SNAP benefits. They come on a debit card now, and if you sell it, you're going to have to explain what happened to your card to the state. I don't think it's that easy. Gone are the days of the paper food stamps.
Well, you'll all believe your AM talk show hosts, anyway.
And there we have it. From the horse's mouth, as the saying goes. Hope 'things and stuff' and 'lae60' can read and realize that extreme hypotheticals generated by extremist factions have little to no connection to boots-on-the-ground reality.
AM radio unmasked
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
