Illinois Link Card - Let's get real in here (Chicago: crimes, unemployment)

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by nearnorth

This is absolutely true in my experience.

Also, I have to say, if I were poor, getting a phone would be one of my top priorities, because you need one to do just about anything in our society, including getting a job.

Faulting a poor person for having a phone makes about as much sense as faulting them for having shoes.

I remember years ago there was an article in the local paper here in Atlanta about the homeless (there are LOTS of homeless here) and they had a picture in the paper of the homeless standing in a line waiting to get services. One of the men had a cell phone.

The next day there was a lot of backlash in this paper toward this guy because he had a cell phone. Of course people were all like, if he's homeless, how can he afford a phone, blah, blah, blah. The paper caught up with him and interviewed him. He said he's looking for work and he needs to have a phone so that employers can reach him.

People see homelessness and poverty and black and white. Someone could employed yet homeless because they don't make enough money to pay rent. Someone could be working but get Link/EBT because after they've paid their living expenses, they don't have enough money left over to buy food. Someone could be homeless but if they get any type of monetary assistance, they will use their money to get a pre-paid cell phone to be reachable by potential employers. Also, if you do get any kind of welfare assistance, you qualify for a state cell phone.

This guy could have very well been using a state-issued cell phone so he can find work but people automatically judged him, assuming that he's irresponsible. "If he can have a cell phone, he shouldn't be homeless!" Such flawed logic.

[lenniel]

Originally Posted by urza216

No. People get link carss because they have trouble affording to live. The grocery store clerk who scans the link card just might have one themselves.

If everyone was "on thier feet" then there would be no one left to work the crappy jobs. Why should there be a limit to how long someone can use a link card? Capitalism needs poor people to function. Why would you punish someone for remaining poor? That makes no sense..

Link cards are for poor people not just unemployed people..

Lets call a spade a spade. If you equate "link cards" with people being unemployed then you are a little bit of a moron. That's blatantly incorrect..

Sorry for getting your panties in a wad. I was asking an honest question about link cards. I didn't realize you could get them if you were employed.

So, does every min wage person have access to a link card? How is it determined who is 'affording to live' and who isn't?

If someone loses their job, can they get a link card and unemployment benes?

[Atlanta_BD]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Sorry for getting your panties in a wad. I was asking an honest question about link cards. I didn't realize you could get them if you were employed.

So, does every min wage person have access to a link card? How is it determined who is 'affording to live' and who isn't?

If someone loses their job, can they get a link card and unemployment benes?

It can very by state. But it has to do not only with a lack of income but how low your income is. Someone who works will get less in benefits than someone who doesn't work at all. I don't know how it is in IL but in GA you can't get unemployment and an EBT card. They consider the income too high. You have to provide proof of income and living expenses.

It is determined by lack of income or how much you make, whether or not you have dependents and how much your living expenses and medical bills are if you have any. I don't think it's a free for all for all minimum wage workers but someone who works minimum wage has rent and children can most likely get a Link card.

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by lenniel

Sorry for getting your panties in a wad. I was asking an honest question about link cards. I didn't realize you could get them if you were employed.

So, does every min wage person have access to a link card? How is it determined who is 'affording to live' and who isn't?

I'm sure IL has the qualifications on line somewhere. Spend a half hour educating yourself, and then come back and tell us what you found.

Originally Posted by lenniel

If someone loses their job, can they get a link card and unemployment benes?

Seems unlikely that a state would structure its UI to be below the level where people could qualify for public assistance. But I'm not sure. Plus how does "wealth" come into play? Sure you gor laid off and are collecting unemployment, but you have equity in your house, stocks, etc. I doubt you can get public assistance when you have a 401k with $300k in it!

[ChiNaan]

Originally Posted by lenniel

I didn't realize you could get them if you were employed.

As long as there are employers who pay workers less than it costs to live, taxpayers have to essentially subsidize their payrolls by helping to pay for their employees' food, housing, healthcare, etc. That 99 cent cheeseburger costs you a lot more than you think it does.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

This is the actual goal of all Democrats / progressives / liberals.

No it's not.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by rvernsey

...
If you have an iPhone with a $120/month data plan, you don't need public assistance.
...

Phones with data plans are close to a necessity if you want to function in the modern world and have access to job listings, etc. Yes, you could go to the library or a few other lower-cost options, but for the sheer utility of it, a smart phone often ends up being a great value.

Originally Posted by nearnorth

This is absolutely true in my experience.

Also, I have to say, if I were poor, getting a phone would be one of my top priorities, because you need one to do just about anything in our society, including getting a job.

Faulting a poor person for having a phone makes about as much sense as faulting them for having shoes.

Yeah, what's with all these homeless people wearing shoes? The gall, the absolute GALL of them!

-----------

As someone who quite frequently puts his money where his mouth is, while I'm sure there are some adjustments that could be made to improve the security of the LINK system and further stem abuses, it's my opinion that, if anything, it and similar social programs should be expanded.

I say the following not as a personal complaint, but as a systemic lament:

For the past two years I've spent amounts varying from about $200/month to as much as probably $750/month keeping people I know personally either from being homeless or going hungry or both. And that's just for regular expenses. Over the past 45 days, I've been helping a friend with some emergency issues that are, quite literally, totally outside of his control, and buying a reliable bike for a friend to enable better access to jobs. Between those two things, I've shelled out approximately $2,150 in direct support (some in cash, some in clothes or other items I've purchased to give them, some in direct rent payments, some in direct medical payments, some in other direct payments, a little in cash) for people who are willing but unable to work for reasons outside of their control, or are able to and do work but don't earn enough to money to safely support themselves when unexpected events happen.

Most people in my position simply don't know people in those situations. Most people who earn six figures, work in the Loop in a senior role, live in a trendy neighborhood and have an Ivy graduate degree simply don't end up knowing truly poor people because they simply don't cross paths with them except to see the "homeless" people who beg in the Loop. But I do know some, and I can't simply ignore their plight. I do ignore the plight of their friends, because I simply can't afford to subsidize the entire class of needy in the city and I believe that helping a few with larger amounts is more effective than helping many with small amounts.

It's hard sometimes. Sometimes very hard. A close friend of mine just got unexpectedly and through no fault of his own scooped into a State Mental Health hospital. Because of that I paid his rent this month and, if necessary, will pay it again next month depending on when he gets out. But he's made an acquaintance in there who is about to be discharged into a group home but would like not to be a group home. Technically, I could probably subsidize him, too, but I'm not going to. In the past 14 days I've also spent about $750 just on fine dining, so I could just stop that and become Mother Theresa. I'm not going to do that, though, because there has to be some limit. I will say that it's become harder to enjoy a $28 foie gras appetizer, $60 steak and $28 cheese course, each paired with $18 glasses of wine and fronted with a $15 martini, though.

So go ahead, if you like, spend your time venting on a public forum about how you hate Link abuses. Go ahead an imply that most Link users abuse it. Talk as if everyone who's young is healthy. Talk as if the underclass is that way entirely due to some moral failing and not due to societal changes, global economic trends and simply bad luck that puts them in the sad, unlucky tail of a very large bell curve representing the portion of success attributable to chance.

If all you do is whine and ***** and moan about a perception of the poor abusing aid programs, and you don't actively try to do things to improve the system then you're every bit as guilty of being every bit as lazy as you accuse recipients of aid of being. Go out and DO something if you're so much better, and quit wasting your ****ing time on the internet.

[nearnorth]

Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD

I remember years ago there was an article in the local paper here in Atlanta about the homeless (there are LOTS of homeless here) and they had a picture in the paper of the homeless standing in a line waiting to get services. One of the men had a cell phone.

The next day there was a lot of backlash in this paper toward this guy because he had a cell phone. Of course people were all like, if he's homeless, how can he afford a phone, blah, blah, blah. The paper caught up with him and interviewed him. He said he's looking for work and he needs to have a phone so that employers can reach him.

Exactly. Not only that, but once he has a job, he'll need the phone when looking for a place to rent. You know, so he can not be homeless anymore.

I realize there are people who put a great amount of effort searching for evidence to support their view that the poor and homeless are all poor and homeless by choice (in an effort to convince themselves that it couldn't happen to them), but the people who whine about the poor having phones clearly aren't thinking it through first.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by JacksonPanther

I'm sure IL has the qualifications on line somewhere. Spend a half hour educating yourself, and then come back and tell us what you found.

LOL.

To rephrase slightly:

Let Me Google That For You

[JacksonPanther]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

LOL.

To rephrase slightly:

Let Me Google That For You

I wasn't trying to be snarky, but that poster was asking questions that no one on this board would have answers to.

So anyway, here's the SNAP Eligibility Calculator for Illinois. Plug in various combinations of family size, income, expenses, and assets, and it will tell you if you qualify for SNAP (food stamps) which is distributed on a Link Card.

Enjoy!