Poor America - BBC Panorama Documentary

[Bad Lieutenant]

So This documentary aired on the 12th Feb and I just heard about it and watched it on iPlayer. It paints a very bleak picture of the problem of poverty in the USA - the richest country in the world (tm). Where I live poor people automatically qualify for benefits as long as they make a fair effort toward finding work - that is not the case in the USA apparantly.

Here's the link for those that can view it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01c2y2b/Panorama_Poor_America/

Seems to me the USA needs a bit more socialism, except socialism means communism in the USA which is a dirty word associated with global nuclear holocaust...

Then you've got the problem of Barrack Obama being unwilling to alienate the 1% (multi-millionnaires) by increasing taxation of the richest/campaigning for worker's rights because those multi-millionnaires pick up the bill for campaign/propoganda necessary to ensure (re)election - if only there were a modest limit on campaign expenditure that wouldn't be a problem. I hear this issue is discussed from time to time but the unlimited campaign contributions angle wins out because to regulate otherwise would breach "freedom of speech". Hardly.

People keep saying "planned economies don't work." Well, unplanned economies don't work perfectly either and anyway they're massively planned/regulated already so the whole thing's a social anchovy stigmata word pickle. America needs more socialism...surely that much is true.

In the UK we've just started "employing" prisoners to work for a fraction of the minimum wage - a trick picked up by our neo-condem overlords from the other side of the pond. David Miliband's got a speech impediment - he couldn't run a pissup in a brewery. Some new socialism needed here too...it's a global problem really I bet.

 

[Sabretooth]

Where I live poor people automatically qualify for benefits as long as they make a fair effort toward finding work - that is not the case in the USA apparantly.

In my experience, it's the same in the USA. Problem is, their are too many people that lack even an inkling of ambition and expect everything for nothing. It's breaking the system for those who truly need it.

 

[crimresearch]

"Where I live poor people automatically qualify for benefits as long as they make a fair effort toward finding work - that is not the case in the USA apparantly."

What gives you that idea?

 

[sophia8]

"Where I live poor people automatically qualify for benefits as long as they make a fair effort toward finding work - that is not the case in the USA apparantly."

What gives you that idea?

The documentary, obviously. But if that's wrong, please correct us. What are social security benefits like for the unemployed in the US?

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

"Where I live poor people automatically qualify for benefits as long as they make a fair effort toward finding work - that is not the case in the USA apparantly."

What gives you that idea?

The poverty.

 

[Bad Lieutenant]

The documentary, obviously. But if that's wrong, please correct us.

No, that's right, you submitted while I was typing. I have heard before that unemployment benefit (jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit for example in the UK) is never paid for more than 6 months in the USA however...or was it a year...I forget and it was only heresay.

 

[crimresearch]

The documentary, obviously. But if that's wrong, please correct us. What are social security benefits like for the unemployed in the US?

Social security and unemployment benefits are 2 different things.

Along the lines of the description that Bad Lieutenant gave, each US state does allow people who were working and lost their jobs through no fault of their own (lay-offs, closings, etc.) to get unemployment benefits as long as they are looking for work.
But they aren't for life, the most I've heard of is someone renewing their 6 to 12 month period a few times.

Social Security has a disability program that is very hard to get on because of the inflexible screening process against massive fraud, and those benefits may last for life.

There are plenty of horror stories of deserving people getting the run around, but the US does in fact have a system, so that's why the OP statement looked like a disconnect to me.

ETA: None of which is arguing against the OP premise... being poor in America can be a horrible condition, with not enough help for many, and too much help for others.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In my experience, it's the same in the USA. Problem is, their are too many people that lack even an inkling of ambition and expect everything for nothing. It's breaking the system for those who truly need it.

"Breaking the system"? I hardly think so. It's subsidies given to the biggest corporations, rich farmers and the Republics' refusal to increase the taxes on millionaires for political gain that is breaking the system.

 

[Dessi]

No, that's right, you submitted while I was typing. I have heard before that unemployment benefit (jobseeker's allowance and housing benefit for example in the UK) is never paid for more than 6 months in the USA however...or was it a year...I forget and it was only heresay.

Anecdotal experience: When my employer declared bankruptcy and laid off everyone in Omaha in Dec 2009, I applied for unemployment after 4 weeks (thankfully found a job the very next week, never collected benefits). Nebraska requires that I put in two job applications per week to qualify for unemployment, so I need to be actively looking for a job.

Since the US was shedding huge numbers of jobs at that time, Obama passed a law extending unemployment benefits from 26 to 52 weeks in a year. If I remember correctly, the federal PRWORA law puts a lifetime 5 year maximum on welfare and unemployment benefits. States may legislate lower lifetime maximums.

I don't know a huge amount about unemployment legislation, will be happy to be corrected.

 

[Sabretooth]

"Breaking the system"? I hardly think so. It's subsidies given to the biggest corporations, rich farmers and the Republics' refusal to increase the taxes on millionaires for political gain that is breaking the system.

Sure...partly. But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't millionaires already taxed far more than than the blue collar classes?

Subsidies are one thing, but seeing families make "careers" living off the government is another.

 

[Caper]

I don't have any answers... but I find when you have bit more socialism... you end up with this massive bureaucracy that just never gets smaller.

But I am getting tired of these ultra multi million dollar bonus's.... but I don't have any answers for them either.

A couple of other things. It can't help your econmy much when South America wants to live there. That's a massive amount of unskilled labour to try and absorb. Also, I think the 3rd world is starting to catch up and they want their share. They are beating us in education. They are younger and they are hungry to get it (and willing to do it for alot less). The world only produces so much wealth and the 3rd world is going to attempt to get their share. Again.... not sure if there is an easy answer.


Also... one more thing. has there ever been a better time to be poor? How many of these poor have big screen TV's. Most of the poor I know do. But I don't know to many poor either. I don't know many people that live in shelters. Not as many in my area anyway... alot in Vancouver though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure...partly. But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't millionaires already taxed far more than than the blue collar classes?

Subsidies are one thing, but seeing families make "careers" living off the government is another.

I don't want to hijack the thread with this direction. Find one that is on the topic and I'll post an answer there, though this has been discussed ad nauseum already.

 

[Sabretooth]

I don't want to hijack the thread with this direction. Find one that is on the topic and I'll post an answer there, though this has been discussed ad nauseum already.

That's fine. I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that the OP was assuming poor folk couldn't get 'automatic' benefits...

We can stay on topic with the welfare system. The benefits are there, but, as I said, too many people abuse the system. I personally am aware of three families where welfare has spanned at least 2 generations. One of the women I know has never worked a day in her life...she also refuses to marry any of the 3 fathers of her 7 kids, because she would lose her benefits. One guy I went to high school with was proud and vocal about the fact that he had no intention of working because "Papa New York" was going to take care of him. That's a direct quote.

The abuse of the system wrecks it for others. We can discuss corporate America another day.

 

[geni]

Sure...partly. But, correct me if I'm wrong, aren't millionaires already taxed far more than than the blue collar classes?

Not really. Blue collar workers have pretty straightforward income streams that can be taxed at source. Millionaires assuming they are halfway competent have far messier income streams which provide lots of ways to reduce tax liabilities.

Subsidies are one thing, but seeing families make "careers" living off the government is another.

I'm not sure we can stop people from working for General Dynamics.

 

[NewtonTrino]

How much money you have isn't what you're taxed on. All of this talk of "millionaires" is a bunch of crap. We charge based on INCOME. You can be a billionaire and easily not pay tax because you don't have income.

Anyway there are a lot of sides to the welfare issue but certainly benefits are available in the US. They aren't as good as europe/canada though.

I think one thing people really miss is that for some people a hand out damages them. It's like getting them hooked on drugs. Free money can in and of itself make someone lazier and not have them reach their potential. I've seen it happen to family members and close friends. Figuring out ways to have people transition off these benefits can be the most difficult part of the whole thing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

- the richest country in the world (tm).

Not even close. We are in per capita terms around 15th, depending on the exact definition. The IMF has us as 15th in 2011 anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

A better measure would be to eliminate the catastrophic so-called "defense spending" from the measure: alow some reasonable amount, but beyond the actual capability to defend the country it is all waste and does not add to our standard of living.

So in reality, dozens of countries have a higher standard of living than the USA now. We are also plummeting in free press rankings, liberty indices, etc. What we are most proud of though is jailing more of our people in both absolute and relative terms than any other country on earth. Oh yes, and killing more people in other countries than anyone else too.

And to think we accomplished this within in a single lifetime!

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Subsidies are one thing, but seeing families make "careers" living off the government is another.

I wonder how many "leeches" there really are compared to the people in genuine need, and how much they truly "wreck the system" for the rest of us. Do you have hard statistics on this? Anecdotes aren't evidence, you know.

The abuse of the system wrecks it for others.

To what degree, and how do you know this?

This irks me in a way, actually -- whenever the welfare system is brought up in a discussion, someone will always mention lazy people leeching off the system. How good a point is this, actually? There's people wasting our time and resources by making prank calls to 911, too, but that doesn't mean the 911 system should be abolished.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

The abuse of the system wrecks it for others. We can discuss corporate America another day.

That's like claiming welfare recipients are mostly drug abusers and it turns out when tested only a tiny % were. It's a stereotype. I don't believe it is an accurate one.

My son qualifies for food stamps even though he has a full time job. He rents a very tiny semi studio apartment in an old building in Seattle. He has no car and I pay for his phone. He doesn't spend money wastefully.

Even with the full time job he is dipping into his college savings (he starts grad school in Sept and will finish his education with loans).

The point is people with full time jobs are barely getting by in some cities. The idea people on welfare are all lazy freeloaders is crap. It's a right wing guilt eraser.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The idea people on welfare are all lazy freeloaders is crap. It's a right wing guilt eraser.

Even in Scandinavia it's remarkably common, though. Even though it contradicts everything we know about human beings, a lot of people seem to think that what we want deep inside is to be failures sitting at home twiddling thumbs all day.

Humans are humans, we want to go to school, go to work, survive and thrive. We want to be successful and feel that we accomplish things. Don't really understand why this is so hard to understand.

 

[Smackety]

"Welfare" in the US typically means rent control, food assistance, and medical benefits. It varies somewhat by state, but there is no cash assistance! In Arizona, people without children are only eligible for food stamps, they cannot get any medical treatment or rental subsidy, or any other welfare benefit.

Unemployment is only available after someone was actually working at some point, and only for a time. It also maxes out at about $250 a week, if you had a nice salary before being laid off.

There are additional benefits available for young children. Such as milk, diapers, and daycare. There is no cash assistance!

Abuse of the system usually means not reporting some source of income. Such as a woman who has a few young children and does not work. Because of the children she would have access to a rental subsidy, food assistance, and medical care for her and her children. Now suppose this woman has a boyfriend. He has a job. He lives with her. If she gets married and reports his income as family/household income, she and her children could lose their benefits. The problem is, he does not earn enough to cover the full cost of rent, buy food for the whole family, and purchase medical insurance, along with all of the other things he is buying for the family that you need cash for, like shampoo and transportation.