Homeless problem

[Stormin Mormon]

On a couple of my lists, people been mention and discuss the
homeless problem. They say many Americans are "only a
paycheck away". Well, I thought that it took longer than
that, with foreclosure and all. Does anyone have reliable
information? Seems like everyone has an agenda, now days.

[Sue]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:44 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
On a couple of my lists, people been mention and discuss the
homeless problem. They say many Americans are "only a
paycheck away". Well, I thought that it took longer than
that, with foreclosure and all. Does anyone have reliable
information? Seems like everyone has an agenda, now days.

Foreclosure and eviction is a long process with lots of legalities. I
would guess that in the case of eviction the law may be different from
state to state. I don't recall the exact time frame but here in
California the usual process is that the landlord mails or delivers a
notice to pay or quit. Don't remember how long the term of that
threat is. When that doesn't work they get a legal eviction served.
That one, I think, is 30 days and culminates with a court date at
which time a 3 day final notice is given.
No surprise, we have been really busy at my office. I just do food
stamps and Medical (Medicaid). Last year my case load at about this
time was 330 cases. As of today it's 475. This is with no reduction
in staff. A huge number of my clients are classified as homeless (not
necessarily "living under the bridge" but with no stable residence).
Probably about 90 of my cases - all but one are single people.
Sue

[Gunner Asch]

Post by Sue
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:44 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
On a couple of my lists, people been mention and discuss the
homeless problem. They say many Americans are "only a
paycheck away". Well, I thought that it took longer than
that, with foreclosure and all. Does anyone have reliable
information? Seems like everyone has an agenda, now days.

Foreclosure and eviction is a long process with lots of legalities. I
would guess that in the case of eviction the law may be different from
state to state. I don't recall the exact time frame but here in
California the usual process is that the landlord mails or delivers a
notice to pay or quit. Don't remember how long the term of that
threat is. When that doesn't work they get a legal eviction served.
That one, I think, is 30 days and culminates with a court date at
which time a 3 day final notice is given.

Takes a minimum of 90 days to get an eviction from start to finish if
the tenant pushes the issue.

Post by Sue
No surprise, we have been really busy at my office. I just do food
stamps and Medical (Medicaid). Last year my case load at about this
time was 330 cases. As of today it's 475. This is with no reduction
in staff. A huge number of my clients are classified as homeless (not
necessarily "living under the bridge" but with no stable residence).
Probably about 90 of my cases - all but one are single people.
Sue

"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product 
A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced
before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone
before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected
they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual
and moral principles."
—Sun Tzu
 

[Sue]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:49 -0700, Gunner Asch

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by Sue
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:44 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
On a couple of my lists, people been mention and discuss the
homeless problem. They say many Americans are "only a
paycheck away". Well, I thought that it took longer than
that, with foreclosure and all. Does anyone have reliable
information? Seems like everyone has an agenda, now days.

Foreclosure and eviction is a long process with lots of legalities. I
would guess that in the case of eviction the law may be different from
state to state. I don't recall the exact time frame but here in
California the usual process is that the landlord mails or delivers a
notice to pay or quit. Don't remember how long the term of that
threat is. When that doesn't work they get a legal eviction served.
That one, I think, is 30 days and culminates with a court date at
which time a 3 day final notice is given.

Takes a minimum of 90 days to get an eviction from start to finish if
the tenant pushes the issue.

Sounds about right.
Sue who doesn't need a puppy.....or kitten :o)

[Gunner Asch]

Post by Sue
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:53:49 -0700, Gunner Asch

Post by Gunner Asch

Post by Sue
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:19:44 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
On a couple of my lists, people been mention and discuss the
homeless problem. They say many Americans are "only a
paycheck away". Well, I thought that it took longer than
that, with foreclosure and all. Does anyone have reliable
information? Seems like everyone has an agenda, now days.

Foreclosure and eviction is a long process with lots of legalities. I
would guess that in the case of eviction the law may be different from
state to state. I don't recall the exact time frame but here in
California the usual process is that the landlord mails or delivers a
notice to pay or quit. Don't remember how long the term of that
threat is. When that doesn't work they get a legal eviction served.
That one, I think, is 30 days and culminates with a court date at
which time a 3 day final notice is given.

Takes a minimum of 90 days to get an eviction from start to finish if
the tenant pushes the issue.

Sounds about right.
Sue who doesn't need a puppy.....or kitten :o)

<G>

I tried


"Human nature is bad. Good is a human product 
A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced
before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone
before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected
they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual
and moral principles."
—Sun Tzu
 

[CanopyCo]

Post by Gunner Asch
Takes a minimum of 90 days to get an eviction from start to finish if
the tenant pushes the issue.

I think that is about the same in Oklahoma, providing that start is
the due date of the first missed rent payment.

Repossessing something that you are buying takes considerably longer
though, I think.

That too would depend on what it was.
Car contracts are different then land and home contracts and they are
different then rent to own or owner financed.

[Stormin Mormon]

I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Sue" <***@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

Foreclosure and eviction is a long process with lots of
legalities. I
would guess that in the case of eviction the law may be
different from
state to state. I don't recall the exact time frame but
here in
California the usual process is that the landlord mails or
delivers a
notice to pay or quit. Don't remember how long the term of
that
threat is. When that doesn't work they get a legal eviction
served.
That one, I think, is 30 days and culminates with a court
date at
which time a 3 day final notice is given.
No surprise, we have been really busy at my office. I just
do food
stamps and Medical (Medicaid). Last year my case load at
about this
time was 330 cases. As of today it's 475. This is with no
reduction
in staff. A huge number of my clients are classified as
homeless (not
necessarily "living under the bridge" but with no stable
residence).
Probably about 90 of my cases - all but one are single
people.
Sue

[h***@nospam.com]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?

[CanopyCo]

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?  

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.

Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.

Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.

But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.

In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

[batesnathan]

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.

Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.

Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.

But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.

In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thats exactly how it works!
NB

[Stormin Mormon]

You know, that's almost word for word what I would have
written.

Some years ago, I hit a financial rough stretch. I deded for
curiosity, to go to the welfare department. I find out
(being in retail) that if I buy a product for $5 wholesale,
and sell it for $10 that they call it $10 income. Even
though I only keep a fin from the sale. With their standard,
I was way over qualified for public aid.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

Post by h***@nospam.com
where do you get this shit?

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing
anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to
actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in,
you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the
government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car
to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the
dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.

Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that
they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.

Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work
now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once
they have
access to medical treatment for a while.

But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and
also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not
only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can
do, once
they get on the check.

In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would
let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year
or more if
they failed.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thats exactly how it works!
NB

[Sue]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:25:33 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
You know, that's almost word for word what I would have
written.
Some years ago, I hit a financial rough stretch. I deded for
curiosity, to go to the welfare department. I find out
(being in retail) that if I buy a product for $5 wholesale,
and sell it for $10 that they call it $10 income. Even
though I only keep a fin from the sale. With their standard,
I was way over qualified for public aid.

IIRC you have no children so what you must have applied for was what
we would call general assistance. I can't speak for that program as
I've never done it, but for cash aid for families in California we
give a 40% disregard off of self-employment income gross then the $250
disregard and then 1/2 off of that (I already went through this with
my post to CC). Since I haven't done cash aid in years that 40% is a
guess. The other disregards are correct. Food stamps treats
self-employment income with a 40% deduction (for self-employment) and
then another 20% deduction (given for all earned income) and then
another $144 standard deduction for any income of any kind. Food
stamp rules are, for the most part, federal.
Sue

[CanopyCo]

Post by Sue
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:25:33 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
You know, that's almost word for word what I would have
written.
Some years ago, I hit a financial rough stretch. I deded for
curiosity, to go to the welfare department. I find out
(being in retail) that if I buy a product for $5 wholesale,
and sell it for $10 that they call it $10 income. Even
though I only keep a fin from the sale. With their standard,
I was way over qualified for public aid.

IIRC you have no children so what you must have applied for was what
we would call general assistance.  I can't speak for that program as
I've never done it, but for cash aid for families in California we
give a 40% disregard off of self-employment income gross then the $250
disregard and then 1/2 off of that (I already went through this with
my post to CC).  Since I haven't done cash aid in years that 40% is a
guess.  The other disregards are correct.   Food stamps treats
self-employment income with a 40% deduction (for self-employment) and
then another 20% deduction (given for all earned income) and then
another $144 standard deduction for any income of any kind.  Food
stamp rules are, for the most part, federal.
Sue

Here in Oklahoma self employed on food stamps is deducted based on net
(as it should be) and not gross, by law at one time.
Based on gross when actually getting kicked off, and even then it is
often based on rumor and not actually evidence, so you can get kicked
off at any time you admit to self employment just because the worker
said that they got a unknown informant that said that you made tones
of bucks.

Without self employment admission, they have to show taxed income to
do that.

Looks more and more like I may need to move to (gag, choke, ugggg)
California.
Uggg, just thinking it makes my mouth taste nasty.

;-)

Any idea what the rules are on low income housing?

[Sue]

Post by CanopyCo

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?  

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.
Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.
Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.
But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.
In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

OK. Here we go again. I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general assistance
for single people which I know little about) earned income is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash benefit. For
example -
Mom and 2 kids - cash aid with no other income would be $689.
Mom gets a part time job - say 20 hours a week at minimum wage which
is $8 an hour here. That's $640 gross. We subtract $250 = $390 and
less 1/2 that = $195. So mom would still get $689 - $195 = $494 cash
aid. Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?
I haven't done cash aid in years but IIRC even state disability
benefits are treated like earned income with the same deductions.
Sue

[b***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sue

Post by CanopyCo

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?  

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.
Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.
Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.
But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.
In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

OK. Here we go again. I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general assistance
for single people which I know little about) earned income is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash benefit. For
example -
Mom and 2 kids - cash aid with no other income would be $689.
Mom gets a part time job - say 20 hours a week at minimum wage which
is $8 an hour here. That's $640 gross. We subtract $250 = $390 and
less 1/2 that = $195. So mom would still get $689 - $195 = $494 cash
aid. Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?
I haven't done cash aid in years but IIRC even state disability
benefits are treated like earned income with the same deductions.
Sue

In my state, Alaska, the entitlement comes from what they call the
minimum income, which is a generous $25K or so, and they don't count
your car or house, if you own them. So you could have $250K tied up
in them and easily be entitled to get the Adult Public Assistance
supplements, including Medicaid and more for seniors, more for medical
assistance, etc..

I tried looking up the APA for all the states, just to compare, but
couldn't find it on the Internet.

[Sue]

Post by b***@yahoo.com

Post by Sue

Post by CanopyCo

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?  

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.
Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.
Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.
But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.
In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

OK. Here we go again. I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general assistance
for single people which I know little about) earned income is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash benefit. For
example -
Mom and 2 kids - cash aid with no other income would be $689.
Mom gets a part time job - say 20 hours a week at minimum wage which
is $8 an hour here. That's $640 gross. We subtract $250 = $390 and
less 1/2 that = $195. So mom would still get $689 - $195 = $494 cash
aid. Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?
I haven't done cash aid in years but IIRC even state disability
benefits are treated like earned income with the same deductions.
Sue

In my state, Alaska, the entitlement comes from what they call the
minimum income, which is a generous $25K or so, and they don't count
your car or house, if you own them. So you could have $250K tied up
in them and easily be entitled to get the Adult Public Assistance
supplements, including Medicaid and more for seniors, more for medical
assistance, etc..
I tried looking up the APA for all the states, just to compare, but
couldn't find it on the Internet.

Property is the same here. You can own your house and your car. Are
you talking about some welfare program that doesn't involve children?
Such as our general assistance? If that's what you're talking about
you won't find California in any table because GA is administered by
the counties (mandated by the state) with benefit levels set by them.
There was a rumor many years ago that GA in some counties consisted of
a one way bus ticket to another county. For the children's programs
I haven't seen the chart in years but Alaska was the highest paying
and Vermont was #2 with California #3. When I lived up there I worked
for the state welfare office as an independent contractor - what is
called a fee agent. I assume you still have them. At that time there
was no unemployed parent program. Only single parent households were
eligible for cash benefits which, of course, caused a good bit of
lying. IIRC family welfare was called ADC (Aid to Dependant
Children).
One thing in which California was more generous than Alaska at that
time was their Medicaid program. If a household here is over the max
income they get a share of cost (like a monthly deductible). Alaska
had no such thing. If you didn't meet the income level for free
Medicaid you got nothing. If you are giving Medicaid for those from
21 to 65 who have no children and aren't SS disabled then your program
is more generous in that respect than ours. Those people have to use
the county program which isn't nearly as good as Medicaid (MediCal in
California).
I thought it was interesting in Alaska that people on unemployment
benefits got extra money if they had kids. At the time is was
something like $8 per child per week up to 3 kids.
Sue

[b***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sue

Post by b***@yahoo.com

Post by Sue

Post by CanopyCo

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?  

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.
Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.
Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.
But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.
In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

OK. Here we go again. I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general assistance
for single people which I know little about) earned income is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash benefit. For
example -
Mom and 2 kids - cash aid with no other income would be $689.
Mom gets a part time job - say 20 hours a week at minimum wage which
is $8 an hour here. That's $640 gross. We subtract $250 = $390 and
less 1/2 that = $195. So mom would still get $689 - $195 = $494 cash
aid. Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?
I haven't done cash aid in years but IIRC even state disability
benefits are treated like earned income with the same deductions.
Sue

In my state, Alaska, the entitlement comes from what they call the
minimum income, which is a generous $25K or so, and they don't count
your car or house, if you own them. So you could have $250K tied up
in them and easily be entitled to get the Adult Public Assistance
supplements, including Medicaid and more for seniors, more for medical
assistance, etc..
I tried looking up the APA for all the states, just to compare, but
couldn't find it on the Internet.

Property is the same here. You can own your house and your car. Are
you talking about some welfare program that doesn't involve children?
Such as our general assistance? If that's what you're talking about
you won't find California in any table because GA is administered by
the counties (mandated by the state) with benefit levels set by them.
There was a rumor many years ago that GA in some counties consisted of
a one way bus ticket to another county. For the children's programs
I haven't seen the chart in years but Alaska was the highest paying
and Vermont was #2 with California #3. When I lived up there I worked
for the state welfare office as an independent contractor - what is
called a fee agent. I assume you still have them.

I know you can get good money per child as a substitute parent, or
whatever it's called; maybe that's what you mean by independent
contractor. The kind of programs that seem to fit the bill are the
"not-for-profit" arrangements that soon get support of local
politicians, and then maybe grants and matching funds from agencies,
levels of govt. The "not-for-profit" angle seems to work for clever
entrepreneurs, who then can salary themselves and play financial
games.

Post by Sue
At that time there
was no unemployed parent program. Only single parent households were
eligible for cash benefits which, of course, caused a good bit of
lying. IIRC family welfare was called ADC (Aid to Dependant
Children).
One thing in which California was more generous than Alaska at that
time was their Medicaid program. If a household here is over the max
income they get a share of cost (like a monthly deductible). Alaska
had no such thing. If you didn't meet the income level for free
Medicaid you got nothing. If you are giving Medicaid for those from
21 to 65 who have no children and aren't SS disabled then your program
is more generous in that respect than ours. Those people have to use
the county program which isn't nearly as good as Medicaid (MediCal in
California).
I thought it was interesting in Alaska that people on unemployment
benefits got extra money if they had kids. At the time is was
something like $8 per child per week up to 3 kids.
Sue

[Sue]

Post by b***@yahoo.com

Post by Sue

Post by b***@yahoo.com
In my state, Alaska, the entitlement comes from what they call the
minimum income, which is a generous $25K or so, and they don't count
your car or house, if you own them. So you could have $250K tied up
in them and easily be entitled to get the Adult Public Assistance
supplements, including Medicaid and more for seniors, more for medical
assistance, etc..
I tried looking up the APA for all the states, just to compare, but
couldn't find it on the Internet.

Property is the same here. You can own your house and your car. Are
you talking about some welfare program that doesn't involve children?
Such as our general assistance? If that's what you're talking about
you won't find California in any table because GA is administered by
the counties (mandated by the state) with benefit levels set by them.
There was a rumor many years ago that GA in some counties consisted of
a one way bus ticket to another county. For the children's programs
I haven't seen the chart in years but Alaska was the highest paying
and Vermont was #2 with California #3. When I lived up there I worked
for the state welfare office as an independent contractor - what is
called a fee agent. I assume you still have them.

I know you can get good money per child as a substitute parent, or
whatever it's called; maybe that's what you mean by independent
contractor.

Oh, no. Not at all. There are people (such as myself) who determine
eligibility for the different government programs - cash aid, food
stamps, Medicaid. We are either state employees or county employees
depending on the state. I had done this job for two years before I
moved to Alaska. Once there I became a fee agent. Alaska is so big
(as you well know) that they can't cover the state with regular
welfare offices so they have fee agents. What that person does is
give out the various forms that are required, take them in, interview
the client and then send the completed forms and verifications to the
regular welfare office for benefit determination. The fee agent does
no eligibility determinations, calculations or benefit issuances. I
conducted my "business" in our hardware store, back by the coal stove
on folding chairs using clipboards for desks. I set my own hours. I
was paid for piece work. In a good month I made $400.
The substitute parent thing you're talking about is foster care. Oh,
I had enough kids of my own. Didn't need any extras.
Sue

[b***@yahoo.com]

Post by Sue

Post by b***@yahoo.com

Post by Sue

Post by b***@yahoo.com
In my state, Alaska, the entitlement comes from what they call the
minimum income, which is a generous $25K or so, and they don't count
your car or house, if you own them. So you could have $250K tied up
in them and easily be entitled to get the Adult Public Assistance
supplements, including Medicaid and more for seniors, more for medical
assistance, etc..
I tried looking up the APA for all the states, just to compare, but
couldn't find it on the Internet.

Property is the same here. You can own your house and your car. Are
you talking about some welfare program that doesn't involve children?
Such as our general assistance? If that's what you're talking about
you won't find California in any table because GA is administered by
the counties (mandated by the state) with benefit levels set by them.
There was a rumor many years ago that GA in some counties consisted of
a one way bus ticket to another county. For the children's programs
I haven't seen the chart in years but Alaska was the highest paying
and Vermont was #2 with California #3. When I lived up there I worked
for the state welfare office as an independent contractor - what is
called a fee agent. I assume you still have them.

I know you can get good money per child as a substitute parent, or
whatever it's called; maybe that's what you mean by independent
contractor.

Oh, no. Not at all. There are people (such as myself) who determine
eligibility for the different government programs - cash aid, food
stamps, Medicaid. We are either state employees or county employees
depending on the state. I had done this job for two years before I
moved to Alaska. Once there I became a fee agent. Alaska is so big
(as you well know) that they can't cover the state with regular
welfare offices so they have fee agents. What that person does is
give out the various forms that are required, take them in, interview
the client and then send the completed forms and verifications to the
regular welfare office for benefit determination. The fee agent does
no eligibility determinations, calculations or benefit issuances. I
conducted my "business" in our hardware store, back by the coal stove
on folding chairs using clipboards for desks. I set my own hours. I
was paid for piece work. In a good month I made $400.
The substitute parent thing you're talking about is foster care. Oh,
I had enough kids of my own. Didn't need any extras.
Sue

I have the impression that there are lots of people who could be
applying for programs, but don't think they are eligible for some
reason. So you get Brownie points for being out there where the need
is. Lots of elderly don't think of applying for low-income housing,
when it has advantages besides rent paid on basis of income, like
security arrangements, assisted living services, on-site laundry and
garbage removal. I hate to see the illegal aliens living in
low-income housing paid for in part by taxes. I heard that one
eligible person will apply for housing, then turn over the key to a
relative, and do it again in another state. bookburn

[Stormin Mormon]

Are you sure you really work for the government? That makes
too much sense. Surely, you jest! And I won't stop calling
you Shirley!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Sue" <***@thegrid.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...

but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general
assistance
for single people which I know little about) earned income
is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross
amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't
count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash
benefit. For
example -

Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?

Sue

[CanopyCo]

Post by Sue

Post by CanopyCo

Post by h***@nospam.com
On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:51 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"

Post by Stormin Mormon
I can imagine the welfare cases (and requests for taxpayer
dollars) are way up. People who wish to control the masses
would of course want to increase the number of people on
welfare.

where do you get this shit?

Likely from the rules that come with the check.
They appear to be trying to keep you from accomplishing anything as
soon as you accept the check.
Anything you do is immediately deducted from the check.
For example, if you do not get enough from the government to actually
live on and also crawl out of the ditch you are living in, you can go
get some little penny anti money.
But as soon as you earn it they deduct it from the government check,
even though you actually needed it to buy a dependable car to get you
to work, or clothing that was not stained up by the dumpster, or a
suit for a office job, ect.
Thus preventing you from advancing from the position that they let you
fall to before providing government assistance.
Take disability for example.
Many who are on disability could possibly do a little work now and
then.
Some may even see a opportunity to make a living again once they have
access to medical treatment for a while.
But if they do any work, they are docked by disability and also
reevaluated in a attempt to remove them from the rolls.
So, if they try and fail, they are likely going to be not only removed
from disability, but it takes years to get back on again.
Thus a real incentive to not try to find a job that they can do, once
they get on the check.
In some countries they give a check for anyone not employed,
regardless of the reason of unemployment.
That would take care of anyone that needed help and would let them try
to do better without making them live in a ditch for a year or more if
they failed.

OK. Here we go again. I cannot speak for Oklahoma, but in California
for those on cash aid (the type for families - not general assistance
for single people which I know little about)

I’m single, alone, no kids.

Post by Sue
earned income is *not*
deducted dollar for dollar. We start out with the gross amount,
disregard (don't count) $250 and then disregard (don't count) 1/2 of
what's left and subtract *that* amount from the cash benefit. For
example -
Mom and 2 kids - cash aid with no other income would be $689.
Mom gets a part time job - say 20 hours a week at minimum wage which
is $8 an hour here. That's $640 gross. We subtract $250 = $390 and
less 1/2 that = $195. So mom would still get $689 - $195 = $494 cash
aid. Also, we pay her child care. So, where is that not an
incentive?

Humm, lets see, the job is in Tulsa, 30+ miles away, so gas is at the
very least about $30 a week.
LA California is likely worse.
Way worse when the gas was crazy high.

I don’t think Oklahoma has kid care, but don’t really know the most
recent rules on that one, as I don’t have any kids.

The waitress / Mc Uniform cost $15 each to get the job.
Nursing homes require the same sort of thing.

Insurance for a old guy with no one but me driving is $25+ a month and
I can park the car and take off all the insurance if I don’t drive it
and shop for food local.
Maintenance is based on how nice the car was when you lost your last
job.
Can be gobs.

Nether nursing homes or food services are required to pay minimum
wage, and minimum wage is:

For employers with fewer than 10 full-time employees at any one
location who have gross annual sales of $100,000 or less, the basic
minimum rate is $2.00 per hour, with a 50% maximum tip credit.

$6.55 basic and $3.28 if you work for cash.

To top it off, the $689 you pay her + $640 gross that she got for
working is only $1329, and that is about what it costs to raze a
family of two kids and a mom.

Then there is the factor that in Oklahoma if you live in a ditch you
have no rent, so rent is not deducted.
Yet in order to move out of the ditch you have to have first, last, &
present months rent, utilities turned on, some items of furniture, and
that doesn’t come out of the deductions until you manage to save it up
and then spend it.
It is not factored in as a expense until it is actually spent.
Thus it is not likely to be saved up when they don’t make enough to
live on in the first place.

Post by Sue
I haven't done cash aid in years but IIRC even state disability
benefits are treated like earned income with the same deductions.
Sue - Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Did I mention that Oklahoma DHS is under the thumb right now for not
doing there job correctly?
They are looking at a total restructuring with heads rolling.

Part of what set it off was the fact that Oklahoma removes more kids
from there family then any other state.
I know for a fact that much of it is uncalled for.