3 paycheques away from being homeless

[annewandering]

In some areas of the country there isn't enough HUD or Section 8 housing.

And then there is qualifying. Not having a job isn't the only criteria.

In our area it takes years for the list to get to you. You can not just get a house. First you have to 'qualify' then the house has to qualify for your family. You may think you can get by with two bedrooms but they wont let you do that. At one time we were in a position where that would have helped us. We did qualify but we had too many kids even though we would have been on a fast track being homelss if I remember right. We had six kids at the time so we had to have a four bedroom house. Oh and that would have been for a limited time because I was pregnant which put us the the five bedroom houses. They never got four bedroom houses. Nevermind we had never lived in a four bedroom house in our lives we could only get one with four even though they didnt have four. So we went off to Slab City in the warmer desert where we could live in a bus or a car or whatever. No qualifications there.

So no it is not that easy.

[NeuroTypical]

Yep Ram. Much of that is either ignorance or apathy.

[Iggy]

Yes, many people in the U.S. live pay check to pay check. If you want to preach family values then the first thing you have to do is support programs that will take people off living pay check to pay check and start providing good paying jobs where they can save money and raise and feed and house a family. More like Europe and less like the current capitalist America. Living pay check to pay check is an attack on family values. Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

How about these head of households learning to budget? How about they learn how to shop for food. From scratch food? Or, actually no cardboard pizza, quick fix canned goop, boxed cereal they feed their kids?

Here in my neck of the woods, the mothers on WIC have to go through a basic cooking class to continue to receive their WIC checks. More and more young mothers are learning to cook with rice, pasta, flour, med. cheddar cheese, onions, carrots, potatoes, eggs and dry beans.

The county serves up bulk commodities to those who qualify- 1. You are breathing, 2. What ever income you receive covers rent, electric, water/sewer ~ not exceeding $50.00 a month left over in cash. They don't care if you are working or not. They just want to see a rent receipt, utilities receipt and pay stub or direct deposit receipt from SS or Pension.

The commodities are NOT quick fix. WITH the one exception of Bisquick type of product. At the Senior Center(s) there are volunteers who teach how to cook using these commodities. There is also excess produce from the three times a week farmers market(s). In the winter these markets go indoors.

Don't know who said this ~ If you give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man how to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime.

Okay, teach one how to cook with the basic "from scratch" commodities, and how to budget their limited income, and they will be able to stretch that paycheck.

Even when Hubby and I were both working, we lived paycheck to paycheck. We treated our savings account as though it were a bill. Before we married, Hubby lived on frozen taquitos, Taco Bell, bags of Dorito's, and cans of popped popcorn. There were two gallons of OJ in his fridge and a humongous tub of Country Crock margarine.

I had been living on $131.00 a month for food. I had 9 months of food storage - and about the only thing that could be considered Fast Food were the cans of Nalley Chili, and the boxes of Velveeta Shells and Cheese. One of the local grocery stores sold their aged produce at dramatically reduced prices. 1/2 flat of tired mushrooms for $1.99 total. 12 green, or red, or yellow or all bell peppers for $0.99 total. I bought these, cleaned them, sliced/diced/chopped and then dehydrated them. Except the mushrooms- those I sauteed barely then froze in 1/2 cup servings.

Teach someone how to a) budget = purchasing what they NEED as opposed to what they WANT; b) cook from scratch and they will end up having money to put into savings at the end of each month.

[annewandering]

Its so easy to criticize. I am trying to remember where Jesus said let us justify our disdain for the poor. After all if they werent stupid layabouts we would have no poor to ruin the beautiful landscape. Today I am thankful for the blessings God freely gave me without even asking if I was perfect before giving them.

I am thankful for the many who have given so much willingly to those less able or fortunate. I am thankful for the angels that President Monson talked about all around us answering prayers and not doing an inventory of righteousness first.

We, my family and I, are truly blessed. I pray I might be that angel that someone else needs and that I can do it with love. He knows we dont have a lot but what we have is His. If we can give a bag of oranges or a package of potato chips to that man on the street who has not eaten for three days in one of the richest towns in America because he broke down passing through. It breaks my heart to see and know the stories of those in need knowing the need can be filled but wont be. How can we do that to people? WE own NOTHING. It is ALL Gods and we are here to take care of each other not call each other stupid or lazy. Words truly do kill the spirit.

[Echo2002]

Yes, many people in the U.S. live pay check to pay check. If you want to preach family values then the first thing you have to do is support programs that will take people off living pay check to pay check and start providing good paying jobs where they can save money and raise and feed and house a family. More like Europe and less like the current capitalist America. Living pay check to pay check is an attack on family values. Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

I have to disagree with you. I know some families who make good money but they are still living paycheck to paycheck because they think they've got to keep up a certain lifestyle. No one holds a gun to your head and says you must buy a new car every time you pay the old one off or you must get a credit card or you must buy a $200,000 house because the BANK says you can afford it, yet people do this all the time. There's too many Americans who don't live within their means. I know because I used to do these things. It's no one's fault but their own.

[annewandering]

How about these head of households learning to budget? How about they learn how to shop for food. From scratch food? Or, actually no cardboard pizza, quick fix canned goop, boxed cereal they feed their kids?

Here in my neck of the woods, the mothers on WIC have to go through a basic cooking class to continue to receive their WIC checks. More and more young mothers are learning to cook with rice, pasta, flour, med. cheddar cheese, onions, carrots, potatoes, eggs and dry beans.

The county serves up bulk commodities to those who qualify- 1. You are breathing, 2. What ever income you receive covers rent, electric, water/sewer ~ not exceeding $50.00 a month left over in cash. They don't care if you are working or not. They just want to see a rent receipt, utilities receipt and pay stub or direct deposit receipt from SS or Pension.

The commodities are NOT quick fix. WITH the one exception of Bisquick type of product. At the Senior Center(s) there are volunteers who teach how to cook using these commodities. There is also excess produce from the three times a week farmers market(s). In the winter these markets go indoors.

Don't know who said this ~ If you give a man a fish, he will eat for one day. Teach a man how to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime.

Okay, teach one how to cook with the basic "from scratch" commodities, and how to budget their limited income, and they will be able to stretch that paycheck.

Even when Hubby and I were both working, we lived paycheck to paycheck. We treated our savings account as though it were a bill. Before we married, Hubby lived on frozen taquitos, Taco Bell, bags of Dorito's, and cans of popped popcorn. There were two gallons of OJ in his fridge and a humongous tub of Country Crock margarine.

I had been living on $131.00 a month for food. I had 9 months of food storage - and about the only thing that could be considered Fast Food were the cans of Nalley Chili, and the boxes of Velveeta Shells and Cheese. One of the local grocery stores sold their aged produce at dramatically reduced prices. 1/2 flat of tired mushrooms for $1.99 total. 12 green, or red, or yellow or all bell peppers for $0.99 total. I bought these, cleaned them, sliced/diced/chopped and then dehydrated them. Except the mushrooms- those I sauteed barely then froze in 1/2 cup servings.

Teach someone how to a) budget = purchasing what they NEED as opposed to what they WANT; b) cook from scratch and they will end up having money to put into savings at the end of each month.

All nice but rather naive not to mention extremely judgemental but t6hen again you are not alone so guess I am going to go finish my bread and go give thanks with my family. This thread is just making me cry for those you all critic so easily.

[pam]

Yes, many people in the U.S. live pay check to pay check. If you want to preach family values then the first thing you have to do is support programs that will take people off living pay check to pay check and start providing good paying jobs where they can save money and raise and feed and house a family. More like Europe and less like the current capitalist America. Living pay check to pay check is an attack on family values. Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

Those are liberal definitions of family values.

[HoosierGuy]

Those are liberal definitions of family values.

No, they are true American values. A strong weekly paycheck means one parent can work and make enough money to support the other parent who stays home and raises the kids. Isn't this the ultimate family value: The mom stays home and raises the kids and takes care of the home?

You can hardly do that anymore in this current economy. Only when we reduce some of the needless obstacles in American life will we return to that time when one parent can support the other and kids and pay off a house and save for the future and go on vacations. And that time will return when we have universal healthcare and strong regulation over many of the industries have that have virtual monopolies over the U.S.

[pam]

Let me quote:

Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

That is a liberal definition of family values.

[Just_A_Guy]

Isn't this the ultimate family value: The mom stays home and raises the kids and takes care of the home?

Wait - I thought that was just part of the Republican "war on women". I'm so confused now . . .

Only when we reduce some of the needless obstacles in American life will we return to that time when one parent can support the other and kids and pay off a house and save for the future and go on vacations.

Your President's raising my tax rates to Clinton-era levels (which he's quite willing to do unless he gets a symbolic tax on the wealthy that will only raise a few tens of billions of dollars in revenue) will raise my single-income, middle-class family's tax load by some $2k per year, more or less, and his denying us the right to self-insure for the period when we are relatively young and healthy will cost us another $4-$5k per annum.

You don't get rich and then have one spouse be a stay-at-home parent. You commit to having one spouse being a stay-at-home parent, and adjust your lifestyle and budget accordingly in order to make it happen.

But I do agree with you. I do deserve a vacation. Please send me a check to subsidize the vacation I deserve. PM me and I'll give you the address where you can mail it. You can pick the amount, but I'm thinking your reimbursing me for the extra $6k my family's surrendering to the IRS and the White House-approved HMOs this year would be just the thing. Next year, you can tackle my mortgage for me. Once you've got that done, we can look at my student loans. Thanks in advance. And remember: forward!!!

And that time will return when we have universal healthcare and strong regulation over many of the industries have that have virtual monopolies over the U.S.

We don't need more regulation, we need enforcement of existing regulation. President Obama could have ordered Attorney General Holder to initiate antitrust legislation in the health care industry for anti-competitive, cartel-ish behavior and price fixing. But that wouldn't have given him control over a ginormous sector of the economy, or his HHS secretary ultimate control over who gets what kinds of health services.

Have fun demanding your universal health care from an insolvent government. Looks like those Greeks are having a ball - can't wait to join 'em!

Edited November 23, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

Sorry JAG - one of the basic tenets of folks like HoosierGuy: Their programs to help you are always funded with other people's money.

[Anddenex]

I understand, but how long ago was that? Were the programs and safety nets which are available today, available back then? Such resources have increased quite a bit in the last 2-3 decades.

My dad was a child of the depression, and he and his family were homeless often in the '20's and '30's. My opinion is about the realities of the U.S. in 2012.

Wow, this is interesting for me to say, this was 26 years ago. I wouldn't be able to tell you what programs were available.

I never really asked my father or mother. It wasn't until we were older that my parents finally let us know that our camping excursion was actually due to us being homeless.

The only memory I have of that time is that our parents sat us down and mentioned that we would be camping. They never made a fuss about it in front of us.

As children we thought it was so cool to go to school, and after school come home and play on the beach. We camped on the beach for about 2 months. Our showers were from the sand rinse water outlets.

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, thanks for sharing your story.

Your welcome. :)

[NeuroTypical]

There are remedies to your lack of understanding, changed. I could suggest volunteering at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, or a drug rehab clinic. Clean some of the beds. Get to know some of the regulars. You'll understand pretty quickly.

(Obviously, the folks you'd meet this way would be very different from Anddenex's family.)

[talisyn]

You don't get rich and then have one spouse be a stay-at-home parent. You commit to having one spouse being a stay-at-home parent, and adjust your lifestyle and budget accordingly in order to make it happen

.

This is what we did. I'd rather be the one at home, but at least one of us is :)

The homeless problem is so multi-faceted! There are layers upon layers of reasons an individual and family can be out on the streets. I do know, however, that people can make a huge difference in the lives of others. I remember how amazing it can be to find a $10 bill in a garbage can on the beach when you're looking for aluminum cans. I can also remember the look on the face of a tired man, sitting with his dog on the curb by Wal-Mart at 11:30 at night, when I went back and gave him $5 (all I had at the time).

Charity never faileth.

[Iggy]

All nice but rather naive not to mention extremely judgemental but t6hen again you are not alone so guess I am going to go finish my bread and go give thanks with my family. This thread is just making me cry for those you all critic so easily.

How in the world is what I posted naive, anne?? Why in the world are you personally taking

what I said as judgemental of you?? I was posting in response to Hoosier's post, I quoted him thus that means I am responding to his words - what I got from his post is that to remove people from living paycheck to paycheck is to provide good paying jobs for them.

Providing good paying jobs just isn't enough. They need to be taught how to budget and how to live on food other than junk food.

I am criticizing those people who did not teach their children to budget their money properly, who did not teach their children how to cook from scratch using nutritious foods.

How in the world did I make you cry?

[MorningStar]

Yes, many people in the U.S. live pay check to pay check. If you want to preach family values then the first thing you have to do is support programs that will take people off living pay check to pay check and start providing good paying jobs where they can save money and raise and feed and house a family. More like Europe and less like the current capitalist America. Living pay check to pay check is an attack on family values. Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

If companies increase pay though, they also increase prices, making living expenses unaffordable still. I don't think living paycheck to paycheck is an attack on family values. I believe a lot of people aren't willing to make sacrifices anymore. These two income famillies living paycheck to paycheck are often buying the latest gadgets, they have cable, they have smart phones (with expensive monthly plans), their kids are enrolled in multiple sports, music lessons, houses that are larger than what they need, etc. I know people who make 6 figures and "can't" save money because it's always gone. Rather than paying themselves first and forcing themselves not to buy items they don't really need, they decide whatever is leftover will go in savings. This rarely works.

So while this family was putting nothing in savings, we were getting out of debt and putting a little in savings while making about $30,000 a year. we didn't have cable or cell phones, we cooked from scratch, and we only bought luxury items for Christmas or birthdays. If our son asked for something, we would tell him it would be a great thing to put on his wish list.

Our relatives who "couldn't" save money went to the movies often, bought lots of unnecessary items, and what they did have was treated as, "Eh, it's just $5." so the kids would trash stuff and then they had to replace it.

[Backroads]

Yes, many people in the U.S. live pay check to pay check. If you want to preach family values then the first thing you have to do is support programs that will take people off living pay check to pay check and start providing good paying jobs where they can save money and raise and feed and house a family. More like Europe and less like the current capitalist America. Living pay check to pay check is an attack on family values. Only when we have universal healthcare and strong unions will we see the return of family values and people living better than pay check to pay check.

I had no idea family values was defined solely by money.

My husband and I live paycheck to paycheck and are slowly trying to move away from that. My "excuses" for that situation are: my husband still hasn't technically graduated from college (taking a final online class right now) and only in the past year acquired a full-time job, we are working on paying off student loans, and are still in the process of putting away money towards savings. We are trying to be smart with our money and are trying to stick to a budget. We could, of course, be better--hence, our trying to improve.

However, despite only having so much in savings that would only tide us over so long should we both lose our jobs, I'd say we were doing pretty well. I would love to have thousands of dollars in savings and a home we own in its entirity, but I'm not particularly worried about our situation. We pay our tithing, and we both have families I know would help us out should worst come to worst.

Now, Hoosier, you might blame our employers as neither of us make anything close to a heck of a lot. Well, neither do any of our coworkers. But I don't think my family currently needs any support programs. I'm not saying a few support programs aren't good and beneficial, but I don't think a family still living paycheck-to-paycheck while making an effort to get in a better situation is necessarily the end of the world. I also don't think it's the government's job to support everyone while families do what they wish with their money.

And, once again, why do you say family values are defined by money? Why is the rich family so much better, closer, spiritual, etc than a not-as-rich family? Why is the family on welfare so much closer to God than the family not on welfare? I really don't think a family's financial situation or welfare status defines its value.

[Backroads]

All nice but rather naive not to mention extremely judgemental but t6hen again you are not alone so guess I am going to go finish my bread and go give thanks with my family. This thread is just making me cry for those you all critic so easily.

anne, I don't think anyone criticized families who suffer, families who need to be on welfare, etc. I really do believe many if not all of these families are doing the best they can.

But there is nothing wrong with encouraging--and yes, teaching--self-sufficiency and how to make do.

Frankly, I could turn this around on you and accuse you of saying all families on welfare are incapable of learning a few things.

[dahlia]

In most states, there are a number of processes to go through before someone gets evicted. Think about it - why have a 'late charge' on rent if the landlord isn't willing to let you, in essence, break the terms of the lease as long as he gets his money at some point? If you are a decent tenant, doesn't mess up the property or cause the other tenants any angina, you may be kept on and side arrangements made, because if he let's you go, he risks getting a worse tenant. That said, there's a big difference between making arrangements with someone who had to pay for emergency car repairs and someone who doesn't have a job and no prospect of getting one. The landlord is not a charity.

There is also unemployment for many folks, so it's not like you would be left without funds. Depending where you work and the circumstances, you may get severance pay. People with minor children can get public assistance, many people can get food stamps. Depending on your income, you may be eligible for heating aid. There are the famous 'Obama phones' as well as reduced fees for landlines. All this to say that there are ways to supplement or provide some income that would allow one to at least keep a roof over one's head and food on the table, if not much else.

When I was a young, idealistic, Dim lawyer, I tried to help women who were '3 paychecks away' (though usually they were on the dole and not working). The more I did, the more they needed. I finally realized that they were living their lives and making choices that continually made life difficult for them. There is literally not enough you can do for these people. I changed my politics and my worldview behind dealing with these people. Loudmouth is right, " addictions, mental illness, ignorance, and apathy" pretty much covers why most people find themselves in the situations they are in.

My sympathy well has run dry. The 3 paychecks thing is basically a scare tactic of the left to make you feel guilty for having anything and make you vote for programs that will bankrupt you. No one in the government cares if your budget is reduced by 10-20%, you're just supposed to come up with the tax money and shut up.

[NeuroTypical]

For anyone interested in some not-too uncommon dimensions of the homeless problem, there's an interesting news story. Remember that viral video from a few weeks ago of a police officer buying shoes for a homeless man? Well, yeah - dood wasn't actually homeless.

Yahoo News - Barefoot homeless man not actually homeless

Jeffrey Hillman, 54, has an apartment in the Bronx that is paid for via a combination of rent vouchers, Social Security, and military veteran benefits.

...

The Daily News reports that various city organizations have attempted to help Hillman. Barbara Brancaccio, a spokesperson for the city's Homeless Service said, "He [Hillman] has a history of turning down services."

Basically, here's a guy receiving plenty of help. He's got 2 sources of income. He's receiving rent vouchers. He actually has a place to live. And yet he continues to be on the street. You can't really conclude that Hillman is a bad guy. We don't know what particular blend of mental illness or character defect or what is going on with him. His story is actually not that uncommon.

The major causes of homelessness: Addictions, mental illness, ignorance, and apathy.

And the solution often isn't giving things to people. We're all good Christian souls who want to help, but again, it's important to know what "help" is and what is is not.