Poor still suffering from last recession (which "ended" in 2002)

[UpInArms]

Source: Reuters

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - Many of the poorest people in the United States are still struggling to recover from the effects of a recession that ended six years ago, making them very vulnerable as the country stands on the brink of a new downturn.

In 2006, the latest year for which Census Bureau figures are available, 12.3 percent of Americans were living in poverty, compared with 11.7 percent in 2001, the year of the last recession.

"It's unusual in an economic recovery that ... we still have poverty higher than it was in the recession that preceded it," said Sharon Parrott, a policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington.

This shows the poor have largely missed out on the gains made when the economy was expanding, Parrott said. The recent expansion was "much stronger for the people at the top than for people at the bottom."

<snip>

McQueen, who is diabetic and unemployed, lives on welfare payments of $637 a month from the City of Philadelphia, another $102.50 every two weeks in supplementary social security for her granddaughter, and $89 a month in food stamps.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2241431020080123?sp=true

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

1. The poor suffer,bad economy or good economy.

[Demeter]

2. The Never-Ending Recession--a Fable by G W Bush

[happyslug]

3. I hate when news reporter get facts BACKWARDS.

Pennsylvania does NOT pay $637 per month is welfare, the grant for one person in Philadelphia is $205.00 per month, or the $102.50 every two weeks mentioned in the Article. Thus the $102.50 is NOT Supplemental Security Income (SSI) but Public Welfare for the Child.

The National SSI is $637.00 BUT only since January 1, 2008, in 2007 it had been $623.00 per month. This is supplemented by the State of Pennsylvania by $27.40 (Total for SSI is this $664.40 is thus $664.40 per month). The State Supplement varies per state, many states provide NO additional amount, other more than Pennsylvania's $27.40).

Just a comment on the bad writing, the $637 is the SSI grant and the $102.50 is the welfare amount. NOT the opposite as the author says in the article.

More on State Supplementations to the SSI Program:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11130.html

List of States with NO Supplement:
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/ssi_state_supplement_none.htm

List of States with Supplement to SSI, California is the highest at $233 per month:
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/ssistatesuppfedad.htm

As to the Father with seven Children, that is a "Budget Group" of Eight, which under Pennsylvania Department of Welfare Rules gets a grant NO LARGER than $836 for a family of Eight. To get $2500. at least three people of his family has to be on SSI.

Go to Appendix "C" to 55 Pa Code § 181.453 for the amount od welfare grant per county:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter181/s181.453.html

SSI is reduced if two non-related people live together, the maximum amount of such a couple is 1 1/2 times $637 per month or $955.50 per month, but since all of the family members are blood relatives that rule does NOT apply in his case, thus at least three of the members of his household is on SSI. Being on SSI means someone is so disabled that he or she can NOT work, of if below 18, is so disabled that she or he can NOT act like a "Normal child" (Please note a "Normal Child" is NOT an average child, but a "normal child, roughly 99.5% of the population below 18 are "Normal Children").

One last comment, SSI is paid out at 100% of the Federal Standard of Need, the bare amount determined by the Federal Government you need to receive to survive. It is reduced by any other form of assistance, including "in kind" assistance when you take in a relative who is one SSI (To avoid this, charge the relative rent, for either you charge the relative RENT or the relatives SSI grant will be reduced by the amount of "In Kind" assistance you give her by NOT charging her rent).

Welfare is NOT paid in any state at 100% of the Standard of Need. The Federal Government will match dollar for dollar what any state agrees to pay in welfare for families with children under the age of 18 (The Transitional Aid to Needed Families, TANF as it is now called). The problem is NO STATE wants to match the funds offered by the Federal Government. For example Pennsylvania pays $174-$205 for one person on welfare (Depending on the County he or she is in) provided the family has a child under age 18. Pennsylvania refuses to pay $637 per such family, as permitted under Federal law, for it does NOT want to pay 50% of the costs of such payments AND 50% of the cost of any medical assistance such family would be entitled to under the grant (And medical costs are the much larger concern than the actual welfare payments). Thus people on welfare can get larger grants amount if the states were just willing to pay HALF of the costs of such an increase.

[uppityperson]

4. For me, it began in earnest in 2002.

[UpInArms]

10. thanks for clarifying that horrific piece of writing -

I do not like it when the writer does not get a grasp of the facts and puts out misleading information.

[OKthatsIT]

5. Dag...I know po' folk still never recovering from 1989

[happyslug]

6. That is when Pennsylvania last increased the Welfare Grant amount.

See Appendix "C" of the Pennsylvania Code I mentioned above to see that the grant has NOT changed since 1990, the year AFTER the state legislature last increased the Welfare grants amounts.

[stravu9]

7. I Work with the POOR...

for 7 years now, they are not doing better and "WELFARE REFORM" a'la Clinton HAS NOT HELPED A BIT!
Nor has NAFTA a'la Clinton.

[snot]

8. k&r'd

[InkAddict]

9. Not surprising - it was a jobless recovery

though some did find jobs, many short-term shape-shifting unstable jobs, only to be RIFd over and over and over, as they bled the savers and Middle Class dry of assets "held for a (single/few)rainy day(s)" not a six-year monsoon of war, healthcare increases, tuition increases, gas increases, utility increases, food increases. When those assets were spent, the ivory-tower elitists went for the punitive bankruptcy reform and the homes.