Time for a little ragin’ about the welfare/social state of our nation Readers beware: you are entering a logic and reason zone: check your emotional, bleeding-heart ways at the door. Buckle up, kids. It's gonna be bumpy
The AP released a news article about the plight of individuals who use food stamps as a means to feed themselves are having problems because the price of food is going up. The article starts by featuring Danielle Brown, a single mother of two (ages 1 and 3), who says “Ain’t got no food left, the kids are probably hungry” as she shops with her new allotment on the first of the month. She reports that the money for food ran out two weeks ago.
This is tragic – I mean, what meager, insufficient amount of money are we, the tax-payers, giving to this woman so that it is gone after just two weeks. $100? $150? $200 at the most, right? Wrong. Danielle Brown gets $312 a month. For food. And she blows it in just 2 weeks. I’m not very good at math, but if we say Danielle needs money for four weeks of food a month, then she apparently deserves $624 to feed herself and two child under 5 years old!
Also featured is Lynda Wheeler, another single mother with a 14 year old son and a 2 year old daughter are in a similar pickle – running out of money by the 15th – with $281 a month. So Lynda needs $562 a month, apparently. Here’s a picture of Lynda buying packaged meals at One Stop Food & Liquors. A couple observations:
- Lynda doesn't look like she ran out of food 2 weeks ago
- If you are running out of money (or someone else’s, in this case), why buy instant/pre-cooked dinners?
- Going out on a limb that One Stop Food and Liquors isn’t the best place to get a deal on groceries.
This is ri-goshdarn-diculous. The real kicker, what really gets under my skin is that the attitude is not one of thanks or appreciation. I'd be ecstatic if someone gave me $300 a month for food. But none of that here. Somehow, because they breathe, they are entitled to have other people supply for their needs. And they need more.
Heaven forbid a person has to get up off their obese behind, get out the door and
What bull.
I’m about to make a statement – a broad, insensitive, generalizing, stereotyping statement. So, if you are nervous, please navigate away from this and come back in a week or so when something else is posted. Here it goes:
No self-respecting person who is not disabled, physically or mentally, should rely on our government to provide for their daily needs. Those who do are leaching, lazy and dishonest people who have no moral fiber, no pride in themselves and no sense of self worth.
I will never – never – walk down that road.
For those who now (if you didn’t before) think I’m arrogant and condescending, let me legitimize your thought: You’re an idiot. Now you have just cause to believe I’m arrogant and condescending.
The reason I will never accept government money for my daily needs is because if I do, I am condoning the act of taking by force (taxes) the property (money) of another to supply for my needs. I would be saying I am entitled to your money while you are not. Why? Because I’m alive, that’s why.
Someone tell me that's not arrogant and condescending.
10 Comments:
I fully and completely agree, but I would be interested to see how you feel about people using medicaid to pay for having a baby. Lets say your in school and have crappy health insurance, you have no money and are expected to pay $10,000 to have your child...is that okay to accept help then, or should you try to find another way to pay for it. I ask this because I always wonder what we would have done if we had a kid in school, luckily Arch had incredible insurance so the thought of using tax payers money never crossed our minds. I'm not trying to argue in anyway, I am seriously curious about your views, and what is morally right to do.
I agree, for the most part, as well. I'm glad someone had the guts to say it. Like the "ames family" I'm interested in how you feel about medicaid and WIC. My husband and I used it with our first child. We were both in college, both working 3 part time jobs, while going to school full time. We felt we didn't have a choice. We didn't believe in waiting to have a family, we also both felt strongly that we shouldn't delay our educations (as in one of us quiting to go to work full time). So I am interested as well in your opinion. I am also not trying to argue, just curious. For the most part I also do the generalizing, stereotyping thing - most people who use these government assistant programs are lazy, dishonest people who sit around taking our money. But my husband and I did not consider ourselves those kinds of people. We were doing just about everything we could. So what do you think?
Very good post. I am glad to see the conviction come out. As far as the other two comments in regards to WIC, I knew a number of folks in the 'Burg who used WIC/Medicaid to help get by with the kids while they were in school. While this is your blog, I am going to express my opinion on the issue. I look at it from this angle: You are going to be paying into the system the rest of your life and those I knew who used it all have solid jobs and are paying back into society. They did not abuse the system in my opinion by taking advantage of the subsistence set up for people like them. Now, I met many a single parent in Alaska who did abuse the system and had no desire to work to provide for a family in any way. Those are the folks who frustrate me to no end, which goes right along with what you have said.
Enough with the rant, however, remember me when you are in a position of political power and I owe the IRS an insane amount of back taxes. I will expect nothing less than a full pardon:)
You are a heartless bastart. It clearly states in the constitution that the government must give me ribs, give me cigs, or give me death. Listen you mean cyber commoron welfare rocks and you better get on board cause there ain't nothin better then free bread. Welfare, you care, we all scream "where is my share." But really you are preachin' to the choir brother. I Don't bust my kahonies 60 hours a week for kicks and giggles it's cause I have pride and self worth and a baby that goes though diapers like they are goin' outta style.
The situation my husband and I found ourselves in was that I was working full time so he could finish school. I had excellent insurance and we decided that he was close enough to graduating that we could try for a baby. In a cruel twist I got so sick that I had to quit my job and I was spending quite a lot of time in the hospital hooked to IV's just to keep myself and my unborn baby alive. This left us in an enormous bind. My husband obtained a custodial job while he searched for a higher paying position in his field. Through some "loophole" I wasn't able to keep my insurance so we applied for medicaid. Thank goodness it covered all my medical bills because we would have been in pretty deep if it hadn't.
I think the situation we found ourselves in was a perfect example of when government assistance is acceptable and encouraged. We had planned ahead and intended to be self sufficient. Things happened that couldn't have been foreseen, and we needed help beyond what family could give. That's the way it should work. For those who abuse the system, I honestly wish they would be found out and made to pay every penny back. Grr! If only we could make it work that way!
Good blog. Amen to the food stamp diatribe.
Re: having the government help pay for babies and food while both couples are getting their education. Sensitive topic, but here goes.
Sister Patricia Holland dropped out of college to work full-time because they knew Elder Holland would be the full-time provider for their family. Hence, they saw his education as coming first. (And she had studied at Julliard, so it wasn't that she couldn't have made it as a student.) Do both husband and wife have to be going to school at the same time? The counsel "get all the education you can," doesn't necessarily mean simultaneously or in the first four years of marriage.
Next, there are ways to make it without relying on the government first. What about parents who are bringing in healthy incomes? Why should college students turn first to their neighbors (the taxpayers) to finance education and/or babies, when extended family (parents) could and should help first? Isn't that what the Church welfare system teaches: rely first on yourself, then on your family, and then on community if needed.
Sorry, but I would like to use my own money for helping my family first, not the neighbor's families when those neighbor parents aren't contributing but could.
I'll start off saying "in my opinion" and then proceed to make statements like they are fact:
There are cases where the injustice of social welfare is obvious, like those in the article. I believe that instances of individuals choosing to have children, knowing they are going to have to rely on the government, is also an abuse. It becomes more gray in situations where bad luck comes into play. The difference between the two is choice.
The latter situation is a harder question. However, part of the reason it seems this tough is that people assume that if there was no government provided safety net, nothing would take its place, and individuals that are trying to be self-sufficient but simply have some very bad luck would be left destitute. I don't think this is the case: family, friends, and social institutions (like the church) would step up, doctors would probably waive some charges, etc. Of course, the family would have to bear a significant debt, but why shouldn't they? We take on debt for houses and cars, why not to save a life?
Government aid is practically forced on people, to the effect that it crowds out real charity. It's much easier to take money from the faceless masses than to ask individuals for help. Never confuse social welfare systems with charity--they are the anti-charity. Friends and family would love to help. Americans (and conservative Americans especially) are among the most charitable people in the world (the average US family gives 5 times the amount of the average German family). And real charity would happen, benefiting both the giver and receiver.
Regardless, it is never just to compel another individual to act charitably. That is what government welfare does--compels "charity" by using force to collect taxes. This is the idea of legal plunder. I understand that most who receive welfare aren't thinking of it this way, but it is in fact what is implied by the policy, and that's the fundamental problem.
In my opinion.
It's not really that tough. If you can't take care of your kids, don't have them. Case closed.
Wow, well I have to be honest I have always felt the way that "cardinal fans in denver" feels about this subject. But now in reading what you (Logan), mormon mama and Nathan have to say I am really waivering over to your side. I've always been one who can see both sides and has a really hard time picking one side, because I can see the benefits of both(this I utterly hate about me because I rarely have a opinion) but I really appreciate you helping me see that the positives of your side outweight the positives of the welfare side. Thanks for helping me form a freaking opinion for once.
ps. I am still somewhat going back and forth with the whole democrat republican thing, but the more I think about it and research it, I'm going more towards republican YAY! I can stay married! Just thought I would update you. (I'll email you with specifics later)
Okay, so I just came on here to get your blog address to give to Adam Murie and now I'm sitting her reading this. It's great, and I totally agree and YOU GO BOYEEE...but I need to be getting stuff done...like cleaning since the kids are in bed. :) love ya.
Post a Comment