Fundies and Government Aid

[Fundilicious]

So I was browsing the MOMYS boards (a thread on here mentioned them and reminded me that I once joined them after joining FJ) and came across a thread on how to feed 14 on a $500 monthly budget.

Personally I was thinking I only have 4 in my family, might be some good pointers in there so I decided to check it out. I was blown away by how many people admitted they were on government aid of either WIC or food stamps. One person even expressed sadness of no longer getting foods stamps.

I was actually fairly angry reading these things. I always thought fundies were all, "we have big families, but we NEVER take government aid" type of thing in order to justify their giant families. Now I don't know any of their personally stories, so I can't say exactly why they need government assistance, but if it has anything to do with their family size and the fact that they really can't afford to have more children then that makes me not a happy camper.

I'll admit, I was always in the camp of, well if they can afford them then who cares. But that is clearly no longer the case. I almost posted a thread over there asking why they felt it was ok to have so many kids when they clearly could not, but decided to hold my tongue.

So am I just naive, is this normal in fundieland or just a weird coincident on the MOMYS board?

[emmiedahl]

I think it is normal to admit it in a small group, but not in public. The general public expectation in fundamentalism seems to be that you should not accept government assistance. But on a pragmatic level, I know a lot of people who have. I used to be on the MOMYS board and it was the norm.

These people are not going to stop having children simply for the lack of feeding them. So I am glad they can and do get help with that. Also, I am on food stamps myself right now, so I have no room to judge.

[ElphabaGalinda]

It bothers me a little that people will continue to purposefully have children when they know they can't afford to feed them, but at least this way the children will be fed. I'd think most people on food stamps wouldn't be actively trying for another baby because they'd want to take care of teh ones they have the best they can. Even though I don't like that fundies are hypocrites and it'd be better if they didn't have more children then they afford, I can't stop them from doing that so I'm glad something exists for the sake of their children. They didn't choose their crazy parents.

[deelaem]

I think it is normal to admit it in a small group, but not in public. The general public expectation in fundamentalism seems to be that you should not accept government assistance. But on a pragmatic level, I know a lot of people who have. I used to be on the MOMYS board and it was the norm.

These people are not going to stop having children simply for the lack of feeding them. So I am glad they can and do get help with that. Also, I am on food stamps myself right now, so I have no room to judge.

Nor should you be judged. Nothing wrong with making sure your family is fed. What is wrong is the utter hypocrisy of the fundies who talk about the evil government out of one side of their faces, while accepting its benefits with the other side.

[Fundilicious]

emmiedahl wrote:

I think it is normal to admit it in a small group, but not in public. The general public expectation in fundamentalism seems to be that you should not accept government assistance. But on a pragmatic level, I know a lot of people who have. I used to be on the MOMYS board and it was the norm.

These people are not going to stop having children simply for the lack of feeding them. So I am glad they can and do get help with that. Also, I am on food stamps myself right now, so I have no room to judge.

Nor should you be judged. Nothing wrong with making sure your family is fed. What is wrong is the utter hypocrisy of the fundies who talk about the evil government out of one side of their faces, while accepting its benefits with the other side.

This. No judgement from me to people who need GA to help their family. Fundies are just hypocrites, plain and simple.

[Arete]

I have a BIG problem with fundies getting government aid if the reason is that they have and continue to have more children than they can afford. Their children are grossly undereducated, and have a big chance of growing up and perpetuating the lifestyle of breeding till they drop and needing government assistance because they are too uneducated to find work to support that many children. The only thing that will come out of that is multigenerational poverty. Emmiedahl, I think you have plenty of reasons to judge them: you are using aid to keep your family healthy while you go to medical school. There is a goal and an endgame. Your kids will be able to look back and say, "wow, that's my mom, she and dad nutured us with everything that was available, and now she is Dr. Mom. :mrgreen: "

[emmiedahl]

My general feeling is that the government sets narrow guidelines and if you qualify for a program, you probably need it and should take it--no guilt, no questions asked from anyone besides your welfare worker. Because I am tired of hearing about what people should have done in the past, and how their children should not eat because of it. I guess I have to extend this to fundies, even if I am not a fan of their family planning. I agree that it is generally hypocritical for conservatives to accept aid considering they want to make it unavailable. It is the same thinking you see in their "my abortion is the only moral abortion" behavior, so at least they are somewhat consistent.

[RR88]

The fundies I know who receive assistance (WIC, EBT cards, Section 8, and more) are Jewish and they literally believe that their religiosity and Torah study keeps the world spinning. For this reason, they see no problem in deliberately making poor choices (refusing to work and having many kids) while receiving assistance because they see themselves as worthy of the benefits and feel they are owed them.

[Conuly]

I think that deliberately choosing to have children you KNOW you won't be able to afford and you don't intend to support on your own is a poor choice. And even then, it's one thing if it's just ONE child, but again and again?

However, I also think that doesn't matter. You can't punish people for being stupid, or having parents who care more about making babies than caring for their children. That's just not right. Even if the people receiving the aid are big ol' hypocrites.

[currywurst]

I hate the hypocrisy too, but like most of you, I feel badly for the children. It ain't their fault their parents are nuts. At least they should not starve.

I would be very surprised if the vast majority of fundies with big families weren't on some sort of government aid.

[Arete]

I'm not about punishing the kids at all. But I still think there should be some wiggle room to set some standards on fundies taking government assistance, especially because their children will become voters one day who will vote to erode some very hard earned rights in this country. Easy one: You need government aid, your children go to public school. None of this SODRT stuff where you are perpetuating abuse, ignorance, and poverty. (I am thinking of Christian fundies here). It's not about feeding a family or group of families. We are a rich enough country that no child should ever go to bed hungry. It's about assisting in the generational transmission of ignorance and a worldview that will take us back to a world lit only by fire.

[BravaAmica]

My thought is this: If a family or individual qualifies for government assistance, then they get government assistance. I do not want people hungry, homeless or going without medical care simply because I may not agree with how they are living their lives.

[emmiedahl]

btw, 14 people on $500 a month is ridiculous. I cannot even imagine. I spend about $400 a month for half that many people and we are not extravagant or anything.

(Last summer our food stamps were cut to $180 for a few months and it just blew so hard but it was only for a few months. I hope this is temporary for the family in question.)

[Sola]

It bothers me a little that people will continue to purposefully have children when they know they can't afford to feed them, but at least this way the children will be fed. I'd think most people on food stamps wouldn't be actively trying for another baby because they'd want to take care of teh ones they have the best they can. Even though I don't like that fundies are hypocrites and it'd be better if they didn't have more children then they afford, I can't stop them from doing that so I'm glad something exists for the sake of their children. They didn't choose their crazy parents.

And how many of these people will viscously slate welfare mothers?

I have no problems with people having kids while on welfare, I don't believe that kids are a privilege of the wealthy and nobody knows how your life and finances will change. You might start out on welfare but end up working and paying back in taxes more than you took in welfare. Or it can be the other way around; you can start out as wealthy and sometimes your income falls and you need it. But when you pop out kid after kid after, a la Duggarstyle, then something is wrong.

[RR88]

And how many of these people will viscously slate welfare mothers?

I have no problems with people having kids while on welfare, I don't believe that kids are a privilege of the wealthy and nobody knows how your life and finances will change. You might start out on welfare but end up working and paying back in taxes more than you took in welfare. Or it can be the other way around; you can start out as wealthy and sometimes your income falls and you need it. But when you pop out kid after kid after, a la Duggarstyle, then something is wrong.

I feel much the same way. I am not against social assistance, per se. But people who already receive assistance lose a lot of sympathy from me when they continue to have children.

[emmiedahl]

Our economic system is set up so that there will be massive inequality and large numbers of people who can never provide completely for themselves. I don't like the idea that this huge mass of people can never ethically have children because of the social stratum to which they were assigned at birth. We need those people as much as we need someone like Mitt Romney.

But being in that situation and voting conservative is like being a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

[freejoytoo]

But being in that situation and voting conservative is like being a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

:lol: Brilliantly said! I don't understand why people want to vote for a system which will basically screw them over.

[bananacat]

It does really bother me when fundies expect the rest of society to prop up their unwise choices. But you know what bothers me even more? Starving children. I actually get much more angry at the fundies who refuse to accept assistance out of some warped sense of pride (read: Bateses and Duggars). I hate to see starving children and starving animals who had absolutely zero choice about being in that lifestyle simply because the parents want to brag about how they don't need any help because they're just so speshul and God loves them extra hard. People make bad choices sometimes. They don't deserve to starve because of it. And other innocent powerless people especially don't deserve to starve because of it. I can be pissed about people taking advantage of the system, but in the end I'm glad it's there for them and glad those kids are getting food. I don't have to like it but I completely support it.

I do think food is cheaper per person when you're dealing in bulk and of course it varies by location, but $500 is still really tight for so many people. I'm just one person and I could probably live off $100 a month if I really needed to and ate nothing but lentils and rice. I suspect the mom who claimed this budget for 14 people is leaving out a lot of little things that add up, just like Wendy Jeub does. She probably doesn't count things like when she buys a bunch of turkeys really cheap after Thanksgiving and spreads them out over the year because that's a one-time purchase and not a monthly expense. Or maybe she knows a farmer/butcher and can get a whole side of beef for really cheap every once in a while and doesn't include that expense either. Or maybe the family gets some really cheap produce in the fall and preserves or dries it as a family activity and they're not including that expense. Or maybe she's just plain exaggerating because it is the internet and she wants to brag the hardest.

[jaynie]

It does really bother me when fundies expect the rest of society to prop up their unwise choices. But you know what bothers me even more? Starving children. I actually get much more angry at the fundies who refuse to accept assistance out of some warped sense of pride (read: Bateses and Duggars). I hate to see starving children and starving animals who had absolutely zero choice about being in that lifestyle simply because the parents want to brag about how they don't need any help because they're just so speshul and God loves them extra hard. People make bad choices sometimes. They don't deserve to starve because of it. And other innocent powerless people especially don't deserve to starve because of it. I can be pissed about people taking advantage of the system, but in the end I'm glad it's there for them and glad those kids are getting food. I don't have to like it but I completely support it.

IAWTC. It might be supremely frustrating arguing with these people about welfare when you're on their side and they aren't, but I'm not going to stop defending welfare and let kids starve. What I think is that if there are too many people dependent on welfare, society needs to invest in ways to get them off of it. Like, under-educated second-generation fundies should be able to catch up their educations at a minimal (preferably no) cost without having to worry about being homeless or starving to death. There should be subsidized training programs and so on, and possibly also counseling. But then I am a damned hippie socialist, so what do I know?

[emmiedahl]

IAWTC. It might be supremely frustrating arguing with these people about welfare when you're on their side and they aren't, but I'm not going to stop defending welfare and let kids starve. What I think is that if there are too many people dependent on welfare, society needs to invest in ways to get them off of it. Like, under-educated second-generation fundies should be able to catch up their educations at a minimal (preferably no) cost without having to worry about being homeless or starving to death. There should be subsidized training programs and so on, and possibly also counseling. But then I am a damned hippie socialist, so what do I know?

The way they raise their children, it would take a lot for the kids as adults to catch up and enter the middle class or above. Not only do the actual academics seem lacking, they have a core mistrust of others and an authoritarian viewpoint that could really hurt them in the broader marketplace. It's a very different culture, and I imagine it would be similar to leaving a religious enclave or even moving to another country.

I am completely okay with idea of simply accepting that some people make less than others, so there will always be people needing food and medical assistance, perhaps help with housing and transportation. As long as we have a system based on inequality, some people will need that help in order to have a very basic standard of living and some of them will need it for their lifetime.

[jaynie]

The way they raise their children, it would take a lot for the kids as adults to catch up and enter the middle class or above. Not only do the actual academics seem lacking, they have a core mistrust of others and an authoritarian viewpoint that could really hurt them in the broader marketplace. It's a very different culture, and I imagine it would be similar to leaving a religious enclave or even moving to another country.

I am completely okay with idea of simply accepting that some people make less than others, so there will always be people needing food and medical assistance, perhaps help with housing and transportation. As long as we have a system based on inequality, some people will need that help in order to have a very basic standard of living and some of them will need it for their lifetime.

I meant that it should be possible for those that do want to pursue it, not that we should expect every single one of them to get a university degree and join the middle classes. If you have a fundie kid who has left fundiedom, they do have a lot of barriers to overcome (like moving to a different country, as you say), and I'd like to see at least some of those barriers made more manageable. I mentioned education specifically, though I know some don't stand a chance at catching up, but there are other things like work placements, skills training, etc, that would at least make it easier to get any kind of job at all in the non-fundie world. This(in my perfect socialist world) would be in addition to welfare, not a replacement for it. So the many fundie kids that don't leave for whatever reason would still be entitled to full support.*

*obviously this applies to non-fundies as well, but as this is freejinger...

[desertvixen]

I have a BIG problem with fundies getting government aid if the reason is that they have and continue to have more children than they can afford. Their children are grossly undereducated, and have a big chance of growing up and perpetuating the lifestyle of breeding till they drop and needing government assistance because they are too uneducated to find work to support that many children.

I don't want to judge their choices, because I don't want them to judge mine.

However, I do get pissed at people taking GA and then saying no one else should be able to get it. I forget who said it upthread, but it is just like "the only moral abortion is mine".

To be fair, however, a lot of people have the idea that WIC, specifically, doesn't "count" as welfare because they have used it (like my friendly neighborhood whiny white boy libertarian who claims after his upper class upbringing that everyone should just grab the bootstraps...) and because it's not easily abused.

[GolightlyGrrl]

I don't want to judge their choices, because I don't want them to judge mine.

However, I do get pissed at people taking GA and then saying no one else should be able to get it. I forget who said it upthread, but it is just like "the only moral abortion is mine".

To be fair, however, a lot of people have the idea that WIC, specifically, doesn't "count" as welfare because they have used it (like my friendly neighborhood whiny white boy libertarian who claims after his upper class upbringing that everyone should just grab the bootstraps...) and because it's not easily abused.

I believe Kelly Crawford once wrote (and I'm paraphrasing), "I was on Medicaid when I was pregnant with my first child, but I don't believe in it now."

Gee, bitch. Way to pull up the ladder and pour boiling water on those coming up after you. And being a single mom I have no doubt that she got quite a few grants to get her degree in English.

[abba12]

I am a fundie lurker who has popped up a few times before.

I just want to throw a perspective in here. I think most people that look for those sorts of money saving threads as the ones on MOMYS are doing so because they're in dire straights, just because most of the people on that thread are on food stamps dosen't mean most of the families in general are.

The thing with welfare is there's a difference between living off it and utilizing it. If, in this current ecconomy, a man is laid off from his job of 20 years without warning, I don't think anyone could say he dosen't deserve welfare while he tries to get back on his feet. Why should it matter whether he has two children or twelve? He has provided for them for decades, and intends to do so again, he has come upon hard times and he shouldn't be judged or punished for it. He could afford those children right up till the job loss. The big problem in the current ecconomy is that even a job at mcdonalds or the grocery store is very hard to get, leaving these men unemployed for a lot longer than most countries have seen since the depression.

My husband is currently out of work, to make a LONG story short he made the mistake of dedicating his best years to his fathers family business, a line of work he now hates, and the business went under during the start of the GFC. He is trying to get qualifications for something he wants to do, and is about to start studying again. He has jumped from casual job to casual job as he could, always ending up having to leave (redundancies from one company, last in, first out, completely unlawful treatment from another) but right now we are completely dependent on welfare (hoping for a new casual job soon, it's just become hiring season for retail again).

He fully intends to work again, when he does get work we KNOW we will be able to afford our children (currently a toddler and one on the way) Why should we have to delay our family because this month we can't afford it? Children are around for the rest of our lives, this period of unemployment may be here this year, maybe even next year, but not forever. And why should we not be allowed to have children because we're currently unemployed, but it's ok for another family to be unemployed with kids because they've already given birth to theirs. When I have this child I can't garuntee that we will never be unemployed during it's life, I can't know for certain I will always be able to afford it, because we can't predict what will happen to the job market. This idea of being able to afford children is so false. If you're relying on stamps constantly for the rest of your life with no intention of ever advancing yourself that's another matter, but someone using them for 6 months, 12 months, even 18 months during a very hard period should be free to whether they have a couple of kids or a whole bunch.

I heard recently that children are luxuries like ipads, and if you can't afford them then you can't have them, simple as that. Well when you die you're not going to care about the ipad you bought back in 2012, but you WILL care a LOT about the child you had that year. Children should not be a privilige for the rich. Children are our future, and I don't want our future to be full of entitled rich kids lol.

I'm sorry that we are in such a position to need welfare right now, I'm sorry we didn't always make the best decisions in our early marriage, we're young and everyone makes mistakes, I'm sorry that we're in the group of people worst hit by the GFC and that it's taking us time to get to a position where my husband can find real, reliable full time work. But I don't apologise for having children during this period, I don't regret not waiting until the timing was 'perfect' and we could 'afford it', because it will never be perfect. I know people who finally got pregnant because they could afford it, and he lost his job a month after the baby was born and remained unemployed over a year, life is not predictable. For all we know, hubby may get his lucky break before this second child is born! I will not apologise for basing one of our most important life decisions on such an unpredictable and constantly changing factor, employment and earnings.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth. And to state again, people who are on welfare with no intention of ever getting off it and no plans for the future are a whole different group. But I think you'll find most large families do not fit into that group.

[Third]

I was surprised when I was pregnant with my first that nearly every mother in the group through the hospital planned to go on WIC. That going on WIC was part of the plan when they planned to get pregnant. I'd always though WIC was if something out of your control happened.

I am however not willing to mess with systems which keep millions of children fed even more so with a growing number of children facing hunger.