Fundies and Government Aid

[Elle]

Also, I am on food stamps myself right now, so I have no room to judge.

But are you having more kids when already unable to feed the ones you have without aid? That's the difference. The fundies accepting aid already can't afford their kids on their own, and yet will keep having kids and passing the responsibility for feeding them onto the rest of us. That's when it's wrong.

[Elle]

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)

The problem with this is that many people homeschool because the local school is dangerous or extremely underperforming. The school district we live in is abysmal. The majority of kids are at least two grades behind in math, science, and reading. And since No Child Left Behind says that underperforming schools should be punished by losing grant money, there's a cycle going on that's going to be hard to break. I have a friend getting food stamps who is homeschooling. She had her kids in the elementary school, and her daughter was ridiculed for having a "retard" for a brother, and the boy wasn't getting much help, though he was getting all the school could afford. Her kids both went from being 3 and 5 grades behind, respectively, to both being caught up to their grade levels within a year, even the "retard." It would greatly harm her family to force her kids into a public school again, at least the one in our district, and it would mean the family doesn't eat much if food stamps are taken away. She and her husband both work, but he is partially disabled (yet doesn't qualify for disability, go fig), but just don't make enough.

And the public school rule can't apply to just people of a certain religion. That is a major violation of the constitution. So either all kids, including my friend's kids, get shoved into schools that are failing to provide an education, or families are allowed to continue homeschooling. I also think it would be considered discrimination is only families over a certain size was subject to these rules. I think child serves need to get involved when there's abuse, including mental, and there need to be strict laws that students are all occasionally tested to find out if a 14-year-old who is neurotypical can do some basic math.

This shouldn't be tied to food stamps.

[emmiedahl]

But are you having more kids when already unable to feed the ones you have without aid? That's the difference. The fundies accepting aid already can't afford their kids on their own, and yet will keep having kids and passing the responsibility for feeding them onto the rest of us. That's when it's wrong.

I don't see how that makes a difference to a child who will not eat without food stamps.

We can argue all day about whether people should plan to have children they cannot afford, and I have mixed feelings on the topic tbh. But I don't think it matters at all in terms of whether we should offer certain welfare benefits because I would rather those kids get nourishing food.

[fluttershies]

I don't see how that makes a difference to a child who will not eat without food stamps.

We can argue all day about whether people should plan to have children they cannot afford, and I have mixed feelings on the topic tbh. But I don't think it matters at all in terms of whether we should offer certain welfare benefits because I would rather those kids get nourishing food.

I agree. Also, I would guess that in many poorer fundie families where women can't get birth control on the sly, that women are being impregnated/raped against their will or at least without their explicit consent. To punish the resulting children by taking away their source of food seems monstrous.

[Elle]

I don't see how that makes a difference to a child who will not eat without food stamps.

We can argue all day about whether people should plan to have children they cannot afford, and I have mixed feelings on the topic tbh. But I don't think it matters at all in terms of whether we should offer certain welfare benefits because I would rather those kids get nourishing food.

I'm not saying the kids eating is wrong. I'm saying that the parents who keep intentionally having kids when they already can't afford to feed the ones they have without getting welfare are what is wrong. They need to stop having kids when they can't afford to feed the ones they have. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing the life-choices of others when those choices a creating need and the people making those choices know it. I do not in any way have mixed feelings about this. If you can't take care of the kids you have, stop having more on purpose and causing resources, that are intended to be there as temporary back-up when the unexpected happens, to be spread thinner than they already are. I will judge those who intentionally create need, but I will not judge those who do not intentionally create need.

[desertvixen]

I'm not saying the kids eating is wrong. I'm saying that the parents who keep intentionally having kids when they already can't afford to feed the ones they have without getting welfare are what is wrong. They need to stop having kids when they can't afford to feed the ones they have. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing the life-choices of others when those choices a creating need and the people making those choices know it. I do not in any way have mixed feelings about this. If you can't take care of the kids you have, stop having more on purpose and causing resources, that are intended to be there as temporary back-up when the unexpected happens, to be spread thinner than they already are. I will judge those who intentionally create need, but I will not judge those who do not intentionally create need.

So, are you proposing that we start making mandatory birth control or sterilization to get welfare benefits? That's pretty much not ever going to happen, and I'd have to agree with it being that way.

[Witsec7]

I'm not saying the kids eating is wrong. I'm saying that the parents who keep intentionally having kids when they already can't afford to feed the ones they have without getting welfare are what is wrong. They need to stop having kids when they can't afford to feed the ones they have. Taxpayers shouldn't be subsidizing the life-choices of others when those choices a creating need and the people making those choices know it. I do not in any way have mixed feelings about this. If you can't take care of the kids you have, stop having more on purpose and causing resources, that are intended to be there as temporary back-up when the unexpected happens, to be spread thinner than they already are. I will judge those who intentionally create need, but I will not judge those who do not intentionally create need.

Taxpayers already do this, we subsidize the familiy's of military, religious, people of either political party. Each of those particular life choices create 'need'.

[lilwriter85]

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.

Yup that was Kelly. I think she mentioned being medicaid and other assistance a few times on her blog. I kind of remember another fundie blogger who admitted to getting government assistance at one point.

[CrazySister]

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.

The problem isn't that they're in need of welfare and taking it. The problem is the hipocrisy - they make it sound as if there's NEVER any legitimate reason to EVER take any kind of welfare under ANY circumstances.

[JesusFightClub]

LauraElle and emmiedahl said it better than I could, but there can't be a moral test for welfare. Fundies are hypocritical bastards, but when I was on welfare I made bad choices and when I was a benefits officer (in charge of dishing out welfare) I saw people who had made horrendously bad choices. Like spent five years in the jail, came out, got addicted and now on methadone bad choices. And they always thought someone else shouldn't be getting benefits.

It's a vestige of religion maybe but when it comes to this, I'm very much feeling "God have mercy on me a sinner". He was basically saying "I know people do stupid shit, but me, I'm a proper twat." Sort of how I feel. If my clients could have seen my whole life, they would maybe not get the most positive impression. Who was I to judge them?

[emmiedahl]

The problem in my case is that they will trash other people getting these benefits and vote against them every chance they get. It is quite hypocritical to act like you are the only person on earth who deserves tax dollars.

[CrazySister]

The problem in my case is that they will trash other people getting these benefits and vote against them every chance they get. It is quite hypocritical to act like you are the only person on earth who deserves tax dollars.

It's an idea similar to SOTDRT without any (proper) education post-high school and yet the 1st-gen parents have college degrees and are doing things that require a college degree or at least the education learned via the degree has greatly contributed to their present success. They're wanting to end the very thing that has helped so many of them get in the very place they are today. :evil:

[Mama Mia]

The hypocrisy is what is wrong, in my view.

Why shouldn't people have children while receiving assistance ? Having children should not be determined by your economic class, and I would sure as hell rather my taxes go to paying for housing and food stamps and health care than to kill people in some idiotic war, or jail people for drug offenses.

[JesusFightClub]

I could not agree more emmiedahl. It is pure hypocrisy, and nasty as heck. I try not to use one particular word here, but it is what I would call them.

It's sort of having two connected ideas in your head for me. The first part says "There should be no moral test for welfare right now even though fundies are [fill in blank with naughty word]". The other says "Come the revolution, and it will be a glorious day..." ;)

[FloraDoraDolly]

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.

The public schools have done a poor job of breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty and ignorance. Say what you will about the fundies' educational methods, but at least their older kids are capable of reading the Bible, which means they are functionally literate. The same cannot be said for nearly fifty percent of the adult population of Detroit. Other major cities have similarly high numbers of educational casualities. Since their kids vastly outnumber the ones in the fundie fringe movement, I am a lot more worried about their futures and what it all means for this country than I am about the fundies.

[RR88]

Can I just say that I hate the phrase "children are the future"?

[Petronella7]

I was also a welfare worker for some years (the position was called "Financial Assistance Worker" in my province) and I believe 100% in a social safety net, to ensure that no one starves to death and children are not living on the street. That being said, if some of these fundy families had come into our office to apply for income assistance, they would have received a very rude awakening! First of all, both the husband and wife would have needed to come in together for all appointments and orientation, no excuses. They would have to completely disclose all assets and all forms of income. Including anything that either of them was earning from selling crap on the Internet, etc. They would have to provide complete photo id, social insurance numbers, and proof of citizenship or legal residency for each adult, and a birth certificate for each child; none of this off-the-grid nonsense. And, biggest deal-breaker of all, BOTH adults in a 2-parent family, if able-bodied, were required to be available for work and actively looking for work! And by work, I mean, a full-time, paying job in the aboveground economy. The ministry did not finance anyone's self-employment scheme, anyone's attendance at a non-accredited bible school, or anyone's SAHM or homeschooling beliefs. And I would have been a complete hardass to them, too. I would have made both husband and wife bring me a job-search list every week, and I would have made both of them attend lots of sessions with the resource workers for help with their job search. In the end, their choices would come down to either figuring out a way to make money on their own if they wanted me off their back, or else changing their lifestyle and their priorities a LOT, if they wanted to keep getting the cheque in the mail.

[AnnieC 305]

The public schools have done a poor job of breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty and ignorance. Say what you will about the fundies' educational methods, but at least their older kids are capable of reading the Bible, which means they are functionally literate. The same cannot be said for nearly fifty percent of the adult population of Detroit. Other major cities have similarly high numbers of educational casualities. Since their kids vastly outnumber the ones in the fundie fringe movement, I am a lot more worried about their futures and what it all means for this country than I am about the fundies.

Not to overly hijack this thread but this astonishes me.

I taught in public school for eight years, all of it in two different schools in the same district. Our district was 98% below the poverty line, 96% Latino and we never did figure out how many illegal immigrants. But at the same time we graduated 85+% of our kids out of the 6th grade at grade level in all subjects and functionally literate and fluent in English and Spanish. Now I worked with some amazing, dedicated people but I never realized we were *that* good.

Granted it might have had a lot to do with our reading program. It was entirely created in house by the guy who mentored me through my first year, who was absolutely brilliant. I remember we had to fight like hell to keep it too, this was back when everyone was against teaching in any language other than English. But our numbers stood for themselves, the program worked.

That other schools could be that bad still baffles me.

/hijack

[Arete]

Petronella, I could definitely live with your approach. FloraDoraDolly, I wonder if the failure rate in Detroit is more linked to the parents not valuing their children's education than the teachers teaching reading. There are plenty of poor public schools that can bang out 98% literacy rates, both in the US and in terrribly poor districts in Nigeria and India. Places where their rural setting teachers are teaching multiple grades at a time. My point actually does link back to fundies; anywhere where THE PARENTS do not value learning and education is going to create an abysmal educational swamp for children. I don't care how good your teachers are, the parents have to be behind them. That said, even with parents not behind them, 50% of kids in a failing system as you describe Detroit are going to go far beyond reading the Bible, into critical thinking, scientific knowledge, facts about health and safety, and being around other children not like them. 100% of fundie kids don't get that, they are taught that everything they need to know is in the Bible, they are taught unbridled breeding and forget the consequences,and they are indoctrinated at a very young age to use the political system to turn back the rights of others. That is what makes them so dangerous and tragic as they grow to adulthood, not mere illiteracy.

For the record, I think you are morally obliagated both as an individual and society to help those who need help. But it sticks in my craw that fundies who need help will later vote to deny that help to others.

[apple1]

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.

First: I am GLAD that the "safety net" exists. Unquestionably glad.

Second: Decades? Really? Children are only children for, at most, 2 "decades". Interesting choice of language.

Third: Why should you delay your family because of current unemployment? Because it is wise planning. FWIW My own daughter is delaying having a 2nd child because of financial reasons. She still has medical bills to pay from the pregnancy/birth of the first. Her care was not and currently would not be covered by any assistance programs. What is she supposed to do? Arrive at the hospital and be turned away because of the outstanding bill from the first? Not see OBs because she can't pay her significant copay up front? Keep getting behind until she gets kicked out of her house? Delay is WISE PLANNING in some circumstances. Only you can determine what is WISE PLANNING in your circumstances, but what's in you post, well...

Fourth: You do NOT have any guarantee that your husband is going to get that miracle good job. None. I am living that experience myself. Husband had good job in his field, was forced to "retire" - no income - at age 54. Nearly 6 years later, still working in an "underpaying" job. (I have worked and am still working at my professional job). Gah.

Safety nets are wonderful, and are needed, and I don't resent anyone being helped by those safety nets. And oopses happen, and that's OK, too. But nothing beats wise planning. Nothing.

Edited to add: Also, confused by your post's talk about the man losing or getting a job, no reference to the woman losing or getting a job. ??

[Patsy]

Sluts should get welfare. Hypocrites should get welfare. Racists should get welfare.

People who actively choose to continue breeding after they've become so desperately poor that they can't afford the ones they have, should get welfare. I am absolutely in favour of their kids being able to eat.

But you bet your britches I judge the everliving hell out of their choice to have another (and another and another) kid, whether they're accepting government/community support or not.

[Avalondaughter]

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.

Well said!

The fundamental problem is that it's the parents' choice to have kids they can't support. The kids didn't ask for it. Do we make the children suffer for the poor choices of their parents?

[countressrascal]

FLDS and Mormon's teach their members that taking government aid is their right. FLDS call it bleeding the beast, beast being the government.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

My QF stepsister has 9 in her brood and has been on Food stamps for YEARS, they get around $800 a month. Also, every time she gets pregnant she gets herself on medicaide so all of her pregnancy and post-partum medical care is paid for. Headship makes about $50,000 a year which wouldn't be bad for a family of 4-5, but for a family of 11 is a pittance.

What pisses me off is how the religious right rails against the evil socialist liberals and how we're ruining the fabric of society and the evil gays are killing families ect ect ect, yet they will quietly partake in benefits when it suits them, while publicly and loudly condeming others for doing the same.

A family going through hard times and having the need for some help is a completely different story than a family defiently and consistantly living beyond their means and continuing to have children they can't afford.

[deelaem]

FLDS and Mormon's teach their members that taking government aid is their right. FLDS call it bleeding the beast, beast being the government.

That's true of FLDS, but not of mainstream Mormons. They have their own assistance program because they discourage getting government aid.