I agree in general. I wouldn’t presume to tell people when to have or not have kids, or how many to have or not have, but it is incumbent on all of us (working or students) to budget, and live within that budget. For some people–students and non-students–the money won’t stretch far enough, in which case, the welfare system is there as a safety net. But where the schooling is valuable enough to the student, the student should borrow against his or her future earning potential first.

What I have absolutely no patience for are people who use welfare and then, when they’re on their feet, decry it as evil and socialistic, explaining that they got off of it.

Summary: welfare is there, available for when it’s necessary. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with accepting it to get by. I do think there’s something wrong with using it so that a person can spend money on wants, however.

I completely agree with you Devyn. When I lived in Richmond, I was working full time, and going to school full time, all with 2 callings. There was even a time when I lost my job and we were without employment for about 6 months. My whole marriage I have refused to let the government pay for my family – I feel that to be my responsibility. We have lived very frugally at times, pinching every penny we could. My wife has gotten very good at using coupons to reduce our food budget. My wife and I were very jealous when we would go over to others houses and they would make nicer meals, have nicer baby toys, and more, all because they took welfare. Now, I’m making a lot more money and don’t have to worry as much, yet I found out recently that here in Utah people still get more for their groceries on welfare than I spend in a month (almost twice the amount!). I strongly feel that if one really needs the money, they should go to family first, then the church. I have more faith in the Church than the government that only the money that is truly needed will be given out. This is very frustrating for me, a tax-paying citizen – I think it is our responsibility as citizens to use the welfare system sparingly.

Why limit the critique to just students who use WIC? Why not also decry those who use Stafford loans or Pell grants to get through school? Those are publicly subsidized, and as long as we are bemoaning handouts, let’s include those. Higher education is already subsidized to such an extent that it is almost funny to think of some deluded soul who assumes he is paying his own way. Anybody who attends grad school at a public institution already has his hands buried pretty deeply in the pockets of his fellow citizens. And a student at a private school relies heavily on the generosity of those who contribute to the school’s endowment.

Let’s also go beyond students and criticize everybody who buys a home using an FHA loan, or who starts a business with an SBA loan. Sure, they need to pay the loans back, but the interest is subsidized by other taxpayers, and it costs the treasury a lot more to pay down the interest on an FHA loan that it does to provide milk and diapers to grad students.

Devyn

Perhaps the problem is with all of the pressure in Mormonism to start having kids the instant you get married, regardless of your financial circumstances. Am I off base on this? Should I be frustrated or am I just jealous that I did not “milk the system” when I was in graduate school…

You should be frustrated if later on that couple derides the system they just took advantage of, if they deride others for living on WICs when they could just as easily live more frugally. From my perspective, I really don’t care who needs federal assistance. It is there for anybody, and everybody, to use. But if you use it and later on when you make $200k and you undermine efforts to keep the social welfare from others, well, then I’ve got problems with you (not you personally, Devyn, but the individual who does this). You’re not milking the system. It is actually there for you to use.

Now you bring up a point about whether or not one actually needs the system, or could people get by by simply living a simpler life. The social programs of our country are not designed to answer those kinds of questions, but to simply provide. Those kinds of questions should be asked by the individuals themselves. If they choose to take advantage of it, that’s their choice. They may have to answer for their choices later on.

Mark IV,

Why not also decry those who use Stafford loans or Pell grants to get through school? Those are publicly subsidized, and as long as we are bemoaning handouts, let’s include those.

I would understand your concern about Pell Grants, as that is basically free money, but Stafford Loans, though regulated by the federal government to have lower interest rates, are loans, and not free money. Students are required to pay them back. In fact, students cannot even get out of paying them through bankruptcy except in extreme cases. Stafford Loans also come through private lenders, and not the government itself. The government just regulates the interest rate and pays for interest during school time.

Why I will never ever live in Utah again.

I’m not sure how grad students in my ward pay for their lifestyle, but they live pretty well-much better than I did in grad school. All of them who are married have two to three children and none-I’m not exagerating-of the respective wives work, at least the families of whom I’m aware. They drive late model cars and live in townhomes or single family homes. Until I read this post I had assumed they are paying for school like I did-working, scholarships and the inevitable mountain of student loan debt. It had not occurred to me that they would engage in the reckless, irresponsible behaviour that is the hallmark of welfare queens/kings, i.e. having children with no appreciable income, living beyond one’s means with the expectation the government would fill in the gap.

My wife and I regularly have these grad students over for big dinners on the assumption they don’t get to eat like that regularly, especially during the holidays. We also regularly give them clothes our kids have outgrown. (we’ve been blessed financially, so these are nice clothes, imo. They were at least good enough for our kids.) We also pay some of the wives for piano lessons. Some of them even have the temerity to hire my teenage son to mow their yards. Talk about chutzpah-using welfare dollars to have your lawn mowed. (Actually that money goes to my son’s missionary fund, so it may be some of the best use of taxpayer money ever imagined.)I may have to rethink my assumptions as to their penury.

Actually, I’m not sure it should matter to me. What they do to finance their lifestyle is up to them, not me. In my experience these putative welfare kings/queens have been uniformly pleasant and fun to have over and interact with. Plus, my kids love to play with their infant and toddler children. And, in my limited experience, these putative welfare kings/queens have served in the ward, when asked. On that score they are not much different than the general membership: some magnify their callings, some are mediocre and some are lousy.

Last winter I did some pro bono work for a recent convert who lives in public housing. We met on a bitterly cold February night to discuss her case. I asked how she was holding up with the cold in her apartment. She replied the cold was no problem because she kept her apartment very warm. Thinking about my $900.00 monthly heating bill, I said it must cost a fortune to keep even a modest apartment very warm. She notified me she did not pay for utilities, so keeping her apartment warm was no problem. In fact she did not even think about how much it cost to allow her and her 6 kids to walk around in shorts and t-shirts in the middle of winter in her public housing townhome. Who knew she would fit in so well with LDS grad students?

Like Devyn S. above, my wife and I committd the nearly unpardonable sin of waiting until we could afford to have children w/o having to resort to welfare before we had actually had kids. (w/ only 3 kids, we’re also part of that sinful trend of smaller LDS families.) It strikes me as funny to the point of hilarious to think of some of these grad students as welfare queens/kings, but if the anecdotes above are true, that is exactly what they are.

I once became aware of a medical student and wife (with kids) who were using food stamps to purchase milk. I think they were also on medicaid. I wasn’t sure what to think of the whole thing. I don’t have super strong feelings about what they are doing. Frankly, we are advised to avoid debt – and this may be a means of doing so.

Well looks like I hit a nerve with this one. Good – I wanted to get different perspectives on this and first, I am not judging their choice of when to have kids. I really don’t care. I am judging their use of the welfare system when we are told to be self supporting. In the cases I know of, the joke is that they “live like lawyers (dentists, etc.) while in school, then live like students afterward…” My issue is if they really need the extra income, then why doesn’t someone work or take out extra loans? It seems very presumptuous to take welfare just because it is easy.

I should caveat that cases like Nick’s and others mentioned above are exceptions from the experiences I have seen.

rbc – your experiences sound similar to mine. What has bothered me is that my wife and I were often condemned for not having children by these same individuals. I really don’t care when people have kids, just make sure you are not a burden on others financially and don’t condemn those who make choices different from your own.

Seth R – you are missing the whole point. NOTHING is free – we all pay for it in taxes. It is very naive to assume that just because it is free there is not a cost somewhere. That is why my taxes in Massachusetts are so high, I pay for these social programs. I also disagree with your comments that there is little rhetoric from the Church Authorities about avoiding government assistance. I remember hearing several times that we should only use these programs when it is needed, not just because we can.

Furthermore, how do you know how poor someone is anyway?

I’ve seen plenty of poor folks. And guess what? They often don’t look any different from anyone else.

The standard of living in America is such that poverty is darn near invisible. The bums on the street corner are rare exceptions. Most poor people, you couldn’t place in a supermarket checkout line.

As for driving the “late model cars,” you know, it’s not like they own those cars. They are making payments on them. When they default, the car will be repo-ed. Now, the decision to buy a new vehicle was maybe not wise, but that’s more an issue of being financially un-savvy rather than manipulative and unethical.

Besides, what’s the point of buying a 1986 vehicle and then having to replace the transmission? Some savings eh?

Furthermore, grad students often act on an assumption of optimism about a brighter future. Sometimes it pans out, sometimes it doesn’t. You might call that idealistic, you might call it naive. But I’d hesitate to call it immoral.

I’d ask you Devyn,

Are you these people’s financial adviser? Are you balancing their checkbooks?

If not, what makes you think you even have the slightest clue about whether they are living in their means or not?

I’m highly skeptical.

I think that we tie morality and economic matters together because I don’t see how they can be separated. If we are consistently told to be self supporting and also told to take care of the poor, etc., these are economic matters.

I think you’re glossing over the issue. Are poor people less virtuous than rich people (based on the fact that poor people are less often able to be self-supporting or “take care of the poor”)? Even in an economically prosperous country like the US, people are often poor for circumstances beyond their control. Even grad students.

You have laid out the purpose of WIC, etc., but can you honestly say that someone who will make over six figures in a year or two should take advantage of the program rather than just suck it up and take out more loans?

Sure. I’ve already said that I don’t see anything wrong with society making an investment in these households, as they will clearly be in a much better position to put money back into the system (both by taxes and charitable contributions) in the future. The fact that they may earn “six figures” in the future doesn’t do anything to feed their infants now. It’s mostly irrelevant, particularly if these families have circumstances of which you may not be fully aware. (The unplanned pregnancy comes to mind. Many people outside the church would argue that the responsible thing to do would be to have an early-term abortion, but I’m guessing most of us would disagree.)

Your comment below “There is enough money in the program for all who choose to utilize it.” This money does not come from trees – it is tax money so if you don’t need it don’t use it.

WIC and other programs are generally sufficiently funded. It doesn’t follow that if those who qualify for it don’t use it that it will flow back into the pockets
of hard-working, morally upright taxpayers.

I am glad your anecdotal evidence is different from mine. I will say I know and have known a lot of hard working wonderful grad students as well, some who worked while in school to minimize their debt. My hat is off to them.

I’ll go ahead and take it further by saying that I don’t believe your anecdotal evidence. Are you absolutely sure that the same grad students who are driving new Volvos and Audis are the ones who are receiving WIC and food stamps? How do you know? The only grad students I’ve ever known to drive new European cars are the ones who are being funded by their wealthy families and not their Uncle Sam.

Devyn, it is curious that you and your wife felt a full decade of adult labor up front was neccesary to adequately provide for your children’s needs. (Your short biography on this website tells us that you were already working on a MS when you married.) This may have a bit to do with who the married graduate students are that you find yourself living among now. Those who are making do without welfare at a much lower level of affluence are not where you will encounter them. I am under the impression that Boston is one of the most expensive places to live in this country; Baltimore, where my wife and I were married graduate students, and where our two oldest children were born, was fairly cheap.

First off, being a Christian is not about being generous or nice “only when people deserve it.”

Secondly, like the GI Bill, I’m willing to invest in people, give them a temporary boost on their way to financial security.

I don’t consider students to be relatively poor either. But I’m still willing to help them with tax dollars. I consider it an investment in society.

Finally, the debt load Americans struggle under is horrendous. The interest rates and fees they are being charged is criminal. Even a law graduate finds himself in a very tenuous position financially after law school, sometimes for as much as years after law school. I’d be careful about defining “poor” and who is and is not deserving of a helping hand.

I’m a big fan of the social safety net. I think the existence of such a safety net encourages risk-taking and entrepreneurship. I think fewer would invest in higher education if the consequences of failure were higher. That would be a great loss to our society.

I am willing to help them, no matter how rich they are going to get in the future. No matter how stupid they are about their finances today. In the end, it’s only money to me. But to them, it’s a shot at great future.

Happy to be of service.

Re: 20

The math is not really hard to figure out. Start with tuition at almost any private grad school and most public grad schools. Then, add the cost of living in a major metropolitan area in the Northeast or West Coast. Then add the cost/expense of a child times 2 or three. Subtract one working spouse. That equals a monthly total that most people in their early to mid 20s, sans a graduate education, can’t earn while pursuing a graduate education at the same time. Thus, it’s not too much of a stretch to conclude that most LDS grad students with children and a SAHM are poor, at least by American standards. In fact, I would go so far as to think that most married and single LDS grad students sans children fall into the poor category as well. Unless these married LDS grad students are trust fund children, they are clearly living beyond their means: they cannot afford tuition and living expenses on their income. How hard is it to figure that out?

Those of us who’ve endured the professional rite of passage known as grad school have done it. I could never have finished law school without a combination of working, my wife working, scholarhips and student loans. Sans the extra help of scholarhips and loans, I could not have completed law school and enjoyed such pastimes as eating regular meals and living in a habitable structure. At the same time, we were poor and passed on a lot of activities and possessions until we could better afford them. We spent many a date night at the dollar movies, wore clothes beyond their expiration date-way beyond in some cases and I have the pictures to prove it-clipped coupons and so forth to help keep costs down. It just never occurred to us to look to welfare for assistance. (One year during tithing settlement a kind Bishop, sua sponte, reminded us not to forget to come to the church if we needed financial help.) It’s not a pride/macho thing either. It never occurred to me or my wife to go to a welfare office to fund behavior that is purely discretionary and within our own control, i.e. when to have children, buying a late model car and so forth. It wasn’t until years after grad school that I first became aware of this phenomenon among some LDS grad students to intentionally go on welfare to support a lifestyle. None of my fellow non-LDS married with children grad students did this and we had enless discussions about financing a grad school education with kids in tow. (I wonder that their impression of the Mormon church would have been if I had suggested they go on welfare, but that’s probably a discussion for another post. To be fair, other grad students may have gone the welfare route to get by, I don’t know how all of the married with children grad students financed their grad school days.) Additionally, nobody in our ward suggested the welfare route either; although, we had fewer discussions with ward members about money during this time.

One does not need access to a married grad student’s balance sheet to conclude the grad student is, more than 90% of the time, very poor and living beyond his or her present means. Those things are a given.

You are right that poor people are often indistinguishable from non-poor people. Devyn’s original post confirms this. How can you tell a married LDS grad student welfare king/queen from your garden variety welfare king/queen? I don’t know that you can.

Money, in whatever amount, has to come from somewhere. When faced with the inevitable deficit, the grad student and spouse only have a few options: cut spending, the spouse gets a job, borrow money, church help and/or government help or a combination of the three. How hard is that to figure out?

It seems pretty easy to me. People, seriously, don’t have kids until you can AFFORD them! The church also teaches us to be self reliant. A student with a stay at home wife making babies and not working is completely ridiculous. Use the brains God gave us, that ought to go a long way. A stay at home mom with a grad student husband who doesn’t work but yet gets on WIC instead of birth control and finding a job is so irresponsible that I’m speechless every time I see it.

Remembering that the only “perfect” form of BC is abstinence (loads of fun for young married couples!) and that abortion is generally frowned upon in our circles, lol, I’ll continue to assert that nobody has any right to judge the families who find themselves in this situation.

Seth,

defensive much?

RCH – oral contraceptives, when used properly work nearly 100% of the time. So abstinence is NOT the only alternative, unless you think that oral BC is wrong like McKonkie did…

“A student with a stay at home wife making babies and not working is completely ridiculous.”

Right on!!!!

call me judgmental too–I don’t care. This concept is SO ABSURD.

By the way, at least in our state, you aren’t allowed to own a new car and still qualify for WIC and Welfare.

As for the working thing when a family already has kids – it just isn’t economically viable. The reason? One word – Daycare.

To even turn a profit after daycare expenses, the non-student spouse would have to be working about 40 hours per week at at least $10 an hour TO EVEN TURN A PROFIT. We’re not even talking about meeting living expenses here, we’re just talking about paying for daycare and making some extra pocket money on the side.

And that’s just to pay for crappy daycare where they have 30 kids to each daycare worker, neglect the kids, etc.

The figures rise if you’re talking about younger children or multiple children.

And let’s not forget additional expenses associated with working – gas for commuting, suddenly you need nice work outfits you didn’t need before, now you have to buy expensive easy-to-make meals when grocery shopping because it just isn’t reasonable to be fixing inexpensive homemade meals anymore. There’s lots of other little things that really add up, kill your profit margin, and people just don’t think about these things.

For those student couples with children, a working spouse isn’t just a bad idea, it’s pointless and stupid.

And we’re not even talking about the likely depression, emotional strain, exhaustion and probable divorce that this situation imposes on the couple.

We’re still not addressing the issue of whether to HAVE kids in the first place. But if you’ve got them, working just isn’t really an option and we shouldn’t pretend it is.

“Call me judgmental too–I don’t care.”

No, no, Mfranti. I call you a materialistic child of Satan, and then you call me judgmental.

It’s interesting that when this topic comes up on the blogs, almost more than any other topic, it brings out unabashed judgmentalism and high horsery. For the most part, even when subjects are sensitive, I see at least some sort of an effort to judge charitably around here. But I have seen some of the most strident condemnations of people when the welfare thing comes up. Maybe its the hardcore Republican strain in Mountain West Mormonism coming out or something.

Jolly Juliet,
I can understand the position that one should delay having kids when you know you might need some government assistance to make ends meet. But I can’t see it as so shockingly irresponsible. They’re simply tapping into a resource that’s available to them. Agree or disagree that that is an OK thing to do. But have some compassion.

RCH,

obviously I didn’t read #37 correctly. Sorry

If you are medically ineligible for oral/hormonal birth control, like me, IUD are fabulous and you can get one from Planned Parenthood.

My comment above was in response to the line that reads: ““A student with a stay at home wife making babies and not working is completely ridiculous.”

I can understand the line of reasoning that leads to that conclusion – but I think it’s too harsh and doesn’t take into account the fact that a couple might be making their choices conscientiously and prayerfully.

JJ,

Because Christ said so, and if you expect even an ounce of mercy for your own private defects, you are expected to extend a bit to others.

Sometimes I wish blogs had signatures like some web forums do. Cuz I’d be quoting this one in mine:

Why should I have compassion for those who make unwise choices that then require assistance from the Federal government?

#8:

The government just regulates the interest rate and pays for interest during school time.

Whoa there…not so fast!!!!

Having benefited both from WIC and Stafford Loans, I can assure you that the Government subsidization of interest each month on my student loans was FAR costlier than the monthly benefits received from WIC. By a margin of 2 to 1, easily. WIC provides a few boxes of baby cereal, a bag of carrots, a couple cans of tuna, and a few cans of juice each month…hardly living high on the hog. If you use WIC for formula (we never did, as we never fed our babies formula), then that does cost more, because formula is so expensive. But even still, it may not be as much as the interest on several student loans that the government is paying for you while you are in school.

Please, people, do not presume to know about that which you have never personally experienced.

A few comments

Is it immoral to claim mortgage interest on taxes? My tax dollars are being used to finance mcmansions all across the country! We should be Self supporting, and not rely on the government for this deduction! Same with deducting tithing! What about public schools, should those of us who can afford private schools take our kids out?

Last year I received several thousand dollars benefit through the mnortgage and charitable giving deduction. This is several times the benefit a grad student would get on WIC.

Also – you never know someones situation. My wife and I were given a car to use (not held in our names) while in school. We did not choose the car, and despite my wishes, could not sell it, and get a more reasonable car and pocket the difference. It was a small imported luxury car. We got judged by it, but the option was to return the car to the giver (and have no car) or keep it. What would you do?

I think gaming the system, by hiding assets, or transferring money to family members (hey mom and dad, hold this savings for me) is unethical. Using government programs for which you properly qualify is fine.

I think we could do several different variations on this theme:

Why should I have compassion for those who make unwise career choices that then require assistance from employment services?

Why should I have compassion for those who make unwise personal choices that then require assistance from LDS family services?

Why should I have compassion for those who make unwise choices that then require forgiveness for their sins?

Really, the possibilities are endless.

I’m grateful I was able to get Pediasure through WIC when my first child was diagnosed as failure-to-thrive just before his first birthday. I was very, very uncomfortable becoming a “welfare mom” – something I had heard derided throughout my youth. But my pediatrician and nutritionist were adamant that this was vital for my son. My husband was still a student, and our grocery budget was $25 a week (a decade ago), so there was no way we could have afforded this expensive nutritional supplement. I took a great big gulp of pride and walked into the WIC office. My cheeks were burning, but I felt like this was what I had to do for my kid. Nowadays, we have more money than we need, and we try to be very generous to those without enough. Thank you, America, for quite possibly saving my son’s life. I know some of you didn’t help us willingly, but I’m very, very grateful nonetheless.

Is it immoral to claim mortgage interest on taxes?

I guess the flip side of that question is: is it immoral to tax people on any part of their income that is essential to the purpose of providing them shelter?

By hook or by crook, we’ve ended up living in a country that confiscates, by one way or another, approximately 50% of every dollar they earn so as to spread the wealth around. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

If people didn’t have “the government” forceably take half of their income from them, would they voluntarily donate whatever was necessary in order to keep people from starving in the streets? I don’t know, myself. I’d like to think so, but I’m not at all sure it would happen.

Personally, I think it’s immoral that the government taxes me to the extent that they do, but don’t provide me with a receipt that tells me specifically what I just bought and paid for with those taxes. Maybe I’d be a happier taxpayer if said service was provided.

It all boils down to that impossibly difficult-to-answer question: “What is fair?”

Mark – You avoided the question – which is your right. But we could avoid this question of welfare grad students by saying that EVERY person should have the right to housing food and medical care. Not everyone agrees with it, and who knows if it could ever be done. The question i meant to illustrate with my mortgage interest deduction is, that given our current system, when a person who is in the top 1 percent of income, or even could otherwise afford shelter, food and clothing, does taking money through the income tax deduction constitute a moral choice?

56 Devyn:

The problem with your theory is that when you are out of school and making 100k you still are not paying back what the government paid to subsidize the interest on your loan while you were allowed to delay paying the principal. The interest the government paid on your loan is a free gift from the taxpayers to you, that you will never repay. The government gives you this free gift of subsidized interest, sometimes YEARS worth of free interest payments, to help you get through school and become a productive working member of society.

Likewise, WIC vouchers are issued to recipients for specific nutritious foods that are designed to help children avoid other far more serious health problems that can be avoided by proper nutrition. A current “free gift” designed to help children stay healthy, so they can avoid costly medical problems later in childhood.

The only way anyone pays back into the system, whether for subsidized loans or WIC, is when you start paying federal taxes that in turn help others receive the same “free gifts” that helped you out when you needed it.

There is no difference in the free-ness of either gift. Please stop suggesting that one is more righteous than the other, or one is less of a handout than the other.

64 Jolly:

About the government paying interest on schooling: The reasont the govt does this is to encourage people to get an education and high paying jobs. This is a simple return issue– they spend a little and get back a lot. Smart economics.

Same with WIC. The true purpose of WIC is to provide nutritious foods and nutrition counseling and education to help prevent diseases and health problems caused by lack of nutrition. It is a simple return issue: spend a little money providing a bit of free food and help prevent major health care expenses down the road. Simple economics. :-)

I don’t think if a person feels outside pressure to have children, that it should necessarily lead to increased resentment towards people with children who are on welfare.

Yeah, that’s an interesting dynamic. Certainly, there is a pretty strong cultural pressure to have kids early in an LDS marriage. “Don’t worry and let the Lord provide” is the sort of advice that is given to a lot of young couples. I disagree with that approach myself, but at the same time, I don’t feel the need to condemn those who have children soon after they are married, before I can really easily afford to do so. Nor do I usually inquire about how they managed to find themselves in that situation.

69 Greg:

I just it interesting to mention that when I served in a bishopric, and someone came to us for church welfare assistance, the bishop and stake pres always agreed that it was proper for that person to first accept any government assistance that was available to them, and THEN we would start tapping the church welfare resources. It seems like “letting the Lord provide” nowadays includes the Lord’s helper, Uncle Sam.

Nick: Amen. We’re not hear to debate the fairness of our system, our taxes, Sweden’s incentive plans to have kids, etc. It is just plain wrong to have kids you can’t support and then look to Unlce Sam and the church to help us. It’s one thing if we find ourselves there due to unforseen circumustances, entirely another to be just stupid about it.

I doubt that even billionaire citizens of Taxachusetts are taxed at a rate of 50%.

I’m counting all of the taxes that most people end up paying: sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, local, state and county taxes, school bond taxes, Spanish-American War telecommunications charge taxes, excise taxes, etc., etc., ad infinitum. According to this article with its accompanying graphic, maybe the number is a little closer to 33%.

Ben there – I agree with Jolly and Nick. I see the student loan vs Welfare as two different decisions, one ok and one not IMO. I think we will just have to disagree on this one…

Since the issue of cultural pressure to have children has come up – I want to say that from what I’ve seen, a lot of this pressure comes within specific families, perhaps more so than from the leadership itself.

I think a lot of this pressure comes from the force with which some people interpret what the leadership has said. In a similar manner, some families are more enthusiastic about the father’s presiding role, so to speak.

At least these days, I don’t feel the tone of what general authorities say over the pulpit ever approximates (as Nick Literski wrote): ““pop ‘em out, god will provide–well, as long as you give 10% to us.” At least that isn’t what I’m hearing at general conference.

Mark N – as a citizen of Taxachussets – not a gazillionaire, I can tell you my wife and I paid 42% in property, state, excise, sales, and federal tax last year, not including the silly phone tax or gas tax. So I would guess your 50% number is not entirely unreasonable for many people in this country.

Ahh, but JJ,

The point is that, with help from “Uncle Sam,” you CAN “support” those children.

So stop acting like this is an issue of “being able to support your kids.” It isn’t.

It’s a question of whether you should use Uncle Sam to help you do it.

Nick,

This is a Mormon blog. We allow for the possibility that this isn’t just Church policy that is causing the “pressure” to have kids. A lot of these young couples claim personal revelation directly from God on the subject. Perhaps you don’t believe in personal revelation, but some of us do.

I’m coming late and haven’t read the commnets. But this sentence of yours struck me as interesting, “First, it seems unethical at best and downright dishonest at worst to “milk” the system knowing full well that you really don’t need it.”

Is it wrong to take a scholarship promoted for some criteria you meet even if you think it silly to give money based upon that criteria? So if someone is offering full tuition to physics students of mixed British and Swedish birth would it be wrong of me to take the money? Of course not. So why would it with government?

We live in a democracy and the policies of the government arise democratically. We may disagree with it but unless its something you feel so wrong you can’t support I don’t see the problem. Why would welfare be wrong but a government scholastic grant be right? This thinking just seems alien to me if there isn’t something deeply unethical about the government program. (i.e. scholarships based upon your waterboarding technique of young children)

The point is that, with help from “Uncle Sam,” you CAN “support” those children.

But, as we both know, there is no “Uncle Sam”. There is only you and me and everybody else who is paying some portion of their income into a big pot. Some would say that the amount being demanded for the pot is immorally high.

As I recall, King Noah was demanding a 20% tax rate, and the compilers of the Book of Mormon seemed to indicate that this was a ridiculously (or, as the scriptures put it, “exceedingly”, as in “too much”) high rate: “thus did the people labor exceedingly”.

King Mosiah, on the other hand, considered
his unwillingness to burden his people with taxes to be a virtue.

It’s possible that the high taxes imposed by King Noah were only seen as an exceeding burden given the uses to which the taxes were being put, but I tend to doubt it.

My previous comment bringing this up was ignored, so I’ll be a crank and bring it up again. Devyn wrote that it took his wife and him a full decade of adult married labor to reach the point that they were prepared to adequately provide for their children. I don’t understand this.

We all know that King Noah wasn’t spending the tax revenue on righteous purposes, but that doesn’t necessarily answer the question as to what the threshold should be on knowing when one has crossed the line into “unrighteous dominion” so far as demanding a certain percentage of one’s fellow citizens’ income as taxes to be handed over to the government at the point of a gun.

Here’s an alternate view: since the system is in place, and since it is not going to go away, and since you have to pay taxes anyway, why not avail yourself of services for which you are eligible? For me, I paid taxes for many years before we took WIC for a while. I struggled with it, but reasoned that since I had paid in for so long, surely using a service for which I was eligible could not be robbing anyone, as I had already paid my share, so to speak, and had NOT gotten anything for years, even when I had been eligible.

If the government wants to do away with the income tax, then we can do away with things like WIC and student loans/grants. But as long as I, my parents, and my children pay federal income tax, then we ought to be able to enjoy the fruits of our taxes. Stop taking 50% of the American paycheck, and few people would NEED these services to begin with.

1) Don’t have kids until you can afford them is ridiculous. You will never be able to afford them. I would be 50 by the time I started seeding the world with my vermin. Do you want to know why?
2) I am in dental school. Does the average reader know how much dental school costs? I live in Philly. Let me break it down for those who think food stamps is a crime for those who qualify:
Tuition + living expenses: $70,000-$80,000 a year. Yes that is right. So even when I graduate and start making 6 figures and driving that Audi I will owe 300,000+ (yes I have undergraduate debt) at an interest rate close to 9%. You tell me that I can’t have $$ dollars in food stamp money because I happen to own a nice pair of pants or decided to take out some extra loan money. My first years taxes will pay back into the system what I benefited from it for four years…hopefully it goes to someone else like me who is trying to better thier personal and family situation. If that poor single mother needs WIC and an EBT card, then fine, let her get on it, but make her go to school to to ensure her financial situation gets better. I lived in government subsidized housing in Utah for a year. Yes it was sweet. I was able to use that extra money to apply to dental school. How much does that cost? 1200 to apply, buy my own plane tickets, rental cars, hotel for interviews, secondary application fees all totaling about 5K. I was benifiting from Utahs program for a year, AND I was working. There were people there who had been living there…doing NOTHING for 15 years. Did I deserve the government help more than that ‘lifer’? Who knows. I do know that they are probably still there and I am doing something useful.

3)Do I need food stamps right now? NEED? No. Would I have to take out a LOAN to cover for the lost money so I could buy food? Yes at 9%. Do I qualify to get on food stamps? Yes. Hmmmm, using my graduate level brain, which one should I choose?

4)Another couple of things. Do I parade around the ward telling everyone I get assistance and laugh about it? NO! Thats absurd. Do I wear fancy clothes because I am able to buy extra boxes of cereal for my kids? No. Do I drive a nice car? 95 subaru legacy that has broken down on me (2000 dollars in past three months to fix). You tell me. I am not on WIC.

I might also add that the cost for some oral contraceptives or other forms of “free” birth control that PP offers (thanks to Uncle Sam’s generosity) cost way more than the WIC food package that a pregnant mother or a nursing mother and a baby receives. So, which is more righteous?

Ok… I agree that BMW driving welfare recipients seems a little silly. As is Veritas’ example of inheritors accepting welfare and then later criticizing the very practice.

So, those of you critical of those on WIC, food stamps etc., when should a student family with children accept government help? Should I make my wife go to work to support my three children instead of accepting food stamps? Is it really a good idea to take on extra debt to avoid these government programs? Is that really the RIGHT thing to do?

Seth #83:
It was not my intention to suggest that cultural pressure was the sole driving force for all young LDS couples to multiply “early and often.” I apologize if I somehow communicated otherwise.

Question:

If the government really values having a parent in the home, should it offer payoffs, benefits, tax breaks, etc. to encourage that behavior.

How is WIC different?

As for King Noah, I don’t think he’s really relevant to the discussion of modern taxation. This was an ancient agrarian society that didn’t provide an interstate highway system. End of story.

99 Devyn:

Ben There – WIC is only part of it. There are the medical costs that can run upwards of $50K on top of WIC. So I hardly think comparing BC to WIC is relevant. The key issue is should one wait to have children until they can be supported by someone other than the government?

So to summarize, it is relative, and taking SOME of Uncle Sam’s money is okay, as long as we feel righteous about it and take less of Uncle Sam’s money than someone else who feels righteous that they have had children.

So: using taxpayer-provided IUDs, oral contracpetives, and condoms is more righteous than using taxpayer-funded WIC vouchers?

For the record, many people on WIC are NOT eligible for other programs, like food stamps, and welfare, and Medicaid, because WIC has a higher income level allowance, as it is truly meant for working people. So for many who get WIC, it is their ONLY government subsidy. How is this any less righteous than picking up a pack of Uncle Sam’s Condoms from PP, when said PP-patron could just as easily abstain fron sex and not cost the taxpayers a single dime!?

Moral relativity, folks, is all this amounts to. Judging others instead of judging ourselves. And that stinks.

As for King Noah, I don’t think he’s really relevant to the discussion of modern taxation.

You may have a point there. However, that doesn’t preclude us from asking the questions, “How much are we allowed, in righteousness, to demand of our fellow man (at the point of a gun) in the way of compulsory taxation? What are we justified in demanding, ane what are we not justified in demanding?” After all, the claim has already been made that it would be much easier to be self-sufficient (and the goodness of this principle didn’t find too many people arguing against the idea in Priesthood Meeting last Sunday) if the government didn’t insist on taking away so much of our incomes in the first place.

#90 – John – I will answer your question. My wife and I were married just as she was beginning an MS and I was beginning a PhD in Genetics. I graduated five years later. I started working in management consulting while my wife works in financial management. I was traveling 4-5 days a week for a couple of years. We felt there was no way we wanted to be parents given the stress of our lives at that point. I would have felt like a terrible father if I did not see my child for days at a time. So know 10 years after marriage we are in more stable jobs and we have a wonderful son. I realize my choice is not the same as others, but my wife and I feel we are now in a position to adequately pay for and raise our son.

Dental Student – sorry to upset you. You are correct that I have seen many dental students at the various Boston schools. I have seen many who have scrimped and made it without government help, some who have taken government help, and a couple who have actually worked while going, and a few whose spouses also worked. I really don’t care when or if they had kids, I just don’t want to have to pay for them when these same people will earn many times what I make. I know you disagree and that is fine.

103 Veritas: My apologies for misunderstanding you. Please forgive me. We clearly agree on your main point, and I just misunderstood.

But I do stand by my point that just because one uses BC from PP or the student health center, they are still not avoiding “welfare” altogether. So the best advice is that of Joseph Smith, in which he said that he would prefer to teach people righteous principles and let them govern themselves. We should stop judging our neighbors and worry about ourselves. Granted, there may be some cases like the siblings who mooch off grandma and grandpa, and STILL feel the need to mooch off Uncle Sam. That IS offensive, because I have had friends and family do the EXACT same thing, meanwhile, WIC and student loans are the only government programs my family has ever used, and only in small quantities when there was a real “crunch” that was unforeseen due to this so-called wonderful Republican economy/job market.

105 Nick: I work with WIC these days, and you are right. And actually, our view is that the food we offer is a “carrot” to lure people into receiving the nutrition education, which we stress as being the primary benefit of WIC. Dietitians who help clients plan meals, evaluate diets, consider specific nutrition needs based on health issues, etc. I think WIC is a great program. WIC offers cooking classes, shopping classes, and all that, before anyone gets the WIC vouchers. It is not a welfare program at all, and it caters to a different client base. WIC is for working stiffs, normal people, who just need an extra boost, which helps prevent childhood illnesses and promotes healthy pregnancies, saving many dollars that would be spent later due to malnurished children or mothers.

re: tax rates

I know that I’m closer to paying 50% of my income to the various and sundry taxes I pay. Throw in tithing and I know that I live on less than half of what I make. At least I feel like I get good value for my tithing, not that what I feel about it really matters. Even if I believed the church did not spend tithing funds wisely, I would still pay. Since tithing, in part, subsidizes tuition at the various BYUs, the BYU students are already free loaders on the church system. (I didn’t go to BYU, but paid into the system all the same) So BYU students who sponge off the government to have kids while in school are double free loaders: first from tithing payers and second from taxpayers. Where will it all end?

Re: Dental Student

Calm down. We all have our financial crosses to bear. I live in the Philly area and you and your family are welcome over for dinner, provided you prove you’re not on welfare. j/k. It is very, very expensive in this area.

I, for one, as a tax payer and one who never sponged off the government because I didn’t have a child until we could afford it, would much rather pay for someone’s BC than for a baby. Bottomline is that it is our RESPONSIBILITY to provide for our kids. Period. If and when we need a little help due to circumstances we could not have prepared for, that’s when assistance (church/govt/etc) kicks in.

118 Jolly,

In my own case, it was due to unforeseen job-related circumstances that led me to temporarily use govt. assistance. I agree, that is what these services are for. They are not supposed to be lifestyles, they are not supposed to be enabling people to live high on the hog. And those who shamelessly abuse the system, I think, will have to be judged for that, by a higher power. It is deceptive and wrong to take advantage of others for your own gain, and that is where using these services is wrong.

But I am curious: does your attitude extend to ALL forms of government assistance, including student loans? Most families today cannot send their kids to school without some student loans. Unfortunately, it is just a fact of life for most middle-class families.

119 Jay, A well-reasoned response. In today’s soceity it is practically impossible to not “sponge”, unless you go live off the land in a mountain hideaway somewhere, keeping to yourself, 100% self-sufficient. And, you better make sure to build your cabin outside a police and fire service area. Wouldn’t watch to sponge of society by calling the authorities if someone broke in or if your cabin caught on fire. Far more righteous to turn the other cheek to the burglar, or to let your cabin burn down and rebuild, without any help, of course…wouldn’t want to Sponge!!!

Ben There,

Look at a basic level, grad students having kids before they can FEED them and one spouse staying home instead of working, is wrong at it’s very core. Public assistance is for those who need a helping hand during unplanned circumstances. In that case, then I am all for public assistance. One someone is back on their feet, then they go off of it. It is a SAFETY net, nothing more. To purposely have kids then sit back and collect public assitance is simply foolish. It’s also a pride issue. Parents: don’t have kids until you can provide for their welfare. I can’t think of any more basic a concept than that.

124 Jolly: Your arguments are somewhat incongruent.

Why don’t we take your logic one step further and say that if you can’t afford to school your children, you ought not have them? Why should you expect persons who don’t have children, don’t want children, and will never have children, to pay for YOUR children to receive an education at their expense rather than at the expense of YOU, who chose to pop out said children?

How is it any less wrong to expect the taxpayers to put your children through 13 years of school, and to pay for your college education, but not to expect taxpayers to feed your children or give them emergency medical care? Public education, as I recall, was not a right for many years in this country. But socially we have come to expect it as an entitlement, and that alone makes you feel it is okay to feed from the public trough when it comes to that, but not when it comes to feeding babies.

ARe you kidding me??? Having an educated society and workforce is the benefit of the entire country. So, yes, if one doesn’t have kids, they still benefit IMMENSELY from an educated society. I cannot believe your argument. Can’t you find something better than that??

128 Jolly: Education is great, I believe in it myself, which is why I am pursuing higher education myself, at great personal expense and at great expense to my family. And a solid education is why my parents scrimped and saved so I could go to a private school.

I would be 100% in favor of curtailing most taxes and implenting a pay as you go society. However, that libertarian dream is not ever going to be a reality. And as long as we pay taxes, we ought to partake of the benefits for which we are eligible, and if that means student loans like you chose, then go for it! If it means WIC to help make the ends meet on the grocery budget, so be it. But despite what you think, Jolly, you are no less a sponge than the WIC recipient whose $30-40 in WIC vouchers help close the gap and keep their baby fed. And ultimately, a healthy baby is worth $40 a month to society, just as an educated child is more valuable to society. And the kicker is that it is even cheaper to feed a child than to school him!

Healthy babies are vitally important to society. I’m saying that we shouldn’t be having babies that we can only afford if we ask Uncle Sam for help. Getting an education is not even close to being the same thing. One is preparing for your future and the future of our society, the other is bringing kids into the world before you can adequately provide for their most basic of life’s necessities when you have a choice to wait until you can. If you can’t see a difference, then we can’t even have this discussion because we are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum.

Jolly Julliet,

Offering free education and educational assistance is for the benefit of society as a whole.

And how is having people not starve bad for society? How about a healthy society? Is it not very beneficial for society as a whole for the individual parts to get the best health care they can?

Jolly Julliet,

My point is that you justify government taxation for education because it benefits society, so I ask, what’s wrong with government taxation for health and food, because after all, sanitation and meat are highly important to a productive society.

Jolly Julliet – I think that you are getting to the basic question of the post which is not about government subsidies or taxes. It is – should graduate students who will be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the near future be on welfare/WIC and make the Government pay for their childs birth and feeding? I say no – others say yes. I tend to agree with you that if you cannot afford to give birth and feed your children properly, don’t ask the government (or me) to do it for you IF you are going to be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in the near future. If you are working at Wal-Mart and that is the extent of your career and you are struggling to feed your kids, then I am fine with welfare/WIC.

131 Jay, you are so funny, and spot on. Thanks, bro. Yay fire trucks indeed. Yay telecom networks and satellites, the publicly-supported infrastructure that enabled the internet to exist! Shame on all us sponges sponging on the net. Why, we should have built our own internets when we were ready to pay for the infrastructure!

As for the not-so-Jolly Juliet, I notice that in all her responses she failed to admit that yes, her taking subsidized student loans was sponging, and that this was poor planning on her or her parents part, for sending a young adult to college before they could reasonably afford to send her to college. JJ. why didn’t you save up your money and go to college when you could afford it on your own, instead of taking out taxpayer-supported loans! Your silence is deafening, JJ.

136 Dan, thanks for the voice of reason here. JJ seems to be suggesting as 137 Veritas hints, that maybe having children is a privilege of the wealthy. And since my family makes less than half of what JJ and her husband make–we are comfy, though not wealthy– I guess I should choose which of my several children should never have been born, since we were not making $200,000 a year when we decided to start our family. How irresponsible I was!

I love JJ! I think she’s spot on, although a bit brusque in tone. Amen! I hardly think that JJ going to college & getting student loans is a bad thing. It’s a great thing and as JJ said a great investment for the govt. it hardly constitutes the same thing as having kids right away rather than waiting until you can reasonably provide for them. I don’t think JJ was sponging at all. Now if we want to go to the larger issue of welfare, it seems that Ben and Dan think that food should be free to everyone since a well fed populace is far better than a starving one. Really? Is that what you guys think? I sure hope you’re not serious! Okay so about me. I am 28 years old. My husband is 30. We’ve beeen married for 4 years. He’s getting his mba. I am getting my law degree. No child in site until we are done with school and on our feet. We’re taking out student loans but we wouldn’t dream of having children until we at least have jobs. I have an inkling that Ben and Dan were dare I say spongers of the govt. Admit it guys: you took food stamps and your wives weren’t working and you were off at school and balancing a couple jobs, weren’t you? Doesn’t that make you resent your wife just a little bit for not pulling her own weight and bringing home some cash? Her self esteem couldn’t be so good either when she wasn’t a full contributor to your household right?

Juliette, I’ve seen absolutely nothing in your last few posts that squares well with either Christ’s Sermon on the Mount or Ezra Taft Benson’s talk on pride.

The arrogance in your posts is utterly astounding. I’m not sure if you really are this judgmental, angry, and self-righteous in real life, or if you are simply ratcheting up your own rhetoric artificially because you feel backed into a corner.

But beware that pride is a far, far greater sin than sloth and laziness. You are crossing a very dangerous line here.

Ben: Ha ha!!! I was right. I knew it. JJ hit a raw nerve admit it. Her comments aren’t on my nerves at al! But then again, we’re not accepting WIC either. And I still don’t agree with your statements about JJ. How is she sponging by using student loans? She planned, she studied, she paid, is paying a lot if she is really making the money she claims to. I’m sure the govt was happy for the interest in paid on her behalf and wishes more like her would borrow some cash and then pay back that amount ten times over. That’s why they have the programs they do. But I have to ask you why your wife didn’t work instead of taking WIC. I can’t even imagine as a wife doing that.

OMG! Seth: My hubby says the same exact thing about me. But he says my spunk is what makes me utterly charming. :-) Plus I tell it as I see it. Oh well… I’ll try to change my name to snotty lynnie. Peace out.

lynnie,

Major props to you and JJ for being so righteous. Seriously, you’re an example to us all.

Since you are going to law school, you are probably smart enough to answer my question. Do you know how much your education is costing? Someone as smart and righteous as you is probably aware that the tuition you pay only covers a small percentage of the true cost. My guess is that three years of law school is costing somebody else besides you about $100,000.00. Do you ever intend to pay that back, or are you just going to sponge off your fellow citizens?

It’s OK to feel embarassed. I know I certainly would if I had said some of the things you have.

146 Lynnie: I mentioned, oh, about 50 commentsback, that I had used WIC. Your “keen insight” of which you are so proud, does not amount to a hill of snot. And I am not ashamed, any more than I am ashamed of having taken out student loans, or that I send my children to public school, or that I use public parks to let my children play at. Get real, Lynnie!

But I have to ask you why your wife didn’t work instead of taking WIC. I can’t even imagine as a wife doing that.

Well, congratu-fetchin-lations, Lynnie. I am soooooo proud of you for your stand. Yeah, whatever.

Would YOU go to work and leave a PREMATURE newborn infant in daycare, just to barely break even, or would you stay home, nurse your baby, and accept $40 a month in WIC coupons to help the grocery budget? We had medical bills up the wazoo. Do you know how much it costs to deliver and provide medical care for a premie? Do you have any idea how much newborn childcare costs, let alone the cost of care for a premie, let alone the foolishness of leaving your premature baby in a childcare center to begin with?

Lynnie, obviously your range of imagination is poor, or I am not nearly as righteously imaginative as you are. Some people astound me. Spunk my foot. You are not spunky. You are just good old-fashioned holier than thou judgmental.

Silly Americans. The federal and local governments don’t provide enough benefits to justify 150+ comments worrying about them.

And in some countries, the government doesn’t just subsidize the odd loan or grant, they subsidize higher education so that it ends up being free (or close to it), even medical/dental/grad school.

How do you like them apples? (a little nod to Boston for you)

The questions beg an answer: Why are you all having kids before you can afford to care for them on your own?

PS: I’m going to a private (very prestigious) law school that doesn’t get much money from the govt.

And one more thing… Since everyone should get free food for the kids they shouldn’t be having until they have means to support them, I say we offer free homes to everyone, free food to everyone, and free medical for everyone. That worked so well under communism. I thought this post was…. Should grad students be taking WIC and more to pay for the kids while one spouse isn’t working. The real question here is: Why isn’t your spouse working instead of having kids? Why are you having kids before at least one of you is gainfully employed?

And I would be super defensive too if I were one of those having kids that I needed help from the govt to feed.

PS: I’m going to a private (very prestigious) law school that doesn’t get much money from the govt.

OK – so that makes you the beneficiary of donor’s generous gifts to the university’s endowment fund. You are paying nowhere near the true costs of your education yourself, therefore you’re freeloading. And if your husband is at the same private (very prestigious) institution, that makes you double-dippers.

I don’t know if I really would view these grad students (who use welfare/medicaid benefits) as reckless or stupid. I think those who are using pejorative terms like that are telling us more about themselves than those they are criticizing.

I think these grad students might be described as pragmatic – perhaps in some instances (if we must use a negative word) even selfish.

See, rbc, that’s just the thing.

I see your point, but aren’t we all on the government teat to some degree? My boss started his business with an SBA loan. The paycheck I get from work will be deposited in an account that is insured by the FDIC, and part of it will go to pay my Fannie Mae mortgage. Many of our clients are businesses that contract for the government. I plan on drawing social security checks whether I need them or not. Given all that, isn’t it beyond ridiculous for me to begrudge somebody their participation in WIC?

Well, I think those who do have kids before they can provide for them are doing/saying anything to justify that irresponsible behavior. Of course kids shouldn’t be forced to pay for their parents’ decisions. But that’s not the topic of this thread. The purpose is: Should those in grad school have a stay at home parent having kids instead of working to help support the family and waiting to have kids until at least one parent has a job to cover the basics of that child’s upkeep? In my opinion, absolutely not. Now, of course, if one of the spouses is in grad school and the other one is working, and they are using birth control correctly and it fails and oops we are pregnant, that is something different entirely. And even if that does happen, I strongly believe that once a reasonable time off has occured, that parent should go back to work rather than staying home. I wish I had the luxury of not working at all. And honestly if I paired back my life (no new fun shoes and trips) and decided to maximize all of Uncle Sam’s benefits, then I probably could. But is that right? No, it’s dishonest and lazy. Now if one parent is working and the other is staying home and they have a child who is a premie and medical bills pile up that they’ll never be able to pay off, that is an unforsees circumstance and you need a helping hand and that’s what all these programs are for.

I’m not going to even respond further if taking out loans or getting a free education is sponging. I’ve answered it a thousand times over and it’s not even the purpose of this thread. Suffice it to say one last time: education benefits society as a whole. We as parents must be responsible for the basics for our kids (and I’m not talking Tiffany kids dishes either) and if we can’t do that, we should hold off until we can.

Why wouldn’t you wait to have your child until you were working? Why would your wife stop working until you had a job? Given your circumstances, if anyone wanted to stop working for a year for whatever reason, are they ethical if they do this and max at all govt programs/benefits?

In general, I am fairly sure that LDS grad students are able to provide for their children without getting government assistance. I think some of them just choose that route, for whatever reason. I’m surprised at how much contempt is expressed in this thread for this activity. I think at best it’s a genuine benefit that they should take advantage of and perhaps in the worst-case-scenario it’s a little bit tacky.

Worse things have happened. I can remember seeing video of ODB (Old Dirty Bastard) – a rap star – riding to the welfare office in a limousine. I don’t know if they knew about him having the limo parked outside – but they gave him his food stamps.

OK, I’ll answer the questions about “moral difference in taking money you are rightfully entitled to.” Here’s the difference… If I quit my job because I didn’t want to work for whatever reason (mental health, I’m lazy, I want to have kids and don’t feel like working when they’re young, I’d rather go to the beach, whatever…) and I have zero income, Uncle Sam is going to give me quite a lot of “entitlements” that will include food, basic medical care, money, lower taxes, etc etc etc. And then there are charitable organizations that would help me out to a certain extent, too. So should I do this because, honestly, all living people should be entitled to life’s basic necessities. The difference is… asking for this help when we are UNABLE to work, or we are working as hard as we can but STILL FALL SHORT (which I think is totally moral) and CHOSING NOT TO WORK OR MAKING DIFFERENT DECISIONS so we don’t “need” all that help. In all reality, if one is self reliant, we don’t ask them not to use highways and educational systems and public transportation and fire trucks. But we do ask that they provide the basics for themselves and their children. If one spouse is ABLE TO WORK and CHOOSES NOT TO WORK, then that is the difference. This isn’t a “rocket science” concept.

Seth: I’ve addressed your point about 10 different times but you don’t want to acknowledge the answer. OK, based on your description, I too don’t want to work. Sleeping in late, hanging out at the beach, and training for my marathon sounds a lot better. So I think I’ll quit since there are all kinds of entitlements that are owed to me if I do quit so why not take advantage of them. That is the difference, Seth, and if you want to avail yourself of all types of welfare benefits so you can have lots of kids while the govt/tax payers/church helps you take care of them, then go ahead. But I think it’s totally wrong. And that is the topic of this thread: Is it wrong? And I say YES it absolutely is.

I am still awaiting an answer from Jay (or others like him): Why didn’t you wait to have kids until you had a job? Why wasn’t your spouse working to provide for the family until you were done with school and had a job?

Oops, I guess it was lynnie’s term. The important thing here is that both of their families earn over $200K a year, and thus can well afford to procreate.

Clark – nice comment. My distinction is that the money that someone wants to give me for free does not magically appear, but comes from someone/somewhere. If I don’t need it, then I should not take it but leave it for someone who needs it.

JJ – we didn’t wait because we didn’t want to. We didn’t wait because I didn’t want to be 30 before we had our first kid. We didn’t wait because we had saved up most of what we needed. We didn’t wait because we knew I would have a decent job after graduation that would enable us to repay our loans. We didn’t wait because I wanted to be able to spend some time with our child (which I knew I would not be able to after graduation, where I would be working 80 hour weeks). You may not agree with these reasons, but they were valid to me (i almost inserted a snarky comment about the value of children as compared to a day at the beach, but realized this would not be in the best interests of the discussion). Whatever the reason, we made the choice and prepared for it by living cheap, not having extra payments (cell phone, cable, etc) and saving money from my wife’s previous years of work (where she had to commute 80 miles a day). I also worked throughout grad school.

Essentially, I could have provided for our family without WIC (although the unexpected expense of special formula would have hurt). We chose not to reject a service that was made available to us. Is that irresponsible? I don’t think so, any more than utilizing the public library instead of purchasing my own books is irresponsible. Or having the government pay interest on my student loans so I can go to school without having to pay for it up front.

If you don’t like the policy, or don’t believe it is a good use of tax, work to change it.

I don’t like it, because I think there is a difference between extras (education) and basics (food).

This seems backwards to me. Why should it be more acceptable to receive handouts for “extras” than for “basics”?

The difference is that support for the extras are provided because society agrees that the extras are something worth investing in. The benefits are free to be provided and taken because both parties are free not to.

However, providing food for the starving is NOT something that is negotiable – not providing food for hungry Americans would be unconscionable. The difference between using student loans as an adult and taking food handouts as a capable adult is the difference getting a birthday present from your aunt and suing your aunt.

I’ll add to Katie’s last comment– you’re not even taking the benefits to provide for you but you’re consciously adding to that burden by bringing in more mouths to feed before you’re capable of feeding them.

OK OK – Lets not get too snotty on both sides. Again, please remember the question posed was – “is it right for grad students to take welfare (be it WIC or free medical care or whatever)?” I think we clearly have two sides here that do not agree whatsoever – I lean to JJs side, but nonetheless, lets keep the dialogue civil. It is of no use to make rude comments to one another – I know I am guilty of that too, but I apologize…

Jay: The difference is that I didn’t add to that burden before bringing another mouth to feed into the mix until I could afford to provide her basic life necessities. This has nothing to do with you taking out loans or qualifying for grants or scholarships so that you could become more self sufficient and provide for you and your family’s welfare upon completion. Big. Huge. Difference.

Yeah – I think I have been led astray into treating some of the commenters as real individuals. It has been brought to my attention that there may be another BOH/Miranda thing going on.

I am a big fan of self sufficiency, but believe that there is nothing fundamentally flawed with utilizing government programs. I am not convinced that subsidized student loans, WIC, job training, Public libraries, public schools, the EITC, or mortgage deductions are fundamentally different.

I will refer you to Seth R’s comment at Nine-Moons, which reinforces an important point, that of the duty to be christian.
http://www.nine-moons.com/2007/06/05/546/#comment-15653

Jay,

Then that is certainly a difference in mentality– that is you believe that society owes it to you to support your kids when you no full well bringing them that you can’t support them (at least not at that point). I and many others on this thread believe that you should have the means of supporting your kids before you have them. Christlike or not Christlike is up for Christ to decide. The church teaches us self sufficiency. That flies in the face of self sufficiency, especially when one person in the family has the means to get a job and you can easily choose to delay having kids until you can provide for them. If that means having your first kid at 21 or 30 or 40, then so be it.

I think where JJ and I differ is in this statement: “you believe that society owes it to you to support your kids when you no full well bringing them that you can’t support them”

Able-bodied, college-educated adults CAN feed themselves and their families. Food isn’t free but it costs less now than it ever has. Those with bachelors degrees who take advantage of programs meant for the impoverished are choosing not to.

Katie: We do agree– able bodied college students CAN feed themselves and their families. The fact here is that they CHOOSE not to by not working and/or bringing kids into the world before their income/circumstances catches up and staying home with those kids (a luxury for those who have the means to support a family. I’m sure there are thousands/millions of single moms or dads who would love to stay at home and raise their kids but they MUST work to provide for them).

198 JJ: Blah blah blah, you repeat the same thing over and over, and yet fail to explain why society owes YOU the right to use government-funded student loans, instead of YOU being RESPONSIBLE and SAVING money BEFORE going to college. Surely YOU could CHOOSE to not sponge and instead to work your tush off to SAVE for COLLEGE, instead of expecting society to fund your college education, no?

Hellooooo……once again, the silence is defeaning, JJ. You won’t admit there is no fundamental difference, because you would then be admiting that you are not as self-sufficient as you in your little dreamland imagine yourself to be. And dream land is far more comfortable then reality world, where you are a sponge on society whether you admit it or not.

Juliet and Katie – I have no doubt that you are real, but I have been informed that some of the commenters here are making contradictory factual statements on other posts.

Juliet – were you self sufficient by taking subsidized loans? By going to public schools? Your argument is ludicrous. I hope that you are not as judgmental in real life.

Please listen carefully – I could have supported my child and gone to school WITHOUT subsidized loans and WITHOUT WIC. These programs were made available, I qualified, and took advantage. I was responsible, prepared and low income. Why should I have denied myself of benefits made available to me? My cross is large enough. If you want to deny the charity of others, go right ahead. But don’t take student loans with one hand and deny with the other.

I cannot see any difference between WIC, food stamps, and other aid for graduate students. They enable a father or mother to obtain necessary education. It is a period of sacrifice, and the aid is intended to allow this transition.

Because of our years of saving, the benefit of low expenses (which we deliberately decided on), and government programs we were able to have my wife remain at home. It was a sacrifice, but one that we made because we valued it.

We will also have an additional child because of the subsidies that were provided. That is a lifetime’s worth of SSI, taxes and other payments that will provide part of your retirement katie, and julliet.

I guess we will get the real answer when it comes to retirement, and see how many of us take advantage of the SSI program. After all aren’t you “irresponsible” if you didn’t plan for your retirement without a government “handout”?

Ben There/Jay S: I’m done responding to both of you. Keep taking your welfare benefits and try justifying it. I hope you sleep well at night. I certainly wouldn’t. (PS: Your wives should get jobs if you can’t support them and your family.)

SSI: Is a self funded program where we all supposedly pay in and then get it back out to a certain degree. Forced retirement savings. I’d love not to contribute a dime and invest that money myself but I don’t have that choice.

MAC: Agreed.

PS: Well, I am certainly not posting contradictory statements on other blogs. I am who I am and I believe what I believe and I certainly won’t apologize for it.

And please stop calling me non Christian or judgemental or self righteous or whatever. I’ve heard it all before. So what? (and you’re certainly judging me and being snippy about it and I don’t care about that either– I can take it and still laugh with my co-workers)

It was pointed out to me by John Mansfiel that lynnie is either a liar or someone who doesn’t know whether or not she has kids or a fiction invented by someone who isn’t good at being consistent from one comment to the next.

In this Mormon Mentality post she says the following:

I decided in college not to have too many kids so I would never have to drive a mini van. I have one child and a Volvo. No regrets. And I look pretty cool.

In this thread, comment #142 she says the following:

Okay so about me. I am 28 years old. My husband is 30. We’ve beeen married for 4 years. He’s getting his mba. I am getting my law degree. No child in site until we are done with school and on our feet. We’re taking out student loans but we wouldn’t dream of having children until we at least have jobs.

I think we can safely dismiss lynnie as a troll. I suppose it’s possible that there are two different “lynnie”s. Perhaps a Mormon Mentality admin could confirm. I hope that “Jolly Juliet” is also fake, or is at least not a Mormon, because if she is, her teachers and parents failed her miserably by teaching her that the Gospel is all about a narrow notion of self reliance and not teaching her about the whole not being self-righteous, judmental, and unkind thing.

“(I would consider graduate school a lifestyle choice).”

MAC!!!

we agree on something. wooo hooo!!

Where’s DKL?

202 Jay,

I don’t know about you, but I am done with the likes of Katie and JJ. There simply is no arguing with such plain old, old-fashioned hypocrisy and prideful, self-righteous judgmentalism. If these people are like this in real life and are real members of real LDS wards and branches, God help the church.

Let us all be charitable toward one another, in Christ-like love, and not judge another. All I have seen fron JJ, Katie, and a few others is judgmental behavior of the most un-Christian sort, all the while living off Uncle Sam when it pleases them for their own selfish purposes. Bah!

What I do know is that if JJ ends up pregnant accidentally, or she has a premature baby someday, or if she cannot continue to rake in $145k a year, that I will support her if she needs to “sponge” more off of Uncle Sam than she already does. Things happen, circumstances change, and that $145k job could be gone tomorrow. I hope she is humble enough to realize this and will stop judging others from atop her taxpayer-funded ivory tower she likes to look down from.

Those who have extolled their own choice to defer children for several years until they were very well off can’t really say they did so mainly to avoid using WIC. There are so many other options that would have allowed them to welcome children into their families without using WIC and without deferring that responsibility. (Yes, responsibility.) But having children was a low priority for them, secondary to their desire for professional and social achievement. Now they tell us their choices were made in order to provide properly for their children. I don’t buy it. A married couple who truly put off children year after year after year just because they can’t figure how to manage it has a competence no better than one that has a child and finds their budget isn’t working out.

I more or less agree that graduate students should stay off welfare. As Pres. Benson taught, they are capable people who can take a year or semester off to earn something if needed and will be better people for doing so. But that applies to not deferring children as much as it does to staying off welfare.

There is no need to call anyone names. My opinion was requested.

While many arguments have been made, no one has addressed my contention that a very, very basic property of being a responsible adult is feeding yourself. Failing to do so – and especially choosing to fail to do so – is failing at one of the basics of adulthood.

Tom,

I am also wondering if Jolly Julliet is real.

She comes across as hugely opinionated about things that shouldn’t really matter all that much. The level of contempt expressed seems exaggerated – perhaps in a calculated way that would mark a troll.

Katie _ I believe I understand your point, but perhaps we are talking past each other.

There are two points as I see it
1) Should government assistance be made available to students who have or start families?
2) If such assistance is available, is it immoral to benefit from it? Is it irresponsible.

As to Question 1, I don’t have as firm an opinion on. I can see an argument being made to limit such availability.

as to question 2, I don’t believe it is immmoral or irresponsible to use such programs, unless you engage in immoral, fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise wrong acts to benefit (such as transferring earnings to a parent to qualify, or “fudging” assets or other information).

If JJ isn’t just a troll, I do suspect she is deliberately caricature-ing her own position whether because of defensiveness at being attacked or just for her own amusement. Whatever.

Katie,

What makes feeding yourself so much different than educating yourself? And if they are different from each other, why does that make a difference for the purposes of accepting government help?

Devyn, the point isn’t whether you are right or wrong for waiting till your thirties for children. The argument was in DEFENSE of having the children earlier than you did.

All – I would agree that everyone has been opinionated and said unkind things during this thread so calling out JJ seems a bit unfair on that. I cannot speak to the real/fake thing, and personally, I don’t really care if someone is real or fake as long as it causes me to think and is done so in a rational fashion…

Jolly Julliet, it’s natural that complete anonymity coupled with so many strongly stated opinions would attract suspicion. You may or may not be real. I can’t tell.

I suspect that you know exactly what I mean when I use the word troll.

Wow…with the rapidity of multiplying posts on this thread, I think you’ve all finally found something that gets you even MORE upset than homosexuality! LOL!!

You know, I just may have qualified for that post at some point during law school….

I have to contact an admin every time I want a post to show up so this will be long.

Devyn,
Is it your position that it is never OK to take government assistance when one could avoid it?

Or is it just wrong to take government assistance as a way to facilitate bearing children earlier than you would choose to otherwise?

I have to disagree with your defense of JJ. She came in to this thread denigrating people for their choices and has continued to do so. This is something that you yourself have expressed frustration with (you don’t like it when people denigrate you for choosing to put off having children). You and others laid out positions that were critical of some people’s choices, which is fine, but JJ came in with charges of irresponsibility, sponging, and recklessness. It is not reasonable to call someone who simply takes advantage of a resource offered by the community irresponsible. Nor is it reasonable to call someone reckless for taking that offered resource into account when making their family planning decisions. It’s fine to disagree that it’s OK to take the offered assistance. I don’t think you or anyone else here has offered a sound rationale for the position that it’s OK to accept government subsidized student loans if you don’t absolutely need them (nobody does) but it’s not OK to accept government subsidy for bearing children if you don’t absolutely need it, but you and others have at least been reasonable and have not been tearing others down.

All,
The great offense for which people are being called reckless and irresponsible is simply taking advantage of a resource that is offered them. They may not absolutely need it. They might be able to avoid accepting the offered resource by making sacrifices. But that they accept the offer should not be a surprise, nor should it inspire the level of animosity expressed here. Almost everyone here has accepted a resource offered by the community that they didn’t absolutely need and that they could have avoided accepting by making sacrifices. Government subsidized student loans are just that. Nobody who has taken a government subsidized student loan has the moral authority to condemn any person who accepts any resource offered them by the community. The community decides through the democratic process what it values and what resources it offers to people under what circumstances. You may wish that the community did not offer any resources to graduate students with families, but it does. If you don’t like it, lobby your elected representatives to change it. But don’t condemn people for accepting the resources offered to them.

I have a sibling in this situation. Exact in fact. Her husband is in med school, they had 2 children before he started. My sister had finished her undergrad and worked full-time for 2-3 years before her husband started med school. They ‘afforded’ the children then.

Now, med school. They have two more kids (one still in utero). Neither of them ‘works’ (I consider med school a whole lot of work). If she were to work outside the home, she would have to pull in bank to afford the day care she would be using. They use WIC and food stamps.

That does not bother me. They are frugal people and need the assistance. Why doesn’t it bother me?? Because they are doing something purposeful with their lives at the moment. Raising kids and getting an advanced degree. They are not using the govn provided programs because they are lazy and don’t want to work. They are working, just not making money doing it.

They money they will return in taxes will far exceed the money they are taking now. I don’t see it as a problem. They are trying to better their lives at the moment and need some assistance as they try and do that. That is the whole reason for these programs and I don’t feel they are abusing it. There are of course exceptions to every case, but I feel the majority of LDS grad students see it as a useful tool in advancing themselves.

If you have a problem with it, then perhaps you should put yourself in their position. They had children ‘when they could afford them’. Then things changed. Should they have waited another 4 years before more children? They would still be on WIC and food stamps either way. Does that seem far to the coming children to have such a gap between them?

arj,

I already addressed the student loan idea in post #13. I think it’s a horrible idea.

Seth R.,

I’m not even talking about student loans. I’m talking about traditional loans. Loans might be a horrible option, but if you qualify for them and have the type of prospects that someone in medical school does then I can certainly see an argument for them over welfare, which some view as a horrible option as well.

Personally I’m ambivalent. If you qualify for government assistance then I don’t care if you take it or don’t. I’ve taken subsidized loans, so I’m in no position to judge.

I agree that student loans have their downsides but I pay mine happily. I am in the relatively good situation I’m in today because of them.

People keep referring to WIC as a resource, as though it was the same thing as a public school or a library. WIC is specifically for people who are disadvantaged and who cannot afford to feed their children.

If you cannot afford to feed your children, definitely, use WIC to ensure that they get nutritious food to eat. That is the point of the program. But if you know in advance that you aren’t going to be able to afford to care for your children, that you aren’t going to be able to provide for even their most basic, fundamental needs – is it responsible to have them anyway, just because you feel like it?

The point of giving people government subsidized loans is to encourage people to get through school.

The point of a public school is to provide education for all cihldren.

The point of WIC is not to provide free food to all children in the nation. It is for disadvantaged, poor children. I don’t think it was meant to encourage people to have children they know in advance they cannot afford to feed, especially when they are perfectly ABLE to work, it just isn’t particularly convenient to work and would require more personal or financial sacrifice in order to work. I don’t think when the program was founded, they thought, well, this will make it much cheaper for people to get through medical school.

It is to help to feed children whose parents cannot provide for them. And if you know you are not in a position to provide for your children, perhaps you should wait until you can.

Sue,
The program you describe is the one you wish existed. You would like for it to only be for people who find themselves in hard times due to unforseen circumstances. But it’s not. The program that exists is for the people who legitimately qualify for it.

Everybody wants to say who certain programs are for and why they exist. But what everyone is describing is who they want them to be for and why they think they should exist.

To the person who qualifies, WIC is a resource offered them by the community. Why does the community offer it? Because through the democratic process the community determined that it was worth it to offer the resource to people who fit a certain set of criteria. That is the same reason that the community offers to subsidize the education of citizens who fit a certain set of criteria.

You are PLANNING to have children you cannot afford to take care of.

But using the resources that the community makes available to you, then you can afford to take care of them.

Condemnation of people who take these resources into account when making family planning decisions rests on the premise that it is bad to use community resources when it can be avoided. But nobody here really believes that it is bad to use community resources when it can be avoided. If we believed that then we would be condemning people who use community resources to facilitate their education when they could easily avoid using those resources by planning better or by not getting a college degree. People are trying to morally indict recipients of WIC who could do without while giving a pass to recipients of subsidized loans who could do without. But nobody has offered a sound rationale for indicting one while giving a pass to the other. They have committed the same offense: they have both used community resources that they could have avoided using if they had made sacrifices or planned better. Further, they have both done so premeditatedly. Just like the person who decides to have a child knowing that doing so will require that they tap into community resources available to them, the person who decides to go to school knowing that doing so will require that they tap into community resources available to them has PLANNED to put themselves in a tough spot that they could have otherwise avoided.

Perhaps someone can tell me why this argument is flawed:

It is our own responsibility to pay for our education. Government subsidized loans are designed for people who start their education with the intent to pay for it themselves, but due to unforseen circumstances find themselves unable to pay for it. It is irresponsible and immoral to decide to start school knowing that you will have to use taxpayers money to pay for it. It is easy to avoid taking government money for your education: just put it off until you can afford it.

And this one is not:

It is our own responsibility to pay for our children. WIC is designed for people who have children with the intent to pay for them themselves, but due to unforseen circumstances find themselves unable to feed their children. It is irresponsible and immoral to decide to have children knowing that you will have to use taxpayers money to pay for them. It is easy to avoid taking government money to feed your children: just put kids off until you can afford them.

For crying out loud, people. WIC isn’t just about feeding the poor. It’s also very much about subsidizing the dairy farmers, cereal manufacturers, juice manufacturers, etc., who produce the products WIC provides access to. Simply put, there would be dairy farmers out of business, if not for WIC. Are the dairy farmers thus taking evil advantage of a handout? After all, why should the government be paying for their goods, if they didn’t have the ability to stay in business on their own?

So many of you want to condemn welfare programs, or at least those who avail themselves of them. Do you ever stop to think of the wider economic importance of these programs? You’re not just putting food on a family’s table. You’re providing jobs for producers, transporters, retailers, etc. Furthermore, you’re decreasing the need for jails and prisons. Look at the bigger picture.

Tom, you are using the government’s standard for your moral argument. I don’t agree that the what is honorable or right flows FROM the government rather than existing independent of it.

While we may disagree on what that standard should be, the government’s standard only proves that doing so is not fraud. I don’t think it is fraud. I do think it is a little dishonorable and that not even taking the responsibility to feed yourself is failing at one of the basic tenets of being an adult.

If you are deliberately putting your children at risk of hunger by refusing to work, and impoverishing yourself in the process so that you qualify, and you then qualify, then I guess good for you???

If there wasn’t so much abuse of the system by people who could work if they wanted to, we would be able to provide more and better resources to the truly poor. At least there wouldn’t be so much anti-welfare sentiment in the country. People are cynical about welfare and social services precisely because they know there are plenty of fully capable adults living off of the system because, for whatever reason, it is more convenient for them to take money from the government to provide for their family than to work to provide for them.

I think it all boils down to intent – If someone has the INTENT to provide for their children, and falls on hard times, or needs to use WIC in a crunch, or has a mental or physical or emotional problem that makes WIC necessary, that’s an understandable use of WIC. But if they never had an INTENT to provide for their children in the first place, then in my opinion, they are irresponsible for having them. That’s just my opinion.

Tom: I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Taking WIC to feed your kids when one spouse can go to work is not the same thing at all as taking out student loans to pay for your own education that will prepare you for a lifetime of self sufficiency and pay the govt back in droves with a higher income. The two are not equal.

You are repeating the same arguments again over and over and over again and skirting the issue. If you’re below a certain income level, don’t add to the burden by having more kids. Send your spouse to work instead of staying home having those kids until you can feed the family. If you have a huge event in your life that changes circumstances/needs, then get that public assistance temporarily until you’re back on your feet. Having children you plan on having doesn’t fall in that category. And it’s attitudes exactly as these that give those on welfare-type programs a very bad reputation and cause society as majority to have disdain for them.

JJ,
I’m trying to get at an understanding of the moral principles involved here. We’ve heard enough of your lectures. I have asked a question that gets to the heart of the matter: is it wrong to take community resources offered you that you could avoid taking by planning better or making sacrifices? If so, why? Under what circumstances would it be OK to take community resources offered you?

We need to talk about this in general terms because people can’t seem to take a step back and talk calmly about the real moral issues here.

Tom,

Thanks for telling me that you’re tired of my lectures. I’ll keep typing though until I get tired of it. You can always stop responding to me if you want. I, too, am tired of the same arguments. You feel it’s OK to have kids without being able to provide their basics on their own and too add to that, to have a stay at home spouse taking care of the child instead of working. I feel that you need to wait to have children until you can provide for their basic life necessities and if that means not having them or having a working spouse, those are decisions you’ll need to weigh.

JJ,
What I want is to understand and hopefully be understood. I don’t understand how your position is coherent. What is the underlying moral principle on which you base your judgment that taking offered community resources when it could be avoided is wrong sometimes and not wrong other times?

I never said that I feel it’s OK for one to have kids without being able to provide for them without any outside help. I said I’m agnostic on that question. I do know that it is not reckless to use offered outside help or to plan on using offered outside help. It might be morally wrong, though. I don’t know.

Maybe you can answer this for me in general terms: when is it OK to accept offered outside help when it could be avoided?

RBC: So elequontly expressed. I’ll let that argument stand and refer back to it.

rbc,

#269,

I do know that there is no such thing as “free of charge,” here in the United States. Either people pay it through their own means, or the people are taxed to pay for something one would otherwise not be able to pay. I’m ribbing Jolly Julliet, because she claims that it is perfectly okay for our society to fully fund education through taxation, because, as she stated much earlier, it benefits society. Based on that logic, of what exactly “benefits society,” clearly a healthy population benefits society. In fact, the healthier we are, the less we have to pay, so it seems a policy like “universal health care” should be something someone like Jolly Julliet should espouse. But in her thinking, only education gets the free pass. So my comment was more a jibe.

I highly doubt Jolly Julliet would have been able to get through any schooling if it were not for public education funds. I know my poor immigrant parents could certainly not have afforded me the education I received through the generous taxes from others.

Where do you draw the line with “community services” otherwise known as welfare? If a woman has child after child after child b/c the “community” will put a roof over head, pay utlities and provide food why should she ever stop? Take a stroll down to your local housing project and you will see the logical extension of your argument. Of course, if the parents in these projects are enrolled in grad school, it makes it OK?

So you don’t like the idea of offering community resources to individuals? You think that it harms society? That’s fine. Not very compassionate, but that’s OK. Vote for right wingers.

The idea the community came together and said it will provide welfare benefits for all, regardless of circumstances is laughable on its face.

I never said that. But it is a fact that the community, through the democratic process, has decided that it will provide WIC for people under a certain income level.

Show me a single community in the US, especially in GOP dominated UTAH, that would vote to provide welfare benefits to married grad students in various professional schools

The elected representatives of the citizens of the US have instituted programs that provide benefits to people with certain circumstances. There are education subsidies for people under a certain income level. There is cheese and milk for people under a certain income level. There are some grad students whose circumstances make them eligible for some of those programs. So, yes, the community has effectively offered its resources to some graduate students.

In fact, abuse of the welfare system is a crime.

As it should be. And I believe it is morally wrong to abuse the welfare system.

No matter how you define your community, there is no way a majority would agree that its welfare benefits are in place for pre-professional grad students who insist it is their god-given right to bring a child/children into the world they cannot support.

The welfare benefits are in place for people who legitimately qualify. If you would like for the community’s resources to only be offered to people who are not seeking graduate degrees, then talk to your local representative.

It sounds like you’re OK with offering community resources to people as long as there are limits and conditions that encourage responsible behavior.

But you don’t want community resources to be offered to people who will use them to have children sooner than they otherwise would or to have more children than they otherwise would.

These adress questions of how society should distribute its resources, but they don’t get to the question of when it is OK to use community resources that are offered you.

RBC – I think you’re right about the alter ego thing – and it is kind of amusing.

I have to ask you guys… why don’t you think I’m really me? I don’t get it… I really really don’t.

Jolly Julliet, it’s clear you have imagination. Just think about it. You’ll probably figure it out.

OK, I get it. My thoughts/opinions are so far out there. Right. OK. I’ll still keep posting though, so sorry, you can’t get rid of me (until I want to go away, of course).

What an interesting conversation! I am glad that people are discussing this subject, although I wish it could be done more in principle without the personal attacks and judgements.

Here are some things that I learned a few years ago from a talk by David B. Haight (I’m assuming it is still just as true today):

It is significant to note that about this same time, when the Lord established his way of caring for those in need, the “world,” or government, introduced its form of dole assistance—a counterfeit alternative to the Lord’s way. In most instances, the world’s way dismissed the principle of individual work and family responsibility and adopted the philosophy that “the government will take care of our needs” or “the government owes us a living.” Individual and family initiative was supplanted by government handouts. The true spirit of love for our neighbor and concern for others as taught by the Savior had been generally ignored.

Presidents of stakes, you must not be misled into believing that the Church can discharge its duties to the poor and the needy by shifting that responsibility to the government.

Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government. We accept the basic principle that “though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”

Latter-day Saints should not receive unearned welfare assistance from local or national agencies. This includes food stamps. Priesthood and Relief Society leaders should urge members to accept the Church welfare program and earn through the program that which they need, even though they may receive less food and money. By doing so, members will be spiritually strengthened, and they will maintain their dignity and self-respect.

I would guess that many younger members of the church have not heard or been taught this counsel (at least, that was the case with me). We should probably spend our efforts spreading the message rather than criticizing or judging each other so much.

JJ

Its not your beliefs that make you judgmental, its your condemnation of others as lazy, irresponsible, and immoral.

Remind me which law firm you work for, so I can avoid it.

JJ,

You keep saying that these people “can’t afford” the children.

So I repeat – the CAN afford the children. With government assistance, the children are very affordable.

These people CAN feed their children with the help of WIC.

Therefore they can afford the children.

So stop insisting its a matter of what we can and can’t “afford.”

JJ

I apologize for the last comment – Personal attacks are not warranted, and my snarkiness should be restrained more.

It should be noted that Carissa’s quotes don’t distinguish between the government “dole” in the form of cheese or in the form of interest payments for loans.

I’m curious what those of you who feel WIC is a “community resource” (that you should use whenever it is not convenient for you to work) think of the quote from President Benson?

Tom – does it really matter whether it’s cheese or loans? The point the GA’s were making in Carissa’s quotes is that we should be self-reliant and not depend on the government to fulfill our basic needs. The GA’s used to be fairly clear on this point. Now, however, they’re sending mixed messages. Or maybe they don’t realize just how expensive it is to raise a family in the 21st century.

re: 279

I’m confident there are those who have access to publicly available information about welfare cases at BYU, or whatever county BYU is located in, and can crunch them to give us a picture of how many LDS students are using welfare, even with the ridiculously low tuition at BYU. Hopefully there aren’t too many, but if there are, then the Church is clearly condoning this type of family planning.

re: 281

As entertaining and provocative as JJ is, she is a far cry from those obvious poseurs. Assuming again that JJ is, in fact, a she. The dust she’s stirred up here is worth the price of admission alone.

re: 284

What’s your point? People on welfare typically can’t afford attorneys who make $145,000.00 per year, so what’s it to you? Again, that assumes JJ is real and further assumes she really makes $145 large and, taking it one step further, that JJ is also an attorney. And, also for JJ to be consistent, we have to assume that while in law school, JJ did not use welfare to get by. JJ’s zealous representation, assuming all of the assumptions are correct, is what you want on your side.

Jolly J. – the women should take equal responsibility for their decision to bring children into this world. As the FamProc says, women and men are equal partners in a marriage – each with the duty to provide and to nurture their children. If one partner, say the husband, is falling short in his duty to provide, then the wife needs to take on more responsibility herself to fulfil the duty to provide for their family.

I forgot to add that the mother should not work outside the home to my list of contradictory advice.

RE#297 –

LDS women are told to stay home with their children. They wouldn’t be able to do this without governmental assistance.

I also fail to see how condemning someone for taking out subsidized student loans somehow justifies your depending on WIC and subsidized health care to support your family.

Sue: I’m curious what those of you who feel WIC is a “community resource” (that you should use whenever it is not convenient for you to work) think of the quote from President Benson?

Do you have an argument as to why we should not regard WIC as a community resource? It is funded by the community’s money. It was instituted by elected community leaders.

As I am agnostic on the question of whether it is OK to take community resources offered you that you could do without, I would have to say that I disagree with President Benson that it’s always wrong to do so. He might be right. I don’t know. He presents no argument, so there’s no way to judge the reasoning behind his judgment.

Sue, I don’t know if you’ve weighed in on the issue of subsidized student loans, but is your attitude towards people who could do without that community resource and take it anyways the same as people who could do without WIC and take it anyways? If not, what is your rationale for differentiating between the two types of freeloaders?

I also fail to see how condemning someone for taking out subsidized student loans somehow justifies your depending on WIC and subsidized health care to support your family.

I have condemned no one. Nor have I tried to justify anything. I don’t know if it’s wrong to take community resources that one could do without. I’m trying to understand the reasoning undergirding the condemnations offered here. There has not been a coherent argument made as for why it’s OK to take community resources offered you sometimes and not OK other times.

I have been made aware of one ward in Europe that has two people in the ward with the calling of helping people understand what government assistance they qualify for and helping them get that assistance.

“There has not been a coherent argument made as for why it’s OK to take community resources offered you sometimes and not OK other times.”

A coherent argument along these lines _has_ been made by a few commenters. You may disagree with their position and their arguments in support of it, but it’s certainly coherent.

309 Tom,

Indeed, JJ and her cohorts in law-school-sponging have completely dodged the question, numerous times. I don’t even bother asking it anymore, for I know they don’t have within them the ability to admit that they are themselves sponges and welfare queens, in their words, and with their level of pride, that would just do them in to have to bring themselves to admit that.

Carissa,
I’m not sure that Elder Haight’s remarks can be called “Policy.” I’m not sure there has been a policy change because I’m not sure there was ever really a policy in place. Either way, I wouldn’t expect the general membership to be notified of a change in instructions to bishops distributing Church welfare.

Ben there – her cohorts? I’m not sure who you are referring to when you refer to welfare queens, but my husband and I worked our way through school and waited to have children until after we graduated. We did not qualify for subsidized student loans, because we were, hmmmm, working.

295 – Hahahahahahahah. Yep, you got my number on that one. Barefoot and pregnant/ Except for the fact that my wife worked full time for the first 6 years of our marriage, and part time since then, and is planning on going back to law school in a year or two.

315. Legislative intent? That is your argument? Seriously. I should defer to the intent of a senator I didn’t elect in determining whether or not to take advantage of a program? I’m not the supreme court, determining the actual meaning, but a simple person.

And i doubt that WIC utilization is a zero sum game. At least not in the short run. I think we should take advantage of the services offered to us. If we think they are helpful, we should push for their support, if not, push for their abolition.

314 Sue: If you did not take Stafford Loans, then you are not one of the cohorts of whom I speak. But Not-so-Jolly Juliett has admitted to sponging by taking Stafford Loans, which are a form of welfare for people who want to go to school. Several others here have, as well. If you did not take out Stafford Loans, well then, I guess my message wasn’t directed toward you, was it!? But where did I say it was?

So I just asked my best friend Jenna what she thought about this topic. She and her husband are Mormon, she’s a teacher, they have three kids, and while she doesn’t stay home, she works as minimal hours as possible. I quote:

“This makes my blood boil. Remember Anna’s sister Christy? She and her husband who was in law school decided to have as many kids as they could while he was a student so the government would pay their medical care and they also got food stamps. I support welfare benefits a lot more than you do [she's referring to me, Juliet] but this makes me crazy. I absolutely can’t stand people like that. Three kids in three years. I have no idea why the church gives them temple recommends. It’s so dishonest.”

ECS – the question of whether or not subsidized student loans are similar to nutrition and health care programs illustrates the different perspectives held here.

Ben There, others and I contend that both programs (student loans and nutrition) are government subsidies designed to benefit society by lifting an individual’s condition. Whether or not government should do so is a secondary questions.

JJ, Lynnie, and others believe there is a substantial and fundamental difference between monies paid for education and monies paid for food.

JJ,
Your friend Jenna isn’t thinking clearly. It is not dishonest to take a resource that is offered you.

Think of it like this: you have an Uncle Fred who has a standing offer to help you with $100 per month to help with rent anytime you need it until you get financially stable. You are currently working part time and would like to quit and have a baby. You do all the calculations and you figure that without help you will be $100 per month short. But you remember Uncle Fred’s offer. You decide to take him up on it and quit and have a baby. Is that dishonest?

ECS,

“Why not objectively discuss whether it’s justifiable for middle class Mormons in professional school – who will make a very good living after graduation – to take advantage of nutrition and health care programs designed for people in chronic poverty?”

Probably because it was never intended for just those in “chronic poverty.”

And if you think the only poverty out there that government should be assisting is “chronic,” our disagreement reaches a whole new level.

The vast majority of America’s poor are the TEMPORARILY poor. The chronic poor only make up a small, but often highly visible, percentage.

Tell me why you think that our mandate to assist the poor doesn’t apply simply because the poverty is temporary?

Seth: I know you’ve asked this specifically of ECS but I’ll put in my two cents: The answer is because it is purposely self-inflicted. You didn’t have to find yourself temporarily impoverished. You or your spouse could be working. You could’ve delayed the kids. It’s because you willfully and intentionally put yourself in that position. That’s the difference.

Tom: Not if that Uncle is Uncle Sam. If it’s a friend or family member, they can give you whatever they want.

Katie,

What’s having an excuse got to do with anything?

I think WIC should be available to these people regardless of whether the poverty was self-inflicted.

Here’s the difference in mindset. When I first got my bachelors, I was a legislative aid on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC making a whopping $19,000/year. I had debt (including credit cards, car, student loans) totaling $19,000. My one bedroom apartment that I shared with my roommate was $895/month. I had to pay $9/day in parking to get to work. I probably could’ve qualified for some type of public assistance and it never crossed my mind. There was one day that I was in line at the grocery store and a young seemingly able bodied mother with her baby was buying groceries in front of me and paid for them with food stamps. I, on the otherhand, had to charge my groceries because I had zero money. The grocery clerk, once the mother passed, rolled his eyes and said to me, “That lady ought to get a job. I can’t stand watching the abuse of the system.” I agreed. So what did I do over the next year? I got a second job as a waitress to help myself out. I did not solve my predicament by getting married, quitting work, having a baby and getting help from Uncle Sam. Instad,I worked harder, tried more at work to outshine my colleagues so I could get promoted, and I tried to live as frugally as I could. Several years later I got married. In that time I got more edcuation and better paying jobs. In three years, I tripled my salary, then more raises and bonuses. Then we had the kids. It’s the mindset of “I’ll have all the kids I want to because I want to and since I cannot afford them on my own I’ll let the public take over until later” that is so wrong at its very core.

Jolly Julliett – look what all that hard work got you. Instead of seeing someone who is happy, we see that you are extremely bitter towards other people who didn’t make your same choices.

That is, for just the moment, assuming you are real.

Boyd K. Packer has been overruled by recent Church policy.

Boyd K. Packer has been overruled by recent Church policy.

And that is… please give me something tangible.

I am prideful to an extent, as we all are. I have a very personal relationship with God and I know he roles his eyes at me, gets exasperated at me, and laughs at me, and loves me. It’s sort of like I feel about my kids. They make me crazy, they can be demanding, they are spunky, incredibly funny, opinionated, headstrong… And I love it and I love them for those personalities. In the real world, I am hopeful and confident that it will get them far in life, whether it be in education, sports, hobbies, interests, and relationships in general. And I fully expect them to be self reliant with a good head on their shoulders and to, for the most part, make wise life choices. They may not, but that is, of course, my hope and how I raise them. (Yes, I’m very proud of my kids, too, I’m sure you can tell. I’m sure we all are. And I can’t even apologize for that.)

320 JJ: So your best friend Jenna is as judgmental as you. What is your point? That you pick friends who are also self-righteous so you can feel better about yourselves?

People who take government benefits shouldn’t get Temple Recommends? Are you prepared to go give yours to the bishop since you use government-paid student loans?

328 JJ: Your excuses here apply equally to your own reasons that you justify taking government-funded student loans. You could have delayed schooling till you could have afforded it. You could have worked harder to make more money to afford it. But you chose not to. And you ignoring the issue a dozen times or more doesn’t make it go away, JJ.

338 Carissa:

Boyd K. Packer has been overruled by recent Church policy.

And that is… please give me something tangible

I already did. The member who asked me (as a bishop’s counselor) for assistance, and when I took it to the bishop, and we consulted with the SP, we were instructed to make sure she had all the government assistance she qualified for before we helped her out with funds.

That’s as tangible as I can get, because obviously it would constitute serious violations of people’s privacy to get more specific.

343 Seth:

Thank you for providing the exact quote for me, as I did not have this handy. I think that says it all, and the CHI is the source for church policy. Clearly my bishop and SP knew what they were doing.

As an example, if someone were to go to the bishop and ask for help paying their heating bills, I suppose the bishop ought to first refer them to their state’s heating grant program and see if they are eligible, before using church funds to help them with their heat.

Or, if a person says they don’t have enough grocery money, then the bishop ought to direct them to see if they qualify for food stamps, because to use church funds would only be to duplicate assistance that is available from the government.

This is how I read this policy, and it is clearly how it is being interpreted.

“That’s as tangible as I can get”

I’m sure other stakes have had different experiences. I guess, instead of saying tangible, I should have said I was looking for a statement with more authority on the subject. If you’re going to override the words of a general authority, you can’t do it by the words of a stake pres.

“Bishops should be careful not to duplicate welfare assistance.”

… Or to give out church welfare when the person has not done all they can themselves, first. That is all I was saying with the TV and car example. That is what it sounds like the policy is about. It doesn’t necessarily condone the acceptance of gov. welfare or say that option should be used first. It is aimed at avoiding giving the person extra benefits that are unneeded.

It is interesting how much baggage people bring (myself included). I have a huge bias against fraud, I saw it a few times

1) A grad school classmate, who lived in student housing, went back east to work for the summer. While there he made 2500-3000 a week (i don’t recall the exact number) and banked about 1/2 his salary (20-25k). He then gave his saved salary to his parents to “repay” money given to pay tuition, under the agreement that they would “gift” him the money to pay for a house upon graduation. He did this so he would qualify for government aid.

2) Acquaintances would liquidate savings into assets (ie cars) in order to qualify for pell grants.

3) Students claim “rent” expense while living in housing owned by family.

Both of these situations are such that there is a measure of dishonesty. This dishonesty burns me more than anything. Perhaps this is what tinges the perspective katie et al has.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with anyone obtaining services or goods to which they are qualified for. Especially if they are doing so in an attempt to improve their situation.

352 Carissa,

Thank you. Now I see what you are saying. And it is a logical interpretation of the policy, just as is my SP’s interpretation.

Good grief, maybe the CHI is just like the scriptures…you can make it say anything you want it to say! ;)

**yawn**.

Hashed, rehashed, and the ultimate answer always comes down to doing what you think is best while seeking the inspiration of the Spirit.

JJ
I must know something. In your personal relationships (ward/neghbors, etc.) do you automatically assume that all of the families who are on WIC or other are doing so just because they can?
With judgements so very harsh as you are passing I want to know if you snub people on that basis automatically or nose into their affairs trying to find out the why of their situation and then snub them if their reasons for accepting assistance don’t suit you.
Do you feel you could ever be a friend with a woman who say had always planned on using government assistance to support her having a family?
Do you feel you could ever be a friend with a woman who say started a family without realizing just how much it would cost yet still wasn’t working because all of her hard earned money would go to pay for day care?

I can see by your posts above that trying to sway your opinion would be futile.
I must say to you though that a truly educated individual would understand that their opinion of a matter is not the end of it. They are open to compromise and to learning, including learning that they can be wrong.
I think you are wrong in your judgements, but of course that is only my opinion and so far your arguments have been neither persuasive nor rational enough to convince me of otherwise.
A word about the following comment:
And please stop calling me non Christian or judgemental or self righteous or whatever. I’ve heard it all before. So what?

Don’t you think that perhaps it means something if you’ve heard it all before?

So what?
It’s a big deal if you’re going to walk around calling yourself LDS. Have you really read the comments you’ve made. Can you really say that they are Christlike? Don’t you want to perhaps be more Christlike? Isn’t that another thing we are commanded to do in addition to be self-reliant.
Your flippant attitude on that matter is really rather disgusting. I do hope you are a troll.

Carissa,
You are a model of reasonable, measured discussion. Thanks for your contribution.

I’ve still got a full head of steam, Ben There. I would still be interested in hearing some general principles on which people who condemn recipients of only certain kinds of government assistance base their condemnation. Something simple like: “It is OK to take available community resources that you could do without when . . .” and “It is not OK to take available community resources that you could do without when . . .”

It’s already clear that several people here think it is very wrong for one to take cheese when one could do without, but I don’t know why they don’t think it’s wrong for one to take community resources one could do without when it comes in other forms.

ECS, the question of subsidized education loans matters because it is also a resource that people often use when they could do without. If you think that taking government money for your education when you could do without is OK, but taking government money for feeding your children when you could do without is wrong, then you have to tell me the moral difference between the two actions.

364 Tom, I’m with you. I’ve been looooonging for answers to those very questions for about the last 300 comments. But alas, no one is willing to make the effort to explain their contradictory, and apparently self-serving philosophy when it comes to this. So, I won’t hold my breath. I’ve lost track of how many times this exact question has been posed by me, you, and several others. It is obvious that there probably will no answers forthcoming. Oh well; I really would like to hear the answers.

Dang– I haven’t checked this site for a couple days and look at all the juicy stuff I’ve missed.

Ben There: You are so incredibly mean! While I think JJ has been a bit over the top, too, if you really were a member of the bishopric, I’m relieved (or hopefully, since I don’t know who you are) that I wasn’t in your ward. Ouch!

And everyone else who asks the difference between student loans and WIC– everyone has stated their opinions on both sides and everyone on the other side has answered them. Neither side accepts the other’s position. And there’s really nothing left to say, is there?

What is a troll?

371 Chrissy: Nice job. I didn’t see a single word about welfare in there. And given the actual income limits of the program, low-income is a relative term. A family of four can have an income of about $39,000 this year and receive WIC for any child under five, and for any pregnant or nursing mother. I think it is one of the more useful and demonstratedly beneficial programs out there. Just as tax-funded libraries promote literacy, and tax-funded public playground and sports fields promote healthy activities for young people, and tax-funded bike trails promote healthy means of transportation, so too does tax-funded WIC promote development of healthy eating habits.

369 Jane:

JJ called me a sponge on society. I pointed out that she takes welfare herself in the form of the taxpayer-funded subsidized student loans she has out, therefore making her a sponge by her own definition. This is not mean, it is just a logic conclusion of her own definition. I think the term “sponge” in this context is distasteful and disrespectful, but if she is going to call me that, I will not refuse to point out why she is herself the very thing she disrespects me for being.

Jane,
The problem with most of us Mormons is that we’re so afraid to be judgmental and self-righteous that we’re even reluctant to point out judgmentalism and self-righteousness when we see it. I don’t share that reluctance. If JJ isn’t demonstrating judgmentalism and self-righteousness, then I don’t know what judgmentalism and self-righteousness are. I make no apologies for taking her to the mat for that kind of behavior. And no, she’s not just denigrating opinions, she is denigrating people.

“lynnie”,
If you can offer some general principles upon which we can base our judgment of when it is OK to take government assistance we could do without, then we could evaluate whether there is a moral difference between the act of taking WIC when one could do without and the act of taking subsidized loans when one could do without.

BTW, are you the one-kid-and-a-volvo lynnie, or the no-kids-in-sight lynnie?

ECS, what criteria do you use to identify the target beneficiaries of each program? Driving to work, I have heard radio ads by a government agency with the message that even if you have a job and assets, you may qualify for aid, so check them out to see if you do. We can argue whether government should be trying to drum up more welfare recepients, but it’s not the action of an agency struggling to make ends meet.

I think that the thread has just rehashed the same arguments, but fundamentally, the question posed was – should capable married graduate students take welfare in the form of WIC, Food stamps, free medical care, knowing they will make a lot of money on graduation? I think that many responses have bounced around the question with some good thoughts. However, I like ECS comment previously and think that has some value. In addition, just because one qualifies does not mean one should take – the entitlement mentality here is interesting. In addition, I do not follow the link between loans and welfare. The linkage there makes no sense to me – it seems a way to justify taking welfare. I think that clearly both sides have strong opinions – probably the welfare takers to justify their action and the non-welfare takers are bitter since they paid for the welfare takers. In the end, it is all personal responsibility – and if you feel justified taking welfare knowing it comes from someone else’s pocket and then buy a BMW a few years later then good for you. For me, it seems wrong, but I am just one peon in the big scheme of things.

Doesn’t the finite resource argument apply to education grants as well? A little googling for student aid appropriation turned up this: “The appropriations measure also provides for an increase of $823 million in funding for the Pell-grant program, but because of the growing demand for Pell grants, the maximum Pell-grant award will remain at $4,050 for a third consecutive year.”

As one who never used WIC or education grants, I also find the entitlement mentality interesting.

John – of course. The WIC program, however, feeds pregnant women and children “at nutritional risk”. You can go without higher education (or find alternative financing) – not food.

Additionally, as I pointed out earlier, the subsidized loan and Pell Grant programs have built-in rationing mechanisms to award the maximum grants and loans to those with the most demonstrated financial need.

I just went through some o the emails and Jolie never claims to be a lawyer.

Ben, I still think your comments about Jolie are really mean.

This same website shows the statistics for medicaid alone. In 2000 the total payments were 168 million. By 2003 — just THREE years later, it was over 233 million! These are completely unearned benefits that are distributed without incentive to ever stop using them.

While I still disagre about the welfare issue, this is unequivocal:

The personal insults and slander being thrown degrade the people saying them and the conversation itself.

Seth – investment in the future is a liberal term for entitlement. Although I am a liberal, I am against the use of entitlements if they are not truly needed and used to justify a lifestyle choice. This is the sticking point for me. If you were a PhD student in English with the prospect of a $35K/year professor job after your PhD and you happened to have a couple of kids then I would feel better about the use of Welfare for you than for a Dental or Law student.

Carissa – thanks for the stats

Seth R.,

I think you are assuming that everyone opposed to Mormon grad students on WIC is by definition a conservative. Have you considered that some of them might be democrats or even liberal democrats?

Personally I don’t care if you use the program or not, but I do find it distasteful if you planned all along to use it. This is probably a sign of some prejudice on my part in that I think that those that find themselves in need of WIC because of poor planning (or sheer incompetence) are somehow superior to those that see it as a resource and take it into account when planning their families.

Also, I think it would be fascinating for people participating in this debate to list whether they’ve used any of the programs being discussed and what their thoughts were as they used them. For instance:

I went to public schools k-12 and never thought twice about it.

I drive on public roads and often marvel at how awful they are. Especially in MA.

I college I took subsidized student loans. I never considered this an entitlement. About 50% of the students around me took them as well. It would be interesting (no pun intended) to know how much my loans cost Uncle Sam. I’m still paying them back, with interest. Sallie Mae has done well even if the government hasn’t.

I also took private loans since government loans didn’t always cover my expenses.

I know students that did not need loans that took out the maximum subsidized student loan right before graduation as a way to access cheap cash. I’m not sure what I think about this. It probably isn’t what the program was intended for, especially when those people went out and bought cars or simply invested the money.

Since we’re revealing our biases here, let me state for the record that I’m agnostic as to whether married Mormon graduate students (MMGS) should take advantage of WIC and Medicaid programs knowing full well that they will be able to afford plenty of food and adequate health insurance when they graduate.

“That subsidized loans are indexed based on certain measures of need does not change the morality of receiving them when one could do without.”

I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between receiving WIC assistance and taking out subsidized student loans or grants. If you take advantage of subsidized student loans or grants when you don’t _really_ need them, you may prevent someone more deserving than you from going to college (or grad school).

On the other hand, if you take advantage of WIC (and Medicaid) when you don’t _really_ need it (i.e., when you can choose to defer having children until you can afford to feed and care for them without government assistance), you very well may be depriving someone more deserving of you from receiving medical attention and proper nutrition.

A few months ago, a little boy in Baltimore died from a tooth infection that had spread to his brain because his family’s medical coverage had lapsed and they had trouble finding a dentist who would accept Medicaid. There are real budgetary limits to these government-run health care and nutrition programs.

Again, whether MMGS should take advantage of these programs is a personal decision. But let’s not pretend that there are unlimited dollars available for whomever shows up at the WIC (or Medicaid) agency. Or that there’s no appreciable difference between taking advantage of subsidized student loans and taking advantage of WIC (and Medicaid).

ECS,

Since I’m still “pretending,” perhaps you should spell it out for me. Blame it on my own native obtuseness.

arj,

I didn’t assume you personally were liberal, only that this is a common conservative position and the way the debate is being framed squares well with conservative rhetoric. Liberals can take specific conservative positions (like me on foreign policy) and yet still self-identify as liberal for other reasons.

ECS,

I think you had better re-read paragraphs 3 and 4 on post 396. I think you made a typo in there somewhere, because it’s basically reinforcing Tom’s point and I don’t think that was your intent.

Speaking of typos…

It should have read that I’m not assuming arj is CONSERVATIVE, not liberal.

doh.

Devyn S. Your comment about prospect for the future is interesting. a few twists tho. What about the english professor who writes a hit book down the road? How does this affect the person later on, and how does the possibility of this occurring affect choices in grad school?

Alternatively, what about the law student who chooses to go into public service (As a prosecutor, or even better a public defender)? What about if the law student anticipates getting the big law job and changes his mind?

Its so hard to judge in general categories.

I am unclear on the actual question the original post poses, it is one of a few(or both):
If a graduate student qualifies (legitimately) for government programs, is it morally permissible for them to use these services.
and/or
Should government welfare services be made available to graduate students with the expectancy of higher income later?

Yeah ECS, I do see a difference. One is more immediately serious in its effects (lack of medical care). Although as a practical matter I think it’s hard to judge whether depriving a person of educational opportunity is any less damaging than depriving them of medical care in the long run.

Also one person getting medical care at the expense of another student assumes a vastly simplified model of our current medical care system. American medicine is screwed up on many levels. I’m not sure there’s any clear way to link one benefiting grad student with a non-benefiting impoverished single mother.

Carissa,

Let’s compare two hypothetical welfare recipients.

Dude #1 – doesn’t want to work, doesn’t intend to ever become fully employed and is pleased to find out that the government will support him in this. So he applies for Section 8 housing, grabs food stamps, WIC, utility assistance, you name it. Grabs an undemanding job for extra pocket money and then spends the rest of his life playing video games and watching football.

Dude #2 – is planning on a career and working toward it. Wants to better himself and is making constant measured and steady progress toward that goal. Saves money wherever possible, shops smart, forgoes a lot of recreational and luxury items. Skimps on entertainment. In the meantime, he takes out student loans. Along the way he is excited to learn that he can further reduce expenses by applying for government benefits. He figures it can’t hurt to see if his family qualifies. He is happy to find he qualifies and can thus reduce the debt load his family will face in the future.

Come on. You do see a bit of a difference in attitude don’t you?

Seth R.,

I wasn’t even talking about myself in the conservative/liberal thing. I’m saying that I know people that are dyed in the wool democrats that would freak out over this subject. Not because they are conservative but because they value what these programs do for people in real need and think that depriving them because you aren’t willing to take out a loan to tide you over till you make six figures is EVIL. I’m not saying that I think that, but that I know people that do.

“Over the long run, no, I don’t see much difference in denying education and denying medical treatment.”

To paraphrase a great economist “in the long run, we’re all dead.” Particularly those who are deprived of necessary medical care.

Seth, “education” in this context means higher education. Prospective students who are denied eligibility for subsidized loans can take out unsubsidized loans to go to college.

Children on Medicaid do not have alternative financial means to fund their medical care.

“You do see a bit of a difference in attitude don’t you?”

Of course. But what if Dude #1′s parents did the same thing and he was never taught that it was wrong? I’m not saying that is okay, I’m just saying the government allows this to happen and doesn’t call it abuse. It’s perfectly legal. Where is the government’s responsibility in all of this?

Dude #2 seems to be living as responsibly as he knows how. I understand this position completely. It gets complicated, though, when Dude #2 (I’m assuming he’s Mormon) comes across some quotes that suggest we should avoid taking unearned government assistance to sustain ourselves. There are many of them by many different apostles and some say that their words have been superceded (although I haven’t seen any evidence of that). So Dude #2 can choose to disregard that counsel for whatever reason, or get by without the government. If he hasn’t ever heard the counsel to avoid it, I don’t believe he is at fault.

Here’s a question for you. Why doesn’t Dude #2 turn to the church’s welfare system if he is in need of help?

Who’s talking “higher education?”

I’m talking loans both for grad school and for undergrad.

Furthermore, I think previous posters were even talking about free K-12 education.

“Children on Medicaid do not have alternative financial means to fund their medical care.”

What I’m saying here is that the medical system is so complex that your causal link just isn’t apparent. In a hugely simplified world, using simple logical proofs, yes, what you are saying makes sense. But the fact is, the kids DO get treated, no matter what the grad students are doing.

Now, if you want to alter your statement to say:

“Opportunistic grad students are undermining the long-term viability of our national medical system,” you might have more of an argument. But you’d be competing with a LOT of other candidates for what’s wrong with the system.

The medical system is simply too complex to say that grad-student gets care at the expense of dear little Cindy-Lou.

We are taught the value of hard work at church. I choose to work hard (FT job) while doing an intensive FT grad program. I have no debt. I don’t have rich parents who subsidize me. I live very comfortably in an expensive city. How is this possible? Hard work. Not all grad school students have debt. It is possible to intelligently plan ahead, get finances in order and work while going to school. It is too common today to rack up debt while living above one’s means. It is possible to not have debt, or at least minimize it. It might mean working nights or weekends, but as long as one has a will, there is a way.

Seth, I object to your cavalier attitude. Children in this country are deprived of medical attention because they have no insurance or they can’t find a doctor who will accept Medicaid. We’re not talking about a fictional Cindy-Lou Who. We’re talking about children like Deamonte Driver, who died from a tooth infection because he had no insurance and had difficulty finding a dentist would would treat him as a Medicaid patient.

“Higher education” means education after high school.

All, the time spent bickering over who is justified and who isn’t would be better spent if those who took advantage of the programs wrote to their elected representatives to express their support for these programs and voted for political candidates who will fully fund government-subsidized health care and nutrition programs.

And for all those complaining about the sorry state of the health care system in America, I hope you’ll be voting for Democrats in the next election, because the Republicans are focused on other issues.

“When you take those, it’s pretty clear that you are depleting the pot for others. In fact, you might even be able to spot the people in Sacrament Meeting whom you are competing with for funds.”

Ah… so using church welfare would cause one to really evaluate his/her needs, priorities, and wants before accepting someone else’s hard-earned money. What a novel idea! This is exactly what is lacking with government welfare. So the answer to the question of why someone would overlook the church’s welfare system in favor of the government — less accountability, perhaps? The people’s money you’d be using through the government are nameless and faceless, much easier to take their money than someone you know.

There truly are huge differences in principle behind “the Lord’s way” and “man’s way”.

Hey, I like Ron Paul! He doesn’t have a chance, though. And whenever I hear his name, I think of RuPaul, the drag queen.

“I like Ron Paul! He doesn’t have a chance, though”

I don’t vote based on that. I vote for whoever I think will do the best and I wish everyone would do the same thing.

422 Carissa,

Amen. Exit polls in 1992 showed that if everyone who actually wanted to vote for Ross Perot had done so, that he would have won, but that so many of those people thought he “didn’t have a chance”. While I was no fan of Ross Perot, it demonstrates the danger in basing our votes on predicted results: its the ultimate in the self-fullfilling prophecy. “I really like this guy, but the media tells me he can’t win so therefore I won’t vote for him.” It’s nonsensical, and even worse, I think it is a violation of the sacred trust we have in the ballot, which we ought to case with great care and for the candidate that we truly believe in, not one that someone tells us is going to win anyway so we might as well jump on the bandwagon!

I vote based on principle, because the lesser of two evils is still evil after all.

Now if Ron Paul were elected president, and nothing would tickle me more, and he had a libertarian-minded Congress to work with (what are the chances of that, though), a lot of things would be way different. But as long as the government takes nearly 50% of my paycheck through taxes, we have to work within THAT framework. If the income tax and other taxes were abolished, I think we could design a framework that would work well, but the chances of that happening are so remote.

Dr. Paul continues to do well in the debates, clearly beating the other candidates and saying the things that actually ought to be said. If he shows up on the primary ballot in my state, I’d cast a vote for him. He’s the only so-called Republican I could countenance voting for. Of course, he is Republican in name only!

425 ECS,

In the end, isn’t that what this entire 426 message thread has been? A discussion of the rights and duties of people in our civil society, especially as it pertains to government benefits.

So, how do you feel about welfare offices that offer voter registration services? ;)

Carissa,

But isn’t the fact that he’s LDS enough for you? That’s he’s gonna ride in and save the Constitution from obliteration?! LOL!

Funny thing is I completely trust Ron Paul when it comes to the Constitution, whereas Mitt Romney scares me! I know Ron Paul knows his Constitution inside and out, whereas Mitt barely knows what his position on an issue is this week, let alone what the Constitutional position is on the issue.

I hear the Constitution Party is considering trying to draft Dr. Paul to run with them next year.

Back when Orrin Hatch ran in 2000, I saw the same thing with ward members as I am seeing now: LDS folk supporting the candidate based on nothing more than their religious affiliation. The fact that Orrin or Mitt is LDS is enough for these people. That troubles me.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet but the first 20 or so posts seems to suggest that Volvo’s should not be driven by grad students.

Trust me on this–there is no finer car as far as economics and reliability go than the Volvo 240–they quit making them in 1992 and if you can get your hands on a well maintained one it will last you throughout you college life.

There are also very easy to work on.

Volvos are not decadent they are sensible.

cje

Devyn, nice post, and as usual, I’m with you on this one.

WIC/welfare is a great thing, but not for a Grad student and a stay-at-home Mom with two kids, two nice cars, and a closet full of Ralph Lauren.

I only read the first 50-75 comments, so I don’t know if the topic of “tithing” has been introduced or not. I’d assume that in many of these examples there is little-to-no income, so tithing might not be a significant variable. Still, many thoughts come to mind…

For example, I’d assume most of these good LDS grad students would NEVER consider not paying tithing. Maybe the decision to accept WIC is just as difficult, but for some this does not seem to be the case. But the miracle tithing anecdotes and expressions of faith we hear ad nauseum in sacrement meeting or read about in the Ensign — “We didn’t know how we’d make ends meet that month, but we committed to paying our tithing and we miraculously made it…” — come to mind. Should not this same faith be flexed when gov’t assistance is involved? Would not God answer prayers of faith with regard to finances whether the issues was paying tithing or staying off gov’t assistance?

Of course, I recognize that gov’t assistance may well **be** the answer to such a prayer, but this discussion is not about people who NEED gov’t assistance, but those who use it to support kids they weren’t ready to support, and those who eschew a full- or part-time job for the creature comforts of staying at home with said children.

re Ron Paul

I admire his courage to go against the grain, but I don’t like his view on illegal immigration. Open borders are best for an efficient economy, and Ron Paul supports closed borders.

Illegal immigrants are good for our economy because they are willing to work for low wages, making our lives less expensive.

John P.,

Thinking about this some more, I’m intrigued. If WIC and other programs were not available, what would you do? Did you take these programs into account when planning your family? What do you think of past prophetic advice about the evils of the dole?

433 John P.

I hope you realize that I have posted dozens of posts in support of you :) You are welcome to a party at “Chez Ben There” anytime!!!

433. John P.

“Guess we are the most evil people alive”

Please don’t choose to be so easily offended (even though there are some condescending attitudes here). Discussing the right vs. wrong of principles doesn’t necessarily mean someone is trying to be judgemental or accusatory. I agree with you that prophetic advice not to delay a family is not taken into account by some of those who have commented here and it should be taken into consideration. If one feels the prompting to start a family they should act on it — no question about it.

Please comment on if you have also heard the prophetic advice not to take unearned benefits from the government such as these quotes:

“If a member is unable to sustain himself, then he is to call upon his own family, and then upon the Church, in that order, and not upon the government at all.” Boyd K. Packer, “Self-Reliance,” Ensign, Aug. 1975, 85

“Occasionally, we receive questions as to the propriety of Church members receiving government assistance instead of Church assistance. Let me restate what is a fundamental principle. Individuals, to the extent possible, should provide for their own needs. Where the individual is unable to care for himself, his family should assist. Where the family is not able to provide, the Church should render assistance, not the government. We accept the basic principle that ‘though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.’ Latter-day Saints should not receive unearned welfare assistance from local or national agencies. This includes food stamps.” Ezra Taft Benson, “Ministering to Needs through the Lord’s Storehouse System,” Ensign, May 1977, 82

It is the responsibility of every Latter-day Saint to work and so impart of his substance, regardless of the shifting standards of this world. We must uphold these principles and oppose every derogation of them. We must be careful not to adopt the commonly accepted practice of expecting the government or anyone other than ourselves to supply us with the necessities of life. Marion G. Romney, “In Mine Own Way,” Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123

If you have not heard this counsel (I never did until a couple of years ago — it is older than I am) then you can’t and shouldn’t feel guilty for not doing something you didn’t know was advised against.

If you have heard this counsel and believe it to no longer apply for some reason, please tell us why. I’m completely open to that but I’ve seen no evidence of it being replaced.

And if you believe the counsel is still in force, how do you justify not following it?

I am not trying to be judgemental or elitist, honestly, I totally understand where you are coming from and your situation. But I think it’s good for all of us to evaluate principles even when it’s difficult to do so.

Aren’t Mormons notorious for being cheap tippers? Maybe there’s something about Mormon culture that makes Mormons stingy.

I’m not sure I’m going to publish it but I wrote a post for Nine Moons analyzing how much money two families with four kids, identical in every way except that one starts their family eight years earlier than the other, pay in taxes in the long run. The exact amount of the difference depends on the exact salaries, tax rates, and the rate of inflation, but using any reasonable estimates, the family that starts eight years earlier pays many hundreds of thousands of dollars more (in today’s dollars) in taxes over 60 years. Also, all else being equal, the family that starts earlier will have millions more in assets available to support the parents as they reach old age. So any argument resting on the idea that the family that starts earlier and takes some government assistance burdens society fails to take into account the long-term.

In other words, Seth’s right. It’s a good investment for society.

I agree with Tom and Seth.

John P – Carissa did a great job of answering your post. I would be interested in your response. By the way, I have received a ton of criticism from people of your background over the years, but thanks for piling on – I personally don’t take offense to it.

Tom – I would be interested in your analysis as I don’t really buy it – please provide some details. If I and my wife are working after grad school with no kids, I am paying a ton more in taxes than you as a single worker in the family.

Thanks Tom,
So the tax issue is only relevant to the second generation – by that token, then if I have 12 kids later vs 4 earlier then my offspring could pay more, of course, if they were all stay at home moms married at 19 then they don’t. hmm…. gets complicated. However, I would posit that the grad school with 3 kids vs no kids till after grad school with both parents working situation, will always favor the two working stiffs as being the ones to pay more taxes, particularly if you look at the time value of money… I look forward to your analysis.

I didn’t plan on commenting further, but found it very interesting that next month we will be studying this very topic in R.S. and Priesthood. Here are some excerpts from chapter 11 (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball):

“Attempts to obtain our temporal, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being by means of a dole violate the divine mandate that we should work for what we receive.

May we be on guard against accepting worldly substitutes for the plan to care for his poor in this, the Lord’s own way.”

Interesting. Superceded? Overruled? I guess we are all entitled to our own interpretations.

The tax evualuation breaks down under any scrutiny. Time value of money, number of children, sex of the children, types of jobs, life expectancy, tax rates, tax breaks, surplus, deficit . . . and in any event totally misses the mark. Working for what you get and have is always a better principle than taking it from someone else. Period. This is not a point of money; it is a point of principle. No one is entitled to be a doctor, lawyer, phD, MBA. No one is entitled to live in a house and drive an SUV. Grad students who do these things while receiving food stamps, WIC, and other non-education susbsidies are abusing the welfare system and violating that principle.

DKL,

You’re claiming that just because the grad students are likely to get off of welfare that makes them better targets of welfare. They’d get off of welfare either way and welfare is not their only option so I fail to see how your reasoning makes much sense.

DKL,

You are right, that was a poorly constructed sentence.

I mean that the dental students in this example are going to no longer qualify for welfare when they graduate if they were on it or not. It isn’t giving them the chance to go get training or something. The option is to take out more loans. The loan option is generally not available to the traditional welfare recipient. So you can’t claim that the dental students are using welfare in order to get off welfare and are therefore better targets of WIC.

Okay, that’s it DKL. Turn in your Republican card and report for reindoctrination immediately.

DKL – I am shocked. Have you joined the dark side? Welcome to it! We would love to have you as one of our own. This must be one of the few topics where I have taken a more conservative stance than you…. What is the world coming to!!!

DKL,

In 459:
The graduate students are in need for (say) 3 years of financial help whether they take welfare or not. I don’t see why that matters.

But in 455:
It seems to me that of all the possible types of recipients of government welfare, graduate students are the most likely not to require welfare in the future. Why then aren’t they the ideal welfare recipient?

So in 455 it matters and makes grad students “ideal welfare reciepeint[s]” but in 459 it doesn’t matter?

ECS,

Of the few “traditional welfare recipients” that I have known to be on WIC, they’ve all been on it for the most part because of poor decision making. I’m sure that there are people on welfare through no fault of their own, but many seem to me to be playing the blame game and not acknowledging their own mistakes.

arj, what places them in the “ideal” category of welfare recipients is that they’re not going to be on it forever. What is irrelevant is whether their time horizon is fixed.

ECS, I think that the language you’re using (viz., “government handouts” and “people who cannot care for themselves”) betrays a bias against welfare recipients. This is what I refer to in the last two paragraphs of my comment 455. The idea seems to be that there’s this underclass that gets welfare, and if you don’t belong to it, you don’t belong on welfare. That may be an arguable assertion, but it is not itself an argument.

Also, I’m awfully leery about telling families when they should and shouldn’t have babies. It seems to me that a lot of people are willing to say that it’s wrong for graduate student families to have babies if they can’t do it without taking welfare. Are you also willing to say that of welfare families that live in the projects, that it’s wrong for them to have children that they cannot pay for without government assistance? Or, if we believe it’s wrong, do we just resign ourselves to their immorality and pay them their welfare anyway?

I have to emphasize how strongly I feel that this boils down to a latent classism (or, as I mentioned above, even racism).

DKL – I do not think it is latent classism or racism. Nowhere did we even discuss the issue of traditional welfare recipients or what their profile may or may not be. My family was on welfare growing up and we needed it, but it was due to to some very poor decisions on my parents part. The question here is solely focused on someone who is taking welfare to pay for their living expenses (some do reduced housing, some WIC, some foodstamps, etc.) knowing they will be making >$100K in a couple of years and knowing they could pay for these expenses via loans. This is the issue – I think it is wrong to take when there are other options, particularly when they will be driving a BMW (hypothetically) in 5 years or less. It is not only wrong it is unethical and I (as a Democrat) don’t want to pay for that. I would much rather my dollars go to fund other welfare recipients who are truly needy – regardless of if they are in that situation due to poor choices or not. A Dental student does not need welfare IMO.

LOL, DKL. If only more people were as noble, politically correct, and sensitive as you are.

I think I talked about this 450 posts or so ago, but here it goes. My beef with college students on welfare is when they tell me (I don’t ask at all, I just get told) that its against their religion for the wife to work (I’ve been told those exact words) while they have little ones. So the husband goes to school, he may work, he may not, and they get medicaid to pay for the baby, foodstamps to eat etc and I can’t help wondering in several cases, that its just as much their religion to be a little self sufficient. That’s my beef.

Tom, we’ve been through these arguments before. Bottom line – Church leaders counsel us that it’s “better” for Mormons not to rely on government assistance. And just like any general counsel (the FamProc, WoW, etc.) it’s up to you to determine whether their counsel applies to you individually.

Seth,

So what your’re saying is some LDS young people see some Gospel doctrines as pick ‘n mix candy. You pick the counsel you want.

Seth, I wouldn’t be surprised either. Many of these families I knew might see it that way-or they might see govt assistance as an “easy out.” I only heard them say, “that its against their religion for the wife to work while they have kids.”

Yes, couples have been guided to have families and not to wait to finish school etc.

But, the self sufficiency, the counsel to stay out of debt are preached just as much by our leaders as the basic tenents of the word of wisdom.

Here’s one thing I thought of; couples may hear the advice to stay out of debt, but want to start a family or end up with a baby on the way and no health insurance and think a way to follow that advice would be to go on Government aid….just a thought.

ECS,
We’ve been through it before but you keep describing fictional programs.

I think the counsel that it’s best to be self reliant applies to everybody. Just like the counsel that it’s best not to put off children until you’re entirely financially secure, the counsel that it’s best to not limit family size for the pursuit of material things, the counsel that it’s best to avoid debt, and the counsel that it’s best to get as much education as you can. I favor not judging other people’s way of balancing of all of these counsels when they come into competition, as long as they’re working hard and seeking to do the right.

And that, my friends, is my honest-to-goodness ultimate, final, if-I-say-another-word-ban-me-for-life, word on this thread. I hereby repent and ask forgiveness for lying those other times when I said I was done.

I think Tom just wants me to stop commenting and leave him alone so he doesn’t have to keep repeating himself.

Hah! We got him!

I don’t know your friends, Devyn, but I have never seen a graduate student with a brandnew Audi and Volvo. If there is such a thing as a graduate student’s family with a luxury car on WIC, then that case is an outlier.

Basing moral judgements or worse public policy on outliers is bad logic. In other words, you are raising a non-issue.

I had two children in graduate school and I will admit that was probably not the most responsible choice. I did it because I followed the prophet and so far it has turned out to be a good thing.

Although I am no longer a believer, in light of the biology of infatuation and family bonding, I still think that having children within the first three years of a marriage is a good choice for most couples.

Speaking of biology, primate anthropology is pretty clear. The first purpose of government is support for mothers and their children. You might enjoy Frans de Waal’s Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes.

And yet, another thought I just had. We all pay tithing and fast offerings, yet most probably hesitate to accept money from the church welfare program unless we are truly desperate. Should we feel differently when it comes to accepting money from the government?

Carissa – Yes.
With Government money we have a say in how that money is used. The church, no.
That being said, if we truly need the money, we should be humble enough to accept it.

Hellmut – clearly that person is an outlier, but it is representative of many of the people I have known over the years which is probably why I am so sensitive to the issue. Particularly, since I was related to a few of them and I know they were on welfare and now a few years later they drive the BMW and complain about taxes and the amount of money spent on social programs – a bit hypocritical I think….

DKL,

what places them in the “ideal” category of welfare recipients is that they’re not going to be on it forever.

I get what you’re saying in that they aren’t planning on being on the dole long term. My point is that for the people in question receiving welfare has no effect on how long it will take them to get off of it. If anything the decision to not have one partner work qualifies them for WIC when if they were to work they would be off welfare instantly.

I guess I’m making a distinction between willfully selecting to not work and provide for your family and being in an unfortunate situation that you are trying to get out of. In one case welfare is not helping you get out of the situation and in the other it is. I hope that makes sense. I doubt that it does given my recent track record.

ow a few years later they drive the BMW and complain about taxes and the amount of money spent on social programs – a bit hypocritical I think….

I agree that the lack of reciprocity is hypocritical.

Trying again:

drive the BMW

over 500 yet?

Hellmut, on a side not I’m a fan of Germany. I think it’s a cool country.

I define Socialism as centralized planning. I prefer to minimize centralized planning and have each person make their own economic decisions. That way, no resources wasted. A committee of state bureaucrats will end up spending money inefficiently.

If you are saying that your family lived in East Germany and endured some harrassment at the hands of the Soviets, I think that’s a tragedy. I am against Soviet-style government… and I think that welfare is a baby step towards Soviet-style government.

Tchuss!

Oh, is this a good place to practice blockquotes? Let me see if this works in a comment:

Ensign: Brother Child, are there any government welfare programs that are approved by the Church?
Brother Child: Some governments sponsor programs that require an individual and/or his employer to contribute funds that will be used to pay benefits. These programs are approved—in fact, they constitute a part of our own preparation for the future.

Source:
Ensign Sept 1973.

Bored in Vernal, FYI, I’m also against the “United Order” experiments of the Church in the 19th century. So I’m not exactly blown away by an Ensign quote from 1973.

Otherwise, it looks like you’ve mastered the blockquote pretty well. Congrats. I had to do a few trial runs before I got the hang of it.

Here is a little summary about the economists’ consensus regarding the saliency of markets:

Hellmut, that is hilarious.

Dang. Too bad I missed the boat.
I’ll type some thoughts out just to exercise the old digits. After wading through 511 comments, they’re itching and ready to go.

RE”Should I be frustrated or am I just jealous that I did not “milk the system” when I was in graduate school…

I haven’t read any response from someone who felt like they milked the system. No pangs of guilt, no remorse or feeling like they got away with something.
I haven’t read any response from anyone who didn’t use the government programs during school and wish they had.

I personally have witnessed abuse of the system by LDS couples. I’m not casting any stones here so spare me the accusations of self righteousness. I have also seen people who genuinely benefitted and who were tremendously helped by the programs. So, I think that if anything, the programs themselves are at fault. If they are allowing people who aren’t intended to receive the benefits, then they should change the guidelines. I think the idea of government assistance as a last avenue for help no longer exists in the student world.

I haven’t seen the Audis or the Volvos but I have seen the mini vans and the reliable cars with multiple air bags (insert both jealous sigh and self-loathing at being jealous about a minivan). And the vacations. And the new houses. And the designer clothes (I’m talking about jeans that cost hundreds of dollars). And then listened to complaints about having to eat “generic” food, not eating restaurant meals and not being able to travel. Blah blah blah.

I don’t like the personal revelation trump card. It seems to get played any time that anyone is called out on something that goes against common sense. I don’t say it doesn’t work, just that I don’t like it.

My husband and I qualified during every step of our training, through graduate school, medical school, and beyond. We didn’t take it. We worked like maniacs. We had children. We budgeted, we did without. We are not superior but we did it and learned a lot in the process. It can be done. I do not think that higher education is a right; I think it is a privilege. We eliminated many places and schools (Boston being one of them) because the cost of living was too prohibitive for us. So, I think there are many choices being made that ultimately lead people to believe that government assistance is the only way that they can pull through.

And lastly, did anyone mention whether using government programs (like WIC) during undergrad education was fishy? Or do people think that the problem lies only with graduate students?

Lupita–I second Devyn. Great job making it through. My husband and I have decided to wait to have children so we don’t end up on welfare. At the same time, I grew up with free lunches, which kept me from being hungry at school, so I am profoundly grateful for the welfare system.

I don’t think the welfare system is broken, though. Yes, it’s possible to “abuse” the system, but making the system more stringent would most likely entail more bureaucracy and would ultimately be more costly to implement and more prohibitive to those who actually do need welfare than simply accepting a certain amount of “abuse.”

There are alternatives ways to pay for professional school. I had the government pay 100% of my tuition. They gave me money to buy my books and supplies, and I got a stipend to live on. And now I am in the middle of a 15 month all expenses paid working vacation in the sun filled vacation destination of Iraq. Complete with fireworks a couple times a week (at least incoming and outgoing mortars kind of sound like fireworks)

Devyn and KristineN–thanks. I hesitate to take any real credit because frankly, it’s been a grueling experience and we are still not finished. It’s not fun being poor. I just remind myself that being poor in the United States is nothing compared to what other people in the world experience. I get to take a hot shower every day, which sure beats my mission days.

KristineN–Yeah, welfare reform is convoluted. I don’t know what the answer is. I’m grateful that it is an option out there (especially for hungry kids in public school). It is part and parcel of being a humane society. If WIC is the only way that graduate students’ children will receive a decent meal, then, by all means, load up on the peanut butter and eggs. I just don’t think, in most cases, that it is. And, I happen to think that it is tremendously wise to not have children until you can finance them. The stress on all involved could easily be prevented.

anon,
If you are serious (and I think that you are), I think you have an excellent topic for another post entirely. Choosing to pursue higher education comes with significant costs. Paying for professional school is a serious challenge (unless you’re independently wealthy) and leaves one with astronomical debt. Any solutions besides the military??
Hang in there. I hope your “vacation” ends quicker than you think and that you return safe and sound.

All taxpayers and their dependants have a legitimate claim to every cent they are rightfully due. Even overpaid and underworked attorneys.

Equating Soviet or Chinese Communism with the United Order is hardly fair. Everyone knows the Soviets were far kinder than Brigham Young.

J/K.

But truly, such a comparison is absurd. Remove the key element of faith in God and everything is all downhill from there.

You are right Carissa, I guess I should have been more explicit, and instead of said faith in God, “faith in the restored Gospel” would have been better, because it more fully encompasses what I meant when I knocked out that comment at midnight last night. “Faith in the restored gospel” would of course include agency. The United Orders as practiced both in the Church in the late 1800s as well as in the fundamentalist communities today are all entirely optional, one chooses to participate. No one was or is forced to be in a United Order.

But the United Order is a part of the Gospel, John. Mans ways are not God’s ways, or should I say, that Smith’s ways, or Keynes’ ways, or Marx’s ways, or Reagan’s ways are not God’s Ways.

It is amusing to see 21st century Mormons squirm while trying to say that 19th century revealed Mormon doctrine (and indeed temple covenants) are inferior to Adam Smith. When it comes to Smiths, I pick Joseph.

Which of your numbers 1 through 7 are part of your temple covenants?

Ben There,

If you think the temple ceremonies are a mandate that we live the United Order, then why do we only give 10% of our income to the church?

John: Acts 2:44, the early Christian believers, after the giving of the Holy Spirit, had all things in common. I don’t think this just meant they all liked the same board games and ice cream flavor.

Also, what is one of the major scriptural roles of the Bishop? D&C 42:32.

Ben There, taking scriptures literally is a slippery slope. I’m sure the Standard Works are replete with verses that you disagree with.

Ben There,

I also think that denying blacks the priesthood was a relic of 19th century thinking. But the Mormon prophets perpetuated this practice.

“As for taking scriptures literally or not, how else would you interpret the D&C verse I gave above?”

I would read that verse in its proper historical context, keeping in mind the bias of Joseph Smith and any potential enthusiasm he may have had for 19th-century communal living experiments. Keep in mind the English language is not perfect, and Joseph Smith was a “rough stone,” not an unadultered oracle. I would then compare what the verse explicitly states to what human history has shown to work best, i. e. a free market economy. I would then consider what sort of economy Mormon prophets have had a tendency to advocate as time as progressed and Mormons have become more educated, and as economic theory has had time to refine itself. I would then observe what communistic countries have produced throughout the course of history, and then I would compare that to what capitalistic countries have produced. Then I would observe the sort of economics that Mormons actually live, and then I would come to a conclusion about that scripture.

Tom, we don’t ban people. People threaten to ban us. Some blogs do ban us. Although I personally have not been banned, but that’s because of my unique groveling alternate personality that comes out when I step over the line and get in trouble. I actually have gotten thank yous for apologizing for being too strident and backing down and letting go the rope.

#527 I agree completely.

#527 Ditto

Such intellects should be friends, not adversaries. Disagreement doesn’t mean dislike. Heck, I disagree with everybody. And I’m still friends with half of them.

Kaimi Wenger: “Never attribute to malice that which could be attributed to misunderstanding.” Nobody here understands this issue who hasn’t driven a mile in a Cadillac as a married graduate student.

President Hinckley: “forgive each other”

Perhaps “the family” is where Joseph Smith got the idea.

2. The united order is not a supplemental assistance program; it is the economic system in Zion. It provides a standard of living commensurate to one’s needs, wants, circumstances, and ability to expand one’s stewardship.

The problem is the central planners, Carissa. It is just not a good idea to have a committee of people decide who "needs" what.

John Williams,

If he was right about the United Order, then why do we not live it today?

The principle may be right, but the people may not be ready for it.

John Williams,

blockquotes are done like this

Hi, this is in the blockquote

It sounds pretty clear that: “The Prophet’s vision came by revelation, making him intimately familiar with the glory of Enoch’s Zion. He sought for the Saints of this dispensation the same approbation which the Lord had given to the Saints of Enoch’s day.”

Living the law of consecration is not a new concept that originated with Joseph Smith.

Marion G. Romney (May 1979) said:

“The scriptures speak of several occasions on which the law of consecration in some form has been implemented.

The first was in the days of Enoch when “the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.

“And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.” (Moses 7:16, 18.)

Another occasion occurred among the Nephites immediately following the ministry among them of the resurrected Christ, concerning whom the record says:

“And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

“And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.

“And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” (4 Ne. 1:2–3, 15.)

The Saints who went to Missouri in the early 1830s were commissioned to live the law of consecration, but they failed to do so.”

You ask why we do not live it today. Marion G. Romney, same source as above, said this:

“As to the question, “Will the righteous members of the Church be asked to live the law of consecration?”—my answer is yes. I believe that the righteous members of the Church will, in time, become “united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom” and that the law of consecration will be lived by them during the Millennium.”

In the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual (lesson 14), it says:

“The law of consecration is an eternal law that the Lord revealed again in our dispensation. Accounts of the Lord’s people living this law are included in the Pearl of Great Price, New Testament, and Book of Mormon.

As Saints of God, we must be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration in its fulness. But we do not need to wait for a future day to consecrate our lives to the Lord. As we do all we can to live the law of consecration today, we will be better prepared to live the fulness of the law when the Lord asks us to do so.
In what ways can we live the law of consecration in our lives today?

Explain that we can do these things by acknowledging that all we possess belongs to the Lord, by willingly making the sacrifices required of us now, and by developing Christlike love for other people.”

We are not commanded to live the United Order at this time. We can, however, individually live the principles as fully as we want to. The only person holding me back from giving all my surplus to the church (through fast offerings, welfare program) is me. Same with all of us.

The principle may be right, but the people may not be ready for it.

Dan, thanks for the blockquote tip… hopefully it works above.

My problem with this answer is that it is a little too glib. It’s the sort of answer I would have given when I was 15. It’s like saying that we lived polygamy because all of the Mormon men were killed by a Missouri mob and then the widows just received food from Brigham Young and a few other leaders.

Carissa:

It sounds pretty clear that: “The Prophet’s vision came by revelation, making him intimately familiar with the glory of Enoch’s Zion. He sought for the Saints of this dispensation the same approbation which the Lord had given to the Saints of Enoch’s day.”

Who wrote that statement? William O. Nelson? I’m sorry, but it’s pretty small-minded to think that something is true just because someone wrote it. Perhaps Brother William O. Nelson was incorrect in his 1979 Ensign article.

You guys, never take steroids unless it’s life saving. And have somebody chain you to your house and take away all communication. Sorry to be testy. I could have killed big men in the grocery store with my little finger.

Oh, in Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith said that man would never walk on the moon. oops.

John Williams,

My problem with this answer is that it is a little too glib.

Sorry, I just didn’t have the desire to really go in depth. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said a thing.

LOL My post #540 which was made in the middle of the night or early morning while I was high high on steroids given me to heal my mega sinus infection from dental surgery. I’m channeling Anne Heche as we speak.

Although I thought I made some good points. I’ll be back, probably middle of the night. I have to take the steroids till tomorrow. I must say, not having fun, despite my mania.

“Carissa, do you think that anything ever printed in the Ensign or in an LDS Sunday School manual is true?”

John, whoever you are, I would take the scriptures, the Ensign and the Sunday School manual over your “opinion” anyday. You have offered nothing but your own thoughts without any evidence to back it up. You are entitled to believe whatever you’d like but I’d be cautious about so easily dismissing these sources.

563: And John, I already offered my rebuttal to this “evidence” of yours, earlier: Joseph Smith vs. Adam Smith. Which one was the prophet?

John does have a point in that we Mormons are very reticent to allow for any infallibility in our prophets – we had a post on this previously. Prophets do say crazy things over the pulpit sometimes, particularly in the olden days, not so much now. It is ok, we just need to be aware that it happens. Whether the United Order was one of those crazy things is up to interpretation, but there are plenty of other examples such as spiritual wifery, etc. one can point to. However, to Carissa’s point, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we should recognize not everything published or spoken is true and accurate.

Ben There – good point, notice I did not address the law of consecration in my comment as I agree with you that it must be very important to be included in the Temple ceremony. With that said, it is interesting that we are willing to commit everything, but not asked to. Those are clearly very different things. The United Order could be the wrong way to adiminster the law of consecration, I guess we will find out someday.

Joseph Smith vs. Adam Smith.

When it comes to economics, Adam Smith wins. It’s a slam dunk.

That’s the problem here… people think that just because Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration, anything he ever uttered on any topic whatsoever was the best thing ever said about the topic. Guess what? He did not have a monopoly on human knowledge.

obviously I don’t know how to use the italics and the bold tags, sorry!

“It is also possible that, like polygamy, it was right at the time, but not for us…”

Yes, I see what you are saying. Except living polygamy without the commandment to do so is contrary to God’s law, whereas we can still live the principles of the United Order individually simply by giving our surplus to the poor through the welfare program, and that would only be a good thing. Of course, it’s not just about money, but giving all we can of our time, talents, etc. The more I learn about it, the easier it is to see how different it is from socialism or communism. Although, I do see how they seem similar on the surface.

Joseph Smith was not a lone voice when it comes to the United Order.

A lot of Mormon leaders have said things about black people that I reject wholesale.

You bring up capitalism. Harold B. Lee said the United Order resembled capitalism more than communism or socialism:

Carissa, let me give you a piece of advice. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well, then, it probably is a duck.

Just because the central planners call your portion of the pool “private property” does not mean that it isn’t communism.

it’s not just about money, but giving all we can of our time, talents,

I think it’s a good thing to have an attitude of dedication to the Church.

Devyn 568:

Good point: willing, but not presently asked to.

Seth R. 575:

Thanks for your voice of reason. John W. is getting carried away, almost to the extent where capitalism has become like the idols of old. The Israelites also wanted a king instead of being ruled by God, directly, so he let them have one, despite the fact it was a lesser form of government. Capitalism (which variety, by the way, are you talking about John?) may be the best modern man can come up with, but that doesn’t mean it is the best God can come up with.

John W:

Maybe because capitalism is what God wants us to live?

This sounds like something GW Bush would say. It’s silly. No scriptures indicate capitalism as being divine, but plenty (plus the temple) speak of the united order.

“Just because the central planners call your portion of the pool “private property” does not mean that it isn’t communism.”

Yes, it does. Your portion wouldn’t just be “called” private property — you would hold the actual title to it, not the church. Does that happen under communism? No. Under communism, property is owned collectively through a polity (a political group).

“This procedure preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate, keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.” Marion G. Romney, The Purpose of Church Welfare Services, May 1977

Who gets to decide what the “residue” is?

You would get to decide what surplus you would consecrate to the church above the “needs and wants” of your own family. Notice, it does include wants. God relies on the individual to determine his own needs and wants for his family. He trusts each person to be honest and charitable — that is why only a righteous people can live this principle. It wouldn’t work otherwise.

“The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his own family. This surplus went into a storehouse, from which stewardships were given to others, and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.” ibid

I have one question for you John. Do you honestly believe that everything you own right now is yours? Or do you believe that it is God’s and you are simply a steward over it? Fundamental to understanding the United Order is understanding that (even under capitalism) nothing in the earth is really ours to begin with. It is all the Lord’s. If He wants to be a “central planner” as you say, concerning His earth, He’s got the right and responsibility to do that. I think we are VERY fortunate that He so highly values our agency in carrying out His designs. He won’t even force us to live His perfectly designed system. I can’t begin to express the gratitude I have for Him, knowing he respects my agency this much.