Welfare: Church and Government


Doorman
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/26/2018 at 7:37 PM, zil said:

IMO, if you are employed (or paying any other form of tax), the government is taking money from you and your employer to pay for these kinds of programs.  Were the government not taking your money for these kinds of programs, you would have money in your pocket you could use for your own needs.  Therefore, if you need the programs and take advantage of them, you're just taking something that would have been yours had the government stayed out of it.  (This is my simplified perspective.)  Note that I'm paying into this too (no choice in the matter) and don't need these programs, so you're welcome to my share. :)

 

It depends heavily on the state you're in, but if someone is eligible for WIC or Medicaid (and only have 1 child, this is important because of the sliding income scale), it's unlikely they're actually paying income taxes.  And any actual income tax they do pay, is going to come right back to them (and then some) due to refunds and credits they're likely eligible for.  Of course, they are paying SS and Medicaid but that has nothing to do with WIC or Medicaid.  So no, they're not paying into the program they're taking from.  And I seriously doubt that the level of income OP is at, that he is paying enough in taxes (and then getting back+) to cover the cost of the birth of his child that the taxpayers will be picking up with medicaid.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The simple fact is that, like Adam and Eve, we have been given separate pieces of counsel that don’t perfectly line up; and the Church’s current position is to let individual couples try to harmonize that counsel as best they can.  The Church nether condemns people who delay child-rearing, nor those who seek public assistance within the United States of America.

The two counsels can harmonize just fine.  If a recently married couple, who cannot afford even the medical cost of bringing a child into the world, is working towards the goal of being able to pay for the costs and then some, is it really "delay" if they are actively working towards it?  I dare anyone to call them unrighteous (or whatever) if they desperately desire parenthood and are putting their best efforts towards making it a reality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair point.  But surely you can see how people who decided to have children earlier than you did and in more financially straitened circumstances—thus enabling them to provide mortal tabernacles to a larger number of children—might find critiques of their financial choices similarly nonsensical and insulting.

The simple fact is that, like Adam and Eve, we have been given separate pieces of counsel that don’t perfectly line up; and the Church’s current position is to let individual couples try to harmonize that counsel as best they can.  The Church nether condemns people who delay child-rearing, nor those who seek public assistance within the United States of America.

My critiques are just an application of common sense.  God expects us to use it.  While you believe there are two seemingly contradictory agendas, I don't.  I think the Lord depends on us to decide what is best in each individual situation, and prayerfully consider the options.

I don't believe that any answered prayers will be advising to go ahead and have a family and place yourself in a position of having to depend on others to carry out your plans.  On the face, that's ridiculous.

Of course the church advises to get government assistance before church resources are applied.  That's just common sense for the conservation of fast offering assets.  Plus, the Church is cheap.  When my son had an accident while doing missionary work, they sent him home for medical treatment so they could have our insurance pay instead of the Church's.  It was a little off-putting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TookieClothspin said:

The two counsels can harmonize just fine.  If a recently married couple, who cannot afford even the medical cost of bringing a child into the world, is working towards the goal of being able to pay for the costs and then some, is it really "delay" if they are actively working towards it?  I dare anyone to call them unrighteous (or whatever) if they desperately desire parenthood and are putting their best efforts towards making it a reality.

 

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

My critiques are just an application of common sense.  God expects us to use it.  While you believe there are two seemingly contradictory agendas, I don't.  I think the Lord depends on us to decide what is best in each individual situation, and prayerfully consider the options.

I don't believe that any answered prayers will be advising to go ahead and have a family and place yourself in a position of having to depend on others to carry out your plans.  On the face, that's ridiculous.

Of course the church advises to get government assistance before church resources are applied.  That's just common sense for the conservation of fast offering assets.  Plus, the Church is cheap.  When my son had an accident while doing missionary work, they sent him home for medical treatment so they could have our insurance pay instead of the Church's.  It was a little off-putting.

What I would respectfully suggest both of you guys miss, is the limitations mere time imposed on child-bearing and fertility.  If you want a particular number of kids and want to be able to provide them with a certain level of care, you either have them in *very* quick succession (risking a number of financial, physical and mental health issues in its own way) or you start early. Like @mrmarklin, mine and my wife’s child-bearing years are about to end due to health issues.  Had we waited to start our family until we were reasonably certain that we were fiscally independent and likely to remain so, four of our (about-to-be) six children would not be part of our family.  Those spirits would have gone elsewhere—and my professional experience has given me some pretty scary insights into what “elsewhere” might mean.

@TookieClothspin, I’m not hot-to-trot to condemn anyone’s supposed unrighteousness; except to the degree that they engage in moral preening and presenting their own life choices as objectively superior to the inspired life choices of others.

@mrmarklin if you’re going to reduce every instance of the Church’s failing to march to your drumbeat, to a cynical financial ploy in the which the Church is flouting its own purported teachings; then I guess we’re done here.  Because at that point the discussion ceases to be about what “the brethren” would have us do at all; and we devolve back into becoming a law unto ourselves.  (Oh, there’s always personal revelation, I suppose—but only so long as it comports with Marklinian canon.)

But as for the rest of us apostates, I would suggest that the LDS leadership are not a bunch of dummies.  Among other things, they serve as trustees for BYU.  When they advise young couples—including BYU students—not to delay child-rearing to complete an education, they know darn well how much of that education is being subsidized by Pell grants; and they can guess how those maternity expenses are going to be covered.  More power to those who get through that stage of their lives without using government assistance—but let’s not go around shaming people for failing to make proper obeisance to our absolutist, made-up commandments (let alone besmirching the spirituality of anyone who sees things differently than you).  We all know each other a little bit here; and I think we can make some reasonably well-informed guesses about how certain forum members would react to someone who was—for example—hectoring another forum member for drinking caffeine.  

And really, that’s all this is—virtue signaling.  Except that it’s a peculiarly inverted form of virtue signaling, suggesting that the course of action traditionally viewed as the most lucrative (if not outright self-interested) is in fact the more virtuous path and subtly re-defining the formerly-virtuous as moral degenerates.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The simple fact is that, like Adam and Eve, we have been given separate pieces of counsel that don’t perfectly line up; and the Church’s current position is to let individual couples try to harmonize that counsel as best they can.  The Church nether condemns people who delay child-rearing, nor those who seek public assistance within the United States of America.

I disagree, I think that the counsel that we are given does line up.

1. Do not delay marriage, or starting a family.

2. Be self sufficient/self reliant.

I do not see how these two items are in conflict.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

What I would respectfully suggest both of you guys miss, is the limitations mere time imposed on child-bearing and fertility.  If you want a particular number of kids and want to be able to provide them with a certain level of care, you either have them in *very* quick succession (risking a number of financial, physical and mental health issues in its own way) or you start early.

I am glad that you brought that up.  I am very aware of the limitations and time constraints of fertility.  My husband and I married in our very late 20's.  He was entering graduate school and I was working.  Having "finally" found the opportunity for marriage in our almost 30's, starting "early" was not an option.  And being older, we already had financial responsibilities that weren't going to take a pause so that I could quit work, raise babies, and magically come up with money for his schooling. 

He had student loans & tuition to pay and I had already bought a house (which turned out a blessing since it was cheaper than rent).  Those things and our remaining needs had to be financed in some way, so I worked.  My job required a significant amount of travel, so in order to make children a reality, I started looking for a job that would allow me more flexibility.  That took over a year and I then would have to take a significant pay cut.  We tried to make our budget work with that pay but adding the cost of childcare and the numbers just weren't going to fit so I kept my existing job.  Currently, my husband only had a little over a year left in school so we decided to give kids a go and that we could make it work.  My works generous maternity leave program will give us a good buffer if it works out that way and my parents have moved to our town so they could help with childcare if needed.  Is it ideal?  absolutely not.  But it will be good enough and my husband will soon be able to enter the workforce again to ease our burden.

The only reason I tell you all of this (and you can pick it apart all you want) is because maybe I did want a particular number of kids, but sometimes circumstances and timing just simply don't allow for it.  We make our choices based on limited information about our future and a little trust in personal revelation.  I'm well into my early 30's and my circumstances probably won't allow me to have what I initially wanted.  And that's ok.  I will count us blessed even if we can't even have one child.  Could I have made other choices?  Of course.  I could have quit my job and had my husband take out massive student loans to pay for our needs.  And I could have then probably gotten medicaid to pay for the hospital bills and foodstamps to ease the grocery burden.  Would that have been a good decision?  I say no.  No one else has the responsibility to pay for what I want.  "Want" is simply not a good enough reason.

But, I don't think people who choose gov't aid to have kids are necessarily bad people who are disobeying counsel.  I think they have their heart in the right place, I just don't agree with their ideas behind making it happen or their interpretation of the two counsels (self reliance and having kids).

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

, I’m not hot-to-trot to condemn anyone’s supposed unrighteousness; except to the degree that they engage in moral preening and presenting their own life choices as objectively superior to the inspired life choices of others.

Hopefully, you don't think I'm morally preening for pointing out that the two counsels don't have to contradict.  It has been my experience that the moral preening has come first from those who have children via help from medicaid and other welfare programs.  In my ward, when the topic of children or family finances coming up someone starts going on about how great they are for their struggle.  :animatedthumbsdown:  I hate it when people act like exclusive martyrs.

My ward is in a college town, so we have tons of masters and phd student families.  A few weeks back, a guy flat out said "Couples who are delaying children due to the financial strains of education are following satans plan to destroy the family."  Then, another guy chimed in "Yeah, you just pop 'em out and Heavenly Father will make the rest of it work out for you."  

Oh dear no.  I had to say a little prayer for strength not to lash out.  So, that's where I'm coming from.

 I think the moral of the story for the OP @Doorman is that they have made well meaning choices that have led them to require help.  Take the help and do everything to get off it asap.  Don't make further choices that make you to keep needing it.  You feel bad about it for a reason and that's a productive feeling to have.  Take the feeling and harness it to help guide yourself to self-sufficiency.  Keep on keeping on and you'll be fine!

And not that he's going to, but don't be like the couples in my ward and act like your struggle makes you more righteous than those who made choices the avoid needing help.  Neither way is going to get you a better spot in the Celestial Kingdom if your heart is in the right place regarding parenthood and self-reliance. 

 

 

Edited by TookieClothspin
*Edited to tag OP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2018 at 4:07 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Speaking as a conservative, I'm totally fine with you getting WIC and Medicaid.  And I'm also totally fine with your attitude about it.  You seem quite unhappy that you are not self-reliant, and it sounds like such unhappiness will only drive you to greater efforts to reach financial independence.    Another way of looking at it, is you'll be paying far more into the govt than you could ever possibly hope to get out of it, so kudos to you for availing yourself of (hopefully) short term help at this stage in your life. 

Speaking as a Mormon - church welfare is a double-sided blessing source.  It is there to help members become self-reliant, and it is there to provide opportunities for individuals to provide service and help the poor and needy.  Both sides obtain blessings.  

You are a starving college student - it sounds like you're fighting the good fight.  In a few years, you'll look back on these frugal struggling times, and see how it helped you grow.

Bless you and your wife and your soon-to-be baby!

So the blessings that are given are only given to members like food and such 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rich23 said:

So the blessings that are given are only given to members like food and such 

Anyone can use the LDS welfare program regardless of membership.  However, they will have to meet with the bishop and abide by the same rules that members have to (i.e. working at a welfare cannery, etc..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Thank you Tookie for answering JAGs long self righteous post. I’m glad you use common sense. :rolleyes:

Self-righteous?  Hark who speaketh.  @TookieClothspin shows a degree of tolerance and a respect for the revelations of others, that your posts have been entirely without.  You have openly attacked the revelations of someone who chose child-rearing over money, and preened over your own six-figure income (well, tax liability, strictly speaking).  I’m sorry if other people’s churlishness has made you hyper-defensive about your own life choices; but really, that’s no excuse for becoming pharisaical and trying to stomp on every revelatory claim that makes you personally uncomfortable.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rich23 said:

So the blessings that are given are only given to members like food and such 

The LDS Church gives charity, food, disaster relief, etc. to many people that are not members, if that is what you are asking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see I was raised differently than most on this forum.  But then I am an old guy and it would seem I grew up in a different era and culture.  My first job started when I was 8 selling stationary, greetings and occasion cards and planning calendars door to door.  I would say that 80% of what I grew up doing and thinking proper would be considered child abuse by most today.  When I served in the army a young comrade died during a training exercise – it was because the training was intense.  

When I was released from active duty – I served a mission which is about the easiest, most carefree and funniest 2 years of my life.  I also used up all my savings on my mission.  The attitude of my parents growing up was that I could do whatever I wanted but I would have to finance it.  I could stay out as late as I wanted but for most of my life I got up at 3:00 am to go to work.  Having worked to provide for my activities, clothes and personal needs since age 8 – working through college was not a change in life. 

At college I had a couple of businesses.  Though I was busy with school and work I found time to go skiing every week.  In the summer I took some time off for scuba trips to Mexico.  But I was not an exception – my brothers also provided for themselves and were better at it than me.  I was sort-of the black sheep of the family because I skied and took scuba trips.  Though I thought my family was poor based on our home, car and living accommodations I was taught not just to not being lazy but to love and enjoy work.  As it turns out my father was wealthy – he just did not believe in living lazy.  What I thought was normal, I have come to discover is worse than unique – it is strange, disrespected and shamed by most in today’s society.  Rather than honor others for their work ethic we honor them for the “things” they accumulate and flaunt.

There are two great secrets to wealth.  Please note that I do not believe being rich and wealthy are the same things – though many think so.  The prodigal son was rich – being rich is wasteful and extravagant.   

First secret to wealth – Love hard work.  It is not enough to do hard work – you must learn to love and enjoy it.  Hard work must be more fun and exciting than play.  If it is not you may someday enjoy some riches but you will never be wealthy and happy without being excited to work hard.

Second secret to wealth – Spend less than you earn.  It does not matter how much you earn – just do not ever spend all of it.  If you feel you must have more to spend; then just work more.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Rich23 said:

So the blessings that are given are only given to members like food and such 

I think some are misunderstanding your post - What the LDS church provides is what is needed - usually it is food and other necessities.  But sometimes money is needed to cover rent or utilities and then (as I understand) checks are made out - not to those in need but to the mortgage and utility companies. 

I think some may have the impression that you think we only help members – thanks for responding.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tampasteve2 said:

The LDS Church gives charity, food, disaster relief, etc. to many people that are not members, if that is what you are asking. 

Which raises the relevant question: "Would the Church give charity and welfare if it wasn't okay for people to receive the same?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

Which raises the relevant question: "Would the Church give charity and welfare if it wasn't okay for people to receive the same?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don’t think so. The church knows crap is going to hit the fan and life will get hard. 

We are Latter-Day saints. We believe in looking to the poor and needy and administering to their relief (D+C 38:35)... But apparently, having read some members comments, we also believe in condemning the choices of the poor... cause why else would they be poor besides sin and bad decision making right? (Sarcasm)

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2018 at 3:27 PM, Doorman said:

So I have been wrestling with this for a long time now. I’m a full time college student, married, first kid on the way. My wife and I love pretty frugally. 

Currently we have quite a bit of money, but with the baby coming rather soon, counseling my wife and I are attending, medical tests I need to get done eventually (been putting off because of a lack of money), we will run out of money pretty quick.

I work full time currently and can’t really feasibly add more hours. 

We currently have WIC and Medicaid... this is where my wrestle comes in. I have always believed strongly in self reliance. Financial difficulty has always been my biggest fear and we are creeping up to it.

So Thoughts concerning government and church aid. What is the difference? Why does government have such a negative connotation. I know Ezra Taft Bensen and many other church leaders have stated pretty clearly that we are not to take government handouts... how does this differ from church welfare?

I always feel uncomfortable when I think of our WIP and Medicaid... should we get rid of it?

Pres. Benson worked for the government.  I think I can understand where you are coming from.  My husband and I have 4 kids, 2 with special needs.  We have been married for 21 years, in the temple.  We are active, good members.  Our special needs kids get SSI monthly payments.  We get medicaid.  Our oldest has a congenital heart defect, a reflux problem, a GI tube, 11 food allergies that require us to buy some foods that are more expenisive, though some foods we can buy cheap and make some things.  Yes, we do need to be self reliant as much as possible, but every situation is different.  We all are at different seasons in our life, and we need to take that into account.  We need not to judge others.  The Proclamation on the Family states that husband and wife help each other in our roles and we accommodate each other as necessary.  Sometimes changes our necessary.  A bishop I saw once concerning these kinds of things told me, "but you need these programs"  And he was right.  How could I afford to take care of my family's medical needs, temporal needs, and even focus better on spiritual needs if we couldn't have those things in place?  The programs aren't evil.  They are to help, and assist as needed.  The key is to be wise, prayerful and do what you can.  There is no shame in using the resources that are available to help you and your family.   We use HEAT assistance.  WE use Food Stamps.  A parent earns a living.  For many years it was my husband.  Temporarily, for the last few months, it is me, and that is ok.  I don't work Sundays, but you pray about it, and if you really feel you need to, fast or go to the bishop or the temple about it with your spouse and talk to your spouse about it, and you decide together, as a  team with the Lord, what will be the best thing for your family.  And as things change, you may need to re plan  as time and seasons in life change, but don't worry about what others think,  if others give their advice or opinions or tell you what to do, take it with a grain of salt, remember, they may be well meaning, but you and your spouse alone are entitled to receive the inspiration you need for your family's circumstances, and you know better than anyone what they are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

Pres. Benson worked for the government.  I think I can understand where you are coming from.  My husband and I have 4 kids, 2 with special needs.  We have been married for 21 years, in the temple.  We are active, good members.  Our special needs kids get SSI monthly payments.  We get medicaid.  Our oldest has a congenital heart defect, a reflux problem, a GI tube, 11 food allergies that require us to buy some foods that are more expenisive, though some foods we can buy cheap and make some things.  Yes, we do need to be self reliant as much as possible, but every situation is different.  We all are at different seasons in our life, and we need to take that into account.  We need not to judge others.  The Proclamation on the Family states that husband and wife help each other in our roles and we accommodate each other as necessary.  Sometimes changes our necessary.  A bishop I saw once concerning these kinds of things told me, "but you need these programs"  And he was right.  How could I afford to take care of my family's medical needs, temporal needs, and even focus better on spiritual needs if we couldn't have those things in place?  The programs aren't evil.  They are to help, and assist as needed.  The key is to be wise, prayerful and do what you can.  There is no shame in using the resources that are available to help you and your family.   We use HEAT assistance.  WE use Food Stamps.  A parent earns a living.  For many years it was my husband.  Temporarily, for the last few months, it is me, and that is ok.  I don't work Sundays, but you pray about it, and if you really feel you need to, fast or go to the bishop or the temple about it with your spouse and talk to your spouse about it, and you decide together, as a  team with the Lord, what will be the best thing for your family.  And as things change, you may need to re plan  as time and seasons in life change, but don't worry about what others think,  if others give their advice or opinions or tell you what to do, take it with a grain of salt, remember, they may be well meaning, but you and your spouse alone are entitled to receive the inspiration you need for your family's circumstances, and you know better than anyone what they are.  

One thing I failed to mention is that if you have extended family that can help, they can be a resource to, and if asking a bishop for help, its best to go to family first, as well, but there is nothing wrong with keeping your Wic and Medicaid, insurance is expensive, believe me, you'll need it, raising a child is expensive, please, keep that and WIC, you will need it.  That's great your being frugal.  And if you need Church assistance that's ok.  You need tests you've put off, then you see, you need resource, and as life goes on, you'll need it.  Are you a  medical student?  If that's the case, someday it will all pay off. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2018 at 6:55 PM, Fether said:

I don’t think so. The church knows crap is going to hit the fan and life will get hard. 

We are Latter-Day saints. We believe in looking to the poor and needy and administering to their relief (D+C 38:35)... But apparently, having read some members comments, we also believe in condemning the choices of the poor... cause why else would they be poor besides sin and bad decision making right? (Sarcasm)

There is a difference between being "poor" and making decisions that will make you even more "poor."  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share