Reason #1: the principle of self reliance and the duty of providing for your own family.

I believe that self-reliance is an important principle, but I don’t think it is the most important principle. I believe it can be legitimately put off temporarily for the sake of getting an education or starting a family.

Reason #2: governmental assistance is a finite resource and should be used by people who canNOT do without it.

This is a major point of disagreement, that probably gets to why some people are less concerned with this issue than others. In addition to just preventing people from starving, I see government resources as an investment to help people do things that are good for them and good for society. I don’t think that all government assistance is for only those who can do without. I don’t think, for example that people who could do without government subsidy of their education should refrain from taking it if they qualify, even though that violates the principle of absolute self reliance. I regard assistance for medical care and food the same way. Given that people can qualify for WIC and CHIP programs without being in desperate need, I can’t believe that they are only for people who cannot do without. If I were a legislator part of the reason I would support these programs and fund them such that they cover people who could do without is that I would expect them to support a healthy fertility rate, which is vital for a healthy economy.

And now I think we’ve reached a head, so I’ll bow out. It’s been fun.

If we accept this principle we can say that in certain situations it is wrong to take government assistance one could do without. It does not allow us to say that it is always wrong to take government assistance one could do without.

No, I believe in _every_ situation it’s better not to accept governmental assistance if you can do without it, but especially in the case of food and medical care. Reason #1: the principle of self reliance and the duty of providing for your own family. Reason #2: governmental assistance is a finite resource and should be used by people who canNOT do without it.

You have put forth the principle that it is wrong to take assistance if it makes assistance unavailable for those who really need it. I have noted that in any given situation it is very difficult to determine if this is the case. You have agreed. If we accept this principle we can say that in certain situations it is wrong to take government assistance one could do without. It does not allow us to say that it is always wrong to take government assistance one could do without. Each person should do their best to determine if they are in a situation where this principle would come into play and be cautious not to displace people who really need it.

The principle is that these programs – WIC and Medicaid – are intended for people “at risk”. As other people have noted, choosing to rely on governmental assistance to have or increase the number of your children instead of waiting until you can pay for their food and health insurance intentionally puts your family “at risk” and in a position to take advantage of these programs that were designed to help people who did not have a choice whether to qualify for government benefits.

As I understand you, you’re putting forth two different principles here: #1: it is wrong to take assistance that was not designed for you and #2: it is wrong to intentionally put yourself in a position to qualify for government assistance. Is that right?

It applies only when the situation is zero sum, which it isn’t for every program in every place, and when a reasonable analysis leads you to believe that your decision to receive assistance will displace people in desperate need, which is not always, if ever, the case.

This quote suggests an impossible calculation to make before receiving government benefits. Would you call up your local WIC agency and ask for a current financial statement? Even if you were assured that in June 2007 there were sufficient dollars, you couldn’t anticipate an unexpected increase in applications in July 2007 necessitating the denial of benefits to people worse off than you are.

The principle is that these programs – WIC and Medicaid – are intended for people “at risk”. As other people have noted, choosing to rely on governmental assistance to have or increase the number of your children instead of waiting until you can pay for their food and health insurance intentionally puts your family “at risk” and in a position to take advantage of these programs that were designed to help people who did not have a choice whether to qualify for government benefits.

Whether you feel comfortable with your choice to take advantage of these programs is of course a personal decision, but it’s disingenuous to imply that your use of the programs is justified because it doesn’t really affect their costs or their availability to others who are worse off than you are. (note: “desperate need” is not the criteria for receiving governmental aid).

Most people are not basing their negative judgments on the premise that it’s wrong to take government assistance when doing so displaces people in desperate need. You’re the only person who has offered that argument, and I agree that if and when it does, indeed, displace those in desperate need and you could do without, you should avoid receiving it. Many others have not based their selective condemnation on sound reasoning. Talking about self-reliance doesn’t cut it.

WIC and Medicaid programs provide food and health care to their recipients. WIC’s stated purpose is to provide food for women and children at “nutritional risk”. On the other hand, the subsidized student loan program provides money for higher education, for which there are alternative funding sources (private loans, scholarships, etc.). There are no alternative funding sources available for pregnant women and children “at nutritional risk” or for low-income people in need of medical attention.

In your comment #116, you say you agree with these arguments, but then you state on other threads that these arguments are merely “irrational stigma” and “negative judgments”. What do you really think?

what about the moral principle of self reliance discussed by Church leaders?

If people condemn WIC recipients on the basis that they are not being self reliant, then they must also condemn recipients of educational assistance for the same reason.

. . . what about the moral principle that when a limited amount of money is available to help people worse off than you are, you should choose to not take that money – even if you are “entitled” to it?

First, nobody is entitled to anything. Some people qualify for programs.

Second, condemnation on this basis also applies to any recipients of money for higher education who displace someone truly worse off than them.

I agree that this is an important thing to take into account when making one’s decision. But it’s very complicated. Some programs are zero sum, others aren’t, and that varies from place to place. If you’re somewhere in the middle of the pack, income-wise, of those who qualify for something like WIC or an educational grant, there are many people better off than you who also qualify. At the upper limits there are many people receiving assistance who definitely could do without and very few, if any, who could not do without. So taking all those factors into account, determining whether your choice to receive assistance displaces someone in depserate need is very difficult. I would say that if one is aware that the situtation is zero sum, one should err on the side of not taking if possible.

Also, the stakes are definitely higher when the assistance is food than when it is higher education. But the same moral principle applies: be cautious not to displace people worse off than you.

Exactly. That is really sad about your sp. We had a bishop in our college ward who was really sensitive about it. He never said anything specifically about welfare but I remember him giving us the counsel to take school more slowly (taking semesters off) if finances became too tight. I remember being surprised by that. This was before I knew about any of this stuff. Seriously, I knew NOTHING. I am guessing many young parents don’t. Balance is very important as we juggle all our worthwhile endeavors. I have since learned that the hard way.

Ann “When I said “the answer is inferred,” I meant by the audience.”

Oh, okay — yes I would totally agree with that. I liked the “one good” analysis too. Sometimes you do have to pick and choose.

Answer: All of the Above.

As with us all. I’m just way too touchy, I guess. Mainly because we had a Stake President (who came from a filthy rich family and never wanted for money) came into our college ward and told all the college students there (80% of whom had at least one kid on welfare) they were “vile sinners” for using any sort of government aid at all. This caused the few couples who had put off having kids to spend the next few months making lots and lots of snide comments about how much more righteous they were then the rest of us who chose to have kids.

Interestingly, It actually didn’t apply to me, since my first two kids we paid for ourselves by scrimping and saving. The third kid was an OOPS! so we found ourselves needing some government assistance.

But I had many friends who used welfare to have a kid or two, and I can’t begrudge or judge them, the same way I refuse to judge people who choose not to have kids, or whatever. Such personal family decisions are truly unknowable to people not actually in the family, and it would be impossible for me (or anyone) to know what went into the decision(s).