Mooching, Poverty and Giving

As of this writing, I have been reading a book about mooching. Mooching? The premise of this author is that many of us in the US and in the UK are moochers. We think we are entitled to get, get, get while others work for our goods. We want something for nothing. The commodity here? Money. Government money. Taxpayer dollars. What inspires us? Grabbing hold of all the freebies that Big Government is all too happy to hand us, courtesy of the taxpayers. Agreed?

We need to be clear on what programs are actually welfare and what are not. In the US, programs such as Food Stamps, Aid for Families of Dependent Children (AFDC), Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and Medicaid are means-tested "welfare" programs. That is, they are based on documented need. They are not "entitlements." Other programs are considered "entitlements" and are not welfare and are not based on financial need, but on other criteria. Social Security Disability (SSD)is for those who have documented disabilities that prevent them from being gainfully employed. Social Security is an entitlement for anyone 65 and over. Veteran's Benefits are for those who have served in the military. Survivor's Benefits go to those who have lost spouses or parents. The programs exist for different needs and situations.

But many people, especially those who subscribe to the conservative viewpoint, tend to see most government programs as "welfare" and agree that we are a "nation of moochers." Much of this is because people who subscribe to the conservative viewpoint disagree with their liberal counterparts about what the government's role in meeting needs should be. In reading the book I have been reading, I wonder if the author changed the names of the "welfare recipients" and "moochers" whom he mentioned by name. It is my hope that he did. As a Christian, I know that we are not to be "moochers" or to have the reputation of being such. We are told that, "If a person won't work, he should not eat." Where the rub is is determining if a recipient of benefits cannot work or will not work. In many cases, even when a person looks able-bodied and so should go get a job, he or she may have an invisible disability that makes getting or holding a job very difficult. Can this person be considered a moocher?

What is the opposite of a moocher? It is a giver. Who can give? Many people labor under the notion that we must have a lot of money to give. Many believe that small financial gifts do not count, and that the "big givers" matter more than the "small givers." But in my Bible, Jesus heaps praise on a destitute widow who dropped two mites in the collection basket. She may have not thought her gift was worth much. But Jesus, seeing the sacrifice that was involved in her gift, lavished praise on her.

I have switched from mooching to giving. I do this because, as good as it is to provide both government "safety net" programs and private aid efforts, we must not neglect those in developing countries. In developed countries, especially the US, the poor usually experience what has been called "relative poverty." But most people in developing countries experience what is called "absolute poverty." While we can do very little about the sea of need in those parts of the world, we can make life better for one child and his or her family. Consider sponsoring a child.

The above two photos are courtesy of Compassion International, Inc.

The Most Dishonored Man in the US

     Someone does a drawing of President Obama, inscribing this drawing with "He has come from monkeys." (I understand the the maker of this photo has apologized).
     A "friend" on Facebook appears on Chat with me; when I request that this user sign and share a petition, the response I get is an angry: "He hates (the beneficiaries of said petition)! He is our enemy! He is a sociopath!"
     Recently, I scrolled through my homepage and saw another post about the US President. In the comments section, a user posted "It is time to hand him his pink slip and say it's time to retire."
     As I was scrolling though my Facebook homepage one day, I saw a photo collage of many politicians with the inscription like "Terrorists," among the many photos is one of President Obama, at the far right.
     A "pastor," preaching his "pro-life" sermon one day, denounces President Obama and leads his congregation in a "prayer" for the President to die.
     It is not uncommon for us to see "funnies" in various media outlets, where President Obama is depicted with Devil's horns or pictured in strange poses or with "evil" expressions.
     In one user's Facebook profile pic, President Obama appears standing and over his head is the inscription "I lie."
     Republicans and politics shows supporting Republicans, compare President Obama to Hitler or even call him by that name.
     One prominent, popular politician declares that President Obama "consorts with terrorists and wants to usher in a socialist government."
     A high-profile politician calls President Obama "the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
     Regularly, when I log into Facebook and check my homepage for updates, I come upon posts with the transparent aim: to trash the current US President.
     "Impeach Obama" and "Defeat Obama" causes, petitions and pages continually spring up throughout the social networks.
     "Liar," "Imposter," "Unpatriotic," "Traitor," "Socialist," and other derogatory nouns are constantly tossed around, on all media outlets, and are meant to trash the President.
     One national cable TV network, over these past several years, has functioned with one purpose, as judging by their actions: to destroy the President and those who agree with him.
     On and around patriotic holidays, like Memorial day and Veteran's Day especially, on my Facebook homepage, I see posts with photos of veterans with the inscrpition "Some Gave All," and photos of President Obama with the inscription, "Some Gave Nothing."
     One prominent Republican likens President Obama to a criminal convicted of manslaughter who "has abandoned the ship."
     When President Obama sings a portion of a popular song on TV, another politician calls him the "Entertainer-In-Chief" and states that he is "bad for singing."
     A certain Governor, right on TV, angrily shakes her fist in the face of the US President.
     A certain Congressman orders President Obama: "Get the ---- out of the US!"
     On Facebook, there is an application called "Nobama."
     A certain State Senator "prays" for the death of the US President.
     These numerous, disturbing examples point to a now ingrained habit in our culture that has taken on a life of its own. This trend is dishonoring the President.
     I don't know if this is because of who the current President happens to be but I have a suspicion that this has something to do with all the hate leveled at him. I don't know if this because of unconscious racism toward the first Black President in US history and jealousy of his success. I don't recall that former Presidents, including former President George W. Bush, have been the butt of such hate, contempt and crass disrespect. Yes, many of us have referred to former President Jimmy Carter as "the peanut man," and to former President Bill Clinton as "slick Willie." However, even during the months of the exposure of former President Bill Clinton's scandalous relationship with then White House intern Monica Lewinski and his actions following, and throughout his impeachment trial, I don't recall that he was ever subjected to the level of smearing that President Obama has been.
     Why is this dishonoring of the President so widespread and so socially accepted, even among people of faith? I think that it is because many people have grown up not knowing any better, having had it ingrained in them that dishonoring the Government and trashing those in power is "cool." And then there is the influence of the "Tea Party" movement and a prominent cable news network plus Republican enemies of the President who use all kinds of media outlets and spending $$$ to trash him. I think much of it is because ours has become a culture of general disrespect and younger people are not likely to remember a time when manners and respect were the norm. For it is true: Manners, politeness and respect in general, have been declining for many years. When I was growing up, it was drilled into the younger generation, "Respect your elders" and when we did or said anything to challenge authority, it was not accepted. "Talking back" was a grave offense (granted there are major drawbacks to this which I point out in my blogs about autism and social stigma about "taboo" issues).
We would never have gotten by with telling an authority figure, "Wait," when told to do something. Delayed obedience equalled disobedience. But today is very different and disprespect has become so ingrained that diishonoring the person who holds the highest office in the free world, is socially acceptable and even commended! We have lost the ability to separate a person from his or her office and to honor the holder of such offices despite dislike of them or disagreement with them and their policies.
     It is safe to say that President Obama will go down as the most dishonored and vilified President in US history. Currently, we have entered into the campaign season where he is seeking a second term and as we all know, this campaign will only get nastier until it is all over. Public sentiment against him continues. There are numerous individuals, groups, causes and petitions that are committed to President Obama's defeat. On Facebook, I continue to see posts that are hostile to President Obama and propaganda photos and articles and supposed quotes where the President's words are taken out of context or incorrectly quoted. Yesterday, scrolling through my Facebook homepage, I saw one such post that showed a photo of former President George Washington and underneath his photo was the inscription was "I cannot tell a lie." Next to his photo was a photo of President Obama; under his photo was the inscription, "I cannot tell the truth." More and more users are posting material declaring, "I will vote President Obama out of a job in November 2012!" Even after the President had produced his birth certificate and explained the circumstances surrounding his birth, many still doubt the validity of his US citizenship and declare his "ineligibilty" to even run for the office of the US President.
     I am aware that, among many "real life" people of my aquaintance and among many in my own social networks, many oppose the President. In my social networks and among those who have expressed their political vies, few have shown support for President Obama. And by support I don't mean liking him or agreeing with his political views or his policy decisions. By support, I mean honoring him because he holds the highest (and arguably most difficult) office in the free world, expressing this honor and giving him the benefit of the doubt even when we may not like what he does. I have wanted to post, "What would YOU do if you were in his place?" Myself, I don't agree with all of President Obama's decisions or views, just as I did not agree with all of former President Bush's decisions or his views.
     As a person of faith, I'm fully aware that many question the genuineness of President Obama's Christian faith, though he has stated that he has a relationship with God through Jesus His Son and that his faith guides what he does in his personal and professional life. I will not discuss the reasons people give for why they doubt his faith; these would fill whole books. But I believe that judging the quality of his faith (or anyone's) is nor right and is just as wrong as the reasons their profession of faith is being questioned. This lapse is worst among those who call themselves "conservative Christiona" or "the religious right." Whatever we think of President Obama's views on the "hot-button" issues of gay/lesbian marriage equality or abortion, only God knows the President's heart, just as He knows the hearts of each of us. Each of us arrives at our own views of these two core issues (in the minds of so many) based on deeply held beliefs and often, life experiences. Yes, Scriptural principles come down on the side of life beginning at conception and on the side of marriage being God's design to be between a husnband and his wife (who would illustrate the relationship between God and His people). But we live in a very broken world where so many feel driven to choose abortion or where life circumstances make the sexual orientations of many do awry. The fact that we are so angrily debating these issues shows that we have serious issues that the President, if anything, realizes needs to be addressed. We may not like or agree with how he is addressing gay/lesbiam marriage equality or abortion but the Scripture tells us to honor and pray for those in power.
    As we get closer and closer to the Presidential debates and the election, whoever those of us in the US vote for, let us remember that votes that are cast based on hate for a Candidate and the desire to defeat him at any cost, are poorly cast.
    And if we can disrespect the person who hold the highest office in the free world, we will find it easy to disrespect anyone.
    
      

About Government Programs

          The other day I was scrolling through my homepage when a post caught my eye. The poster declared, "So I'm supposed to be outraged at what Mitt Romney does with HIS money? What about what President Obama does with MY tax dollars?" And underneath this poster, four people had hit the "like" button to signal their approval of this poster's sentiment.
          Many months ago, I logged into Facebook one morning and an obviously angry, bitter post jumped out at me. The Facebook user posted with all capital letters, lashing out viciously at "welfare bums" who "live the good life on my tax dollars." This user let her subjects have it with her vitriolic rant. The user finished savagely: "AND YOU CAN GO HOME AND ENJOY YOUR STEAK WHILE I HAVE MY NOODLES!"
          One Facebook user who has been in my social network for a long time, makes no secret of her political leanings and has made clear her resentment for people who use government assistance. One day, I was logged into Facebook and was scrolling through my homepage. One of this user's posts jumped out at me. This user's status went something like: " People who depend on Food Stamps, SSI, Medicaid, or other welfare programs are sponging off MY taxes. Mr. President, I'm sick and tired of the way you spend MY tax $$$ to spread the wealth! One day the free ride will end and these welfare bums will have to get out and work!"
          Years ago, when our Missouri Governor Matt Blunt rose to power, he made a package of deep and painful cuts to the Missouri Medicaid program. When he left office, I got involved in circulating a petition to restore Medicaid to its original state, ending those cuts. A good number of people signed the petition but I was struck by the responses of those who would not sign. I circulated the petition at our local church where we were attending at the time. One fellow parishioner refused to sign, declaring: "Sorry but I will not sign this. I hate to punish the children for the sins of the parents but I have seen adults pull out the EBT cards and use them to get alcohol." I approached another person twice and the second time, I was told, "Sorry, I am not signing. I just don't don't believe I'm informed enough about this." One more person I approached said, "No I'm not signing. I agree with some of those cuts." One fellow parishioner simply said, "I'm not interested."
          Over and over, in looking at my Facebook homepage, I have seen this post. It says something like: "Whatever you think of my views, I hope you will have the courage to agree with this: We are in favor of those who apply for public assistance having to submit to drug-testing. Why should our tax dollars have to go to drug addicts who won't work? Those of us who work and earn our money have to submit to drug testing; what about those who want government benefits for nothing?" Every time someone reposts this status, other Facebook users hit the "like" button underneath this post to signal their approval of this status.
          Not long ago, a certain politician, meaning his words as no compliment to President Obama, declared with a measure of contempt, "Our current President is the biggest Food Stamp President in history."
          A few months ago, in Washingtom and in Congress, politicians were battling over the national budget and over the whether or not to make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And a politician, clearly fed up with this debate, stated: "I think we need to give the poor something. No argument with that. We need to give them the opportunity to pay their way and to know the dignity of personal responsibilty through requring them to get out and work."
          Years ago, I liked a certain ultraconservative talk show host and listened to his radio talk show for a time. I agreed with his sentiments on a number of issues though I thought he bullied those he didn't agree with. One day, though, my opinions on his bullying were confirmed when he ranted about "those welfare bums." This talk show host ranted, "It's high time for these poor, welfare bums to start paying their fair share! It's called paying taxes, people! I say we need to end the free ride once and for all!" Angrily, I turned the radio off.
           One day, I got on Facebook to circulate an online petition calling for President Obama to fight all efforts to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the national debt. I posted the petition on a certain Facebook fan page. This proved to be an apparent mistake. Checking my Facebook notifications, I could see that I got prompt comments on the petition. To sum up the comments, Facebook users on that page declared that users of "the big three" were often among the "undeserving poor" who live lives of fiscal irresponsibility, who seek a free ride in life and are social parasites who use the system to their own ends.
           More recently, I scrolled through my homepage one day and saw several Facebook users post an article about one wealthy couple, who collected Food Stamps yet who nevertheless enjoyed hugely extravagant, lavish lifestyles of travel and leisure.
          Years ago, I read an article that fully echoed my sentiments about the hypocritical mind-set that applauds the virtues of stay-at-home mothers, while at the same time despising and trashing as "welfare bums" those moms who use the Temorary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF and was once called Aid to Dependent Children), to stay at home with their children. That article was called, "We Value At-Home Moms Unless They are Poor." About that time, one person said to me and others, "If these moms can't afford to drive they can take their kids with them on the bus and go to work."
          Many years ago, I was viewing a talk show. When it was one troubled guest's time to present her needs, the guest psychologist who was advising her on her situation said something that has stuck in my mind to this day. This woman snapped at the person, "And MY tax dollars will NOT be going to subsidize you staying at home and doing nothing!"
          Currently, I have been a frequent visitor to this one website for a nonprofit organization that awards grants to individuals who have short-term, one-time financial needs which can't be met anywhere else. In taking note of the anonymous applicationsthat are posted, I have noticed a trend. At this website, donors get to recommend the applications that they would like to see get funded first. It seems that the applications that are prioritized by the nonprofit, that get most recommended by donors for faster funding and therefore tend to get funded fastest, are the ones placed by employed applicants. The applicants who are listed as using government assistance seem to get fewer donor recommendations for funding and seem to take more time getting funded.
          All these examples and many, many more, only underscore how those who use government programs as their source of income are perceived by society. Yes, I know that this one blog isn't going to make any dent in changing how many people see government programs and those who use them. The resentment is too deep-seated and widespread for that. It's just that I'm seeing so much of this resentment that amounts almost to behaving like people actually get rich using the programs and use the programs as a ticket to "the good life."
          Now I'm fully aware, as much as anyone, that there are people who abuse the system and government assistance, just as there are people who will abuse any good or service. This is why the use of these government programs, especially means-tested, need-based programs, come with a set of strict rules for screening, benefits and carry strict penalties if these terms are found to be violated. Persons who "use the system" for their own ends and are caught only increase the stigma of using these programs for all other users. Lazy people who are unwilling to work have always been with us. That's why the Bible says, "If a man will not work, let him not have the right to eat."
          Here's what everyone needs to know about Social Security and Medicare. These two programs are "entitlement" programs for all those age 65 and over where they draw off their own work records or off the work record of a spouse. These programs are a "safety net" for senior citizens when they retire. These "entitlement programs" are unlike the more stigmatizing programs where users must must follow many more rules to become eligible for these programs and to remain eligible and where they must be periodically "reviewed." Survivor's Benefits and the Veteran's Administration (VA) are also "entitlement programs with little stigma.
           Social Security Disability (SSD) is also an "entitlement program" for people whose disabilities are documented as ones that render them unable to get and keep a job. People who use SSD are also covered under Medicare. Use of this program comes with period reviews that are meant to prove that the user is still disabled." This program carries more stigma than Social Security for seniors as it's for younger people under 65. SSD is incredibly difficult to be approved for and calls for much paperwork and standard procedures to be followed. Attempts to get and keep employment can endanger SSD benefits and signal that the user "can work and therefore is not disabled."
          Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is needs-based and for people who are documented as living below the poverty level and/or have a documented disability. These things hold true for the federal Food Stamp program and Medicaid, which is administered by each of the 50 states. WIC (Women, Infants and Children) covers children age 5 and under and who are born to moms using the TANF program.These government programs carry the most stigma of all, came attached with many rules to follow for eligibility and can change at any time. Users must be "reviewed" on a regular basis. These are programs no one wants to need but they serve as lifesavers if needed to survive.
          I know that many people are fortunate enough to be in life circumstances where they have never had to use any government programs and have the $$$ to not need them, whatever their circumstances. I would not wish them to need these programs. However, we never know what life will hold for us and if we will need any of these programs at any given time. People who trash "welfare bums" and the users of needs-based programs do not realize that any of us at any time can find ourselves in situations where we may be compelled to use these needs-based programs or even so-called entitlements like SSD or Survivor's Benefits. And if we US citizens are blessed enough to live to turn age 65, we will use Social Security and Medicare.
          Despite the stories of wealthy people who collect government programs and others who apply for benefits under false pretenses, these are exceptions, not the rule. We ought not to make our judgments on anything based on exceptions. The overwhelming majority of people who use entitlements like SSD or means-tested programs like SSI, Food Stamps, Medicaid and others, do not get wealthy on these programs. Not by any means! People who use these programs do so just to survive and benefits cover bare needs and not frills or extras. There is little to no incentive to save $$$ as there is often not enough money for the entire month. And married people who use these programs get penalized which reflects the value, or lack of it, that the US government places on marriage. Most users would much rather, if they had the choice, be gainfully employed instead of using these programs. Also, we must never forget that these programs keep many people from life in the streets who would other wise be homeless. Medicare and even Medicaid reduce the number of uninsured people who add to ever-rising healthcare costs.
          And now our US government wants to make cuts to these programs, not only to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security but also to all the needs-based programs. All in the name of balancing the budget and paying down the deficit! Even Catholic Bishops are taking note of the current debate and are decrying these proposed cuts as immoral and inhumane.
          If you are among those who tend to feel contempt for those who use government assistance and especially the needs-based variety, remember that you or a loved one may one day find yourselves in circumstances where you need such assistance.