Should people be ashamed of public assistance?

[beren]

There's a big debate on the homepage about why certain types of public assistance are stigmatized (food stamps, welfare) while others are not (student loans, farm subsidies).

Why is there so much negativity towards certain types of programs? Is it because people on welfare are perceived as lazy or otherwise morally defective?

[lucille]

There have been many types of manufactured stigma. After reading the debate in the article I decided to go look and see what the qualification line for most assistance was. It was actually a really low income even compared to lower wages in the area. It also said you couldn't have more than $2000-$3000 in personal assets and property.

I think two things need to happen. They need to restructure the programs to better encourage someone to get on their feet mainly by changing the disincentives toward making more money by putting is a gradual reduction of benefits as people make more money and allowing them to maybe have a bit more assets. I think they also need to have two tracks to public assistance, one for the elderly and disabled who are going to use it long term and a very different one for those where it is temporary. Put more help, learning and guidance into the program to really help people get ahead.

[jdp]

I don't think anyone should be ashamed to use public assistance in a time of need. I think people who abuse it and RELY on it should be. I think there is a lot of abuse that people are aware of that puts people "off" the whole idea entirely. The one bad apple scenario.

[purplefdu]

I know where I am there is a gradual reduction of food stamps with the earnings (although its normally more like full benefits when unemployed, half for part time job, none for full time job). The poverty level is required to be so low you practically have to be dying before you get assistance which is meant to supplement income you probably don't have. People don't like to think about there being people that poor, or even worse joining that group by accepting assistance, even once.

I know when my mother-in-law had back surgery the second time she had already been out of work for almost three months by time they prepped her for surgery. She was previously working 50+ hours a week as a law enforcement officer who normally handed out assistance, not took it. We had to drag her to the food pantry and pick up food on her behalf before she would take it even though she had no money coming in (insurance and Union only covered medical and bills) and no food in the house. She had to almost starve before she took assistance because she still believed she didn't deserve it compared to other families.

[amandajane]

I don't think there should be any shame attached to receiving a govt benefit of any sort if it's necessary.

I'm a full time student so rely on student loans, a living allowance and benefits to cover course related costs and other health related costs. I couldn't study if it weren't for this help, I'm trying to get myself into a more fruitful position whereby I won't be needing a benefit once my degree is finished. So far it's going well

[Miss Rosie]

My primary source of income is Social Security Disability. I've been on public assistance for most of the last 20 years, and will probably continue to be until I die.

Please do not underestimate the disabled and elderly! Most of us would love to work, but the laws governing income limits on SSD especially are nuts. I can't make more than about $400/month without losing everything else.

If the laws were specifically designed to keep people like me in lifelong poverty, they couldn't do a better job of it.

[Gootsy]

I don't think people should be ashamed. I mean if it's available, you should be glad to use it.

Miss Rosie, if the law doesn't let you make more than that amount, then break it! Doesn't have to be crazy stuff like dealing drugs. Uhhh how bout babysitting?!

[Miss Rosie]

Originally Posted by Gootsy

I don't think people should be ashamed. I mean if it's available, you should be glad to use it.

Miss Rosie, if the law doesn't let you make more than that amount, then break it! Doesn't have to be crazy stuff like dealing drugs. Uhhh how bout babysitting?!

Babysitting requires more energy than I have right now. I have a child of my own to care for, so I know. I can't take care of someone under 6, or someone with special needs.

I freelance, however, and there will probably come a time when some of it comes in under the table. I'm not at the $400/month mark just yet, so I report everything. I just think the rule is completely stupid, in part because it means doing things in unpleasant and counterproductive ways.

For example, I don't pay taxes on what I don't report, so putting me in a position where I have to fail to report income in order to survive doesn't help the system any.

What I really wish is that the system allowed for some kind of transition, but it doesn't, at least not for the most part. You're either on it or not, with little in between, and the situation is such that sometimes being on it is a smarter move. People can go off Welfare into even worse poverty than before, especially when you figure in health care and access to support services, like mental health counseling.

I also wish that certain things were truly public and available to all equally, like medical care, education and basic transportation, but I've done that rant already. It just seems like people would feel better about public services if they were really public. As it is now, a lot of people feel like they're being robbed.

[Gootsy]

I don't think the rule's too bad. I mean they don't want to make it too easy for people to abuse it. Maybe the transition should be better, but I'm sure even if they doubled the cap to 800, it wouldn't change the # of people on it that much.

Well, I know some people do overnight babysitting for nurses/nightworkers/police officers etc. Basically just go to their place and sleep. Might be a little tough with your son, but who knows could find a family who'd open to working around it.

Can you not move to a more central location? Or a City with better public transportation? I know moving can be expensive (I recently moved cities). But good public trans can save people buckets of money.

[Miss Rosie]

Originally Posted by Gootsy

I don't think the rule's too bad. I mean they don't want to make it too easy for people to abuse it. Maybe the transition should be better, but I'm sure even if they doubled the cap to 800, it wouldn't change the # of people on it that much.

Well, I know some people do overnight babysitting for nurses/nightworkers/police officers etc. Basically just go to their place and sleep. Might be a little tough with your son, but who knows could find a family who'd open to working around it.

Can you not move to a more central location? Or a City with better public transportation? I know moving can be expensive (I recently moved cities). But good public trans can save people buckets of money.

Another fun thing about being disabled is how people assume that they know all of the answers to my problems without meeting me or seeing my chart. If I took up in-home babysitting, my doctor would be appalled and so would my son's therapist. Anyway, who would hire someone who might not be able to respond quickly in an emergency, much less carry the child out of the house if something happens?

Again, I have freelance work. I can even do it in bed. That part's not the issue.

Raising the cap isn't the issue, either. The real issue is how that cap is handled. I wouldn't mind losing a dollar for everything over $400 that I earned, but that's not how it works. I earn more, I can't pay rent. That's a cut-off point, not a transition point. It would also be nice if the cap was higher because the benefits are around poverty level. It would be great to be able to work myself out of poverty, but the system is set up so I can't do it legally. That bothers me a lot more than the precise amount of the cap.

You're right. Probably just as many people would be on SSD if the cap was higher, but we wouldn't be forced to choose between car repairs and emergency dental work.

As far as transportation goes, I live in the city in this state with the best public transit. I can't use it because I'm disabled, and their attempts at accessibility are a joke. Trust me; I tried that. I cannot move outside of county because of the divorce agreement, so I definitely can't leave the state in search of better public transit, and in any case, I don't have enough money to move. Because I can't do physical labor or long-distance driving, I'd have to hire everything out. That adds up fast.

I'm not angry because I'm incompetent and making poor choices. I'm angry because the system is set up to keep me poor my entire life. Last time I went through an evaluation, the psychologist who saw me admitted as much, and said that it was people like me, who are genuinely disabled but also genuinely motivated, who suffer most.