The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits
Good read, and sadly so true.
Poverty looks pretty great if you're not living in it. The government gives you free money to spend on steak and lobster, on tattoos and spa days, on — why not? — cruise vacations and psychic visits.
Enough serious-minded people seem to think this is what the poor actually buy with their meager aid that we've now seen a raft of bills and proposed state laws to nudge them away from so much excess. Missouri wants to curtail what the poor eat with their food stamps (evidence of the problem from one state legislator: "I have seen people purchasing filet mignons"
. Kansas wants to block welfare recipients from spending government money at strip clubs (in legalese: any "sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment" .
<snip>
But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.
The first is economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way. The idea that they do defies Maslow's hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway. And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.
The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don't drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they're pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don't use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor..."
More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/07/the-double-standard-of-making-poor-people-prove-theyre-worthy-of-government-benefits/
= new reply since forum marked as read
· There are the hard-working, successful, quietly devout people who might well be "of the elect" (i.e., predestined by God for "salvation"
.
· Then there are the others: lazy, or simply not self-disciplined, or not sufficiently responsible; or enjoying what they do for a living so that it's too "natural" to count as work; or frivolous or profligate or just too attached to things of this world; or believing in the "wrong" religion or no religion; or in despair for whatever reason; or simply poor.
The key thing to notice is that in the "Protestant work ethic" worldview, all the varied descriptions in the "other" category tend to be conflated with each other. If someone appears to be "guilty" of one of those descriptions, e.g. seems lazy, then he or she is assumed to be "guilty" of most (or all) the rest, as well.
We can see how racial stereotyping in the U.S. functioned to categorize ethnic minorities as "the others," the non-elect. Most racial stereotypes in the U.S. (and in the British colonies that preceded the U.S.) include at least one of the varied descriptions. If one can believe in such racial stereotyping, one can try to justify mistreating members of ethnic minorities, because God must have predestined them not to be "saved."
For example, until well into the 20th century, many Anglo-Saxon Protestants in the U.S. believed that:
"All Irish people are uneducated, drunken, lazy Roman Catholics."
This also implied:
"Therefore, they are not good, hardworking, successful, self-disciplined Calvinists (or near Calvinists) like we are. Therefore, we can mistreat them, because they don't really count."
The fictional stereotype of the "Welfare Queen," developed in the 1980s, is a classic example. It helped legitimize the Reagan administration's cutting social services budgets. (Before then, for a while homelessness had been almost non-existent in the U.S.)
ship in the Caribbean. What was I thinking? Who needs to feed themselves and their kids for a whole month when you can have three days and four nights of free buffets on a cruise? I was so stooopid! 
the public should be demanding why this right wing republican hypocrite, (all of these republicans for that matter in this state and any state) whom, he is taking money (his /there salary) from these poor people to subsidize his/there life style as a legislator--this sounds like I have my cake and let the poor eat bread---ha ha ha.
Someone should just file a lawsuit and ask what is "class discrimination"--you have food stamps is a reason to discriminate-----I mean really
