lydy: (Lilith)
[personal profile] lydy
In 1981, I was 19 years old. I was living alone in a boarding house in Iowa City. I had been utterly unable to find a job of any kind whatsoever. The joke was that you had to have a master's degree to wait tables part-time, and be ABD to wait tables full time. McDonald's was only requiring a BA and a 4.0 GPA.

My support system consisted of my boyfriend, who was in college 50 miles away. My parents had disowned me. My other friends were college students, poor, and wrapped up in their own lives. I owed my landlord a truly astounding amount of money. The only reason he didn't evict me was because he was a terrible book keeper, and had no idea how much I owed him.

Usually, when I tell this story, I say that I had run out of food. This is not precisely correct. Life, as usual, is a bit messier than neat stories we like to tell about ourselves. I had two cans of soup, one of which I liked, and one of which I hated passionately, and about a half a pound of uncooked rice. I had been eating rice steadily for about a year at this point, sometimes varied with pasta. Just contemplating eating the soup I didn't like made me nauseous. On the other hand, I couldn't very well eat the soup I liked, because then I would have no food in the house. For reasons I no longer remember, I didn't really think of the rice as food. My solution to this dilemma was to not eat. At all.

It is relevant that I was very frightened, very alone, very lonely, depressed, and not completely in my right mind from stress with my family and my boyfriend. But it is also notable that what I had available to me was about 400 calories of food in the form of soup, and possibly another 400 or 600 calories of rice. Any way you slice it, that isn't even a full day's normal caloric intake. And I had no prospects of acquiring more. I had, I think thirty-five cents. Maybe. And no way to gain more money. So in a very real sense, it didn't matter if I ate the food today or not. It wasn't like I could just wait until the end of the month, and then there would be more money, more food, more options, more choice. I was at the end of absolutely everything. I was at the end of myself. So I didn't eat for three days.

Eventually, I started thinking about suicide. I spent quite some time wondering if I broke the plastic on the safety razor to expose the razor more fully, would I be able to actually kill myself. But, you know, what if I failed? There would be doctor's bills, which I couldn't afford. And worse, I'd look like a fool to all my friends. And what if I succeeded? Was that really what I wanted? Did I want to be dead, or did I just want to not be in the situation I was in? In all honesty, I was unable to answer that question.

Eventually, at about two in the morning, I took my loose change, walked over to Currier Dorm, went to the pay phone, and called the suicide hotline. A very nice gentleman talked to me. For a long time. At some point, the phone system cut me off. I became hysterical, weeping and pounding on the machine. A security guard came by to see what the ruckus was. I attempted to explain. I have no idea what I said, but eventually he reached into his pockets and pulled out some spare change and spilled it onto the counter. This is an act of kindness I remember vividly, thirty years later. The sound of the change on the metal counter. His dubious look, like he had no idea how to deal with this crazy teen-ager, but there was also the sense that he was doing his best. He went away. I called the crisis line back.

After more talk to the very nice young man at the crisis line, he sad, "You know, I really can't do too much about your parents or your boyfriend, but you know, it's four a.m. right now. The food bank opens at eight a.m. If you can wait just four hours, you can have some free food."

"Free food?" I said, utterly bewildered. It was as if he were speaking Swahili.

"Free food," he said, firmly.

I thought about this for long while. "Free food?" I asked again, tentatively.

"Free food," he repeated.

I thought for a long while more. Finally I said, carefully, as if trying to repeat a very complex rhyme, "Free food."

"Yes. Free food. Four hours. Can you wait that long?"

"Free food," I agreed.

Do you remember 1981? Ronald Reagan, the Evil Empire, Nuclear Winter, Mutually Assured Destruction, Launch on Warning? It was 1981. Bright and early, eight a.m. on the dot, I showed up at the food shelf. They explained the rules. I was given a grocery bag, and was permitted to fill it with whatever they had in their cupboards. In fact, since the bag they gave me was a little undersized, they gave me two. I was told that I could just pick and choose anything that was there. A vast array of canned and dry goods stared at me from metal cupboards. It felt to me as if all the wealth of Persia had been laid before me on brilliant carpets, awaiting my choice. Oatmeal seemed as beautiful and rich as rubies, that morning.

After I filled my bags, the receptionist, a scary battle-axe of a woman, iron-grey hair, heavy-set, with a permanent scowl, growled at me, "Are you on food stamps?"

"Um, no," I squeaked, terrified of her.

"Why not?" She had a growl that a tiger would envy.

"Um, too proud?" I suggested, not really sure. It sounded stupid to say that I had never considered that it might even be possible.

"Do you pay taxes?" she demanded, still in that gruff, authoritarian voice that I found so frightening.

"Um, when I have a job," I told her, very earnestly. I was very, very earnest at that age.

"It's not just for bombs, you know," she said in the most disgusted voice I'd ever heard. "You. You have an appointment at Johnson County Social Services at 10:30 this morning. They'll set you up on food stamps.'

"Thank you," I squeaked, again, utterly confused.

"Do you know where they are?" No, I didn't. She told me. "Do you have bus fare?" No, I didn't. "Here," she growled, and handed me four bus tickets. "Don't forget to go."

Which is how I ended up on food stamps. In 1981, a single person got $70 a month. It was a great bounty. But more importantly, it changed my life. It removed a very real, very persistent, and almost overwhelming fear. Eating on a regular basis also helped ameliorate (although obviously not cure) my depression. It gave me confidence and courage. It let me socialize with my friends again, because I was no longer constantly on guard against trying to beg from them. It is actually almost impossible to underestimate how huge a change this was in my life. It was the first step forward to being in charge of, and responsible for myself. It also got me into the system. I was referred to CETA, which was a jobs program for people between the ages of 18 and 25. It, like food stamps, worked exactly as it should. It got me on the job training, which made me valuable to my employer, which got me full-time employment (temporarily defining full-time as 40 hours a week with no benefits), which got me the experience to get a better job with the county, and so forth. For me, food stamps were transformative. There are ways in which it makes sense to look at my life before and after food stamps.

So, that brings me to the Farm Bill. Which the fucking Republicans want to pass without Food Stamps. A lot of very intelligent commentary has been written on how the Farm Bill has always been a compromise bill, wherein Food Stamps are traded for support for agribusiness, and how this compromise is breaking down. But you know, I don't feel intelligent or reasoned or informative on the topic. What I feel is fury and betrayal. I know, first hand, real live personal, how utterly and vastly important being able to eat can be. In the end, it seems to me that the fucking Republicans are saying that they wish I had died all those years ago, when I had run to the end of myself. It's hard not to take it personally.

Date: 2013-08-20 04:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pnh.livejournal.com
I don't take pleasure in saying this, but I honestly think that on some level these people don't want to make "tax-paying, productive members of society" out of immiserated poor people. They want the immiserated to stay that way, in order to make sure that everyone else stays in line.

This desire can frequently be found expressed in clear language in policy debates prior to the Great Depression, and again in similar debates in recent years. The fact is that if we guarantee individuals minimal-but-decent food, shelter, and healthcare, they become far more liable to tell their awful boss to take this job and shove it. This is of course the last thing the world's awful bosses want. Some of those people will drop out of the workforce and pursue careers as layabouts, but many others will go into business for themselves in some manner, a prospect made much more attractive when failure doesn't entail starvation and exposure to catastrophic health costs. The last thing incumbent businesses want is for their employees to feel that they don't desperately need to hold on to their jobs. Too much of that and you have (1) a workforce you can't push around as easily and (2) even worse, new competitors.

Capitalism, conservatism, and the American thing that calls itself "libertarianism" are all about this at heart: the defense and maintenance of incumbent privilege and private tyrannies. All that stuff about empowering people to compete in a free market is nothing more than cant. People are far more likely to endure private tyrannies when the abyss just outside the walls is a pit with no bottom. It's important that the abyss be kept that way. That's why they advocate things like abolishing food stamps. Your argument is absolutely correct and won't remotely change their minds, because what they say they want isn't at all what they actually want.

Date: 2013-08-20 06:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] filkerdave.livejournal.com
This is exactly right.

Date: 2013-08-20 06:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mrissa.livejournal.com
My cousin's husband joined the armed forces immediately after graduating high school, because he was an orphan, and the grandma who raised him had also died, and the aunt and uncle who housed him for his last two years of high school made it clear that he was on his own when he graduated.

This is, of course, entirely coincidental and in no way could reflect any kind of social engineering on anyone's part. Social engineering is inherently a thing liberals do and has no bearing on availability of cannon fodder from the lower classes. I don't even know why I'm mentioning it in this context, since there is clearly no connection.

Date: 2013-08-20 10:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dornbeast.livejournal.com
This is, of course, entirely coincidental and in no way could reflect any kind of social engineering on anyone's part.

Also, black is white, up is down, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Date: 2013-08-20 11:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com
of course
The example, for example, that the Boy Scours was founded to improve the quality of the cannon fodder is irrelevant.

Date: 2013-08-20 10:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaberett.livejournal.com
The deserving versus undeserving poor of the Victorians, and increasingly of today, in the UK.

Date: 2013-08-20 10:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pnh.livejournal.com
Yes, the UK seems to be even further down the road back to this stuff than we are. Outsourcing means-testing to private firms which, surprise surprise, consistently wind up ruling that individuals with spectacular disabilities are actually right-as-rain and need to get off the dole and find a job.

Who could have predicted that this would be the consequence of privatizing this kind of regulatory authority? Doesn't private industry do absolutely everything better than governments do, because freedom?

Date: 2013-08-20 11:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kaberett.livejournal.com
Gosh, it almost sounds like you think that wasn't the entire point of privatisation.

(I am on Disability Living Allowance. It took the government fifteen thousand words of additional notes, nine months and one appeal to notice that, shockingly, the majority-time wheelchair-user with multiple degenerative conditions was actually disabled...)

Date: 2013-08-20 10:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] irontongue.livejournal.com
[livejournal.com profile] pnh is entirely correct, as are [livejournal.com profile] mrissa and [livejournal.com profile] kaberett. Still plenty of bullshit about the deserving & undeserving poor in modern-day conservatism. Note Reagan's use of the racist term "welfare queen."

[livejournal.com profile] lydy, thank you for this. I'm glad you got the help you needed right then in 1981, from the counselor on the suicide hotline and the receptionist at the food bank. May that help be available to those in need now and in the future.

Date: 2013-08-23 12:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contrafrutexus.livejournal.com
My favourite example of a 'welfare queen'? J.K. Rowling.

We all would have been sooo much better-off if she had been forced to soak in hot burger-grease for a year rather than having some time to write...she would have developed stronger moral fibre (great for the System's regularity once it's et you!).

Date: 2013-08-20 11:17 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
*makes a note*

Date: 2013-08-21 05:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] biomekanic.livejournal.com
Here via a facebook:

To paraphrase author [livejournal.com profile] jaylake, the modern Republican party is made of a complete lack of imagination and empathy.

Rest assured, as soon as something like this happens to one of them, they become proponents of the program. He had an example today of a Republican who's been diagnosed with a disease that his insurance company would have cancelled his policy for, but they can't because of Obamacare. Guess who's now a fan of Obamacare?

See also, The Only Moral Abortion is my Abortion (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html).

Date: 2013-08-21 01:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pecunium.livejournal.com
I agree: They don't want independent people.

Illustrative story. I was stony-broke, living on the help of friends of good will; no job to be had, waiting for the VA to sort out the GI Bill so I'd have just enough to get by on a rented room and food and busfare.

So I applied for food stamps: California (that place we hear everyone goes to because the bennies of The Welfare State are so good). I qualified: yay! Oh wait, it says here you are a student. You don't qualify. To get SNAP, in Calif. as a student you have to have a job; which pays a guaranteed 20 hrs per week of Federal Minimum Wage.

The only way to get food stamps was to either lie (with the attendant risk of going to jail), or quit school.

The chance to break the cycle (for most) is flat out denied. It's not about making productive citizens, it's about staving off revolution.

Date: 2013-08-22 04:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] hanfastolfe.livejournal.com
I wish I could add comments to LJ memories.

Date: 2013-08-22 05:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] vom-marlowe.livejournal.com
I believe that some of them want the poor to 'stay in line', but I also believe there is a prosperity theology at work. If having wealth is tied to being a good person, then poor people (who are inherently evil, being poor) should NOT get the good things. I think this prosperity theology partially explains the aspirational voters--the poor who vote Republican or espouse Republican beliefs.

They (the aspirational) vote against social safety nets, even if they themselves have used them, because they believe that most people who use the nets are not like them. They themselves are the good poor, but the rest of the poor are evil, otherwise the world would be unfair. It is scary to believe that the world is inherently unfair. It means that control is an illusion (which of course it is--for many people, getting out of poverty is virtually impossible, whether they're good, evil, or divine saints). It is disheartening and very frightening to look at the world and think, "The breadwinner could fall dead at any time and my whole family could starve, even though they are good people." It is more hopeful (but of course, incorrect) to say to oneself, "Even if our breadwinner died, God would make sure our good and beloved family survived and made it through this terrible time caused by an unpredictable accident, because we are good."

Date: 2013-08-23 01:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] contrafrutexus.livejournal.com
Never underestimate the strength of Dumbed-Down Calvinism, as revealed by Sts Calvin, Spencer, and Ste Rand: the wealthy are the Elect for whom all good things are meet, the poor are the Damned whose every torture is deserved (and likely the occasion of rejoicing among the Elect), these two groups are so different to each other that there's no point in trying to make the poor richer or the rich pay---they _deserve_ the government that allows them to keep and to hold and to transfer orders of magnitude more wealth than they could have done in the State of Nature.

There is really no such thing as a good poor person; if they were good God wouldn't have made them poor, and we should take the vineyard-owner in the Parable of the Talents for a mirror of a righteous man.

Profile

lydy: (Default)
lydy

November 2025

S M T W T F S
       1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 14th, 2026 04:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios