# Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?



## Mothering

Back in 2001 Mothering published the article *Welfare Warriors: Honoring the Value of Motherwork *about mothers who made the decision to stay at home with their children and live on welfare and other government assistance. Ten years later the financial situation for many parents is no better and perhaps even worse.

Surely we can all agree that having a parent at home during infancy, toddlerhood, and the early years of childhood is much better for the child. Yet we also know that staying at home is an extremely difficult if not impossible option for many families and particularly single moms. Should we support moms through welfare or some sort of government subsidy to ensure that all mothers - or even fathers - who wish to stay home with their children are able to do so without discrimination or financial worry?


----------



## Tonia Starr

This is a tough one for me. I ou have to attempt to answer it unbiased. Here was my situation. Backin 2006 my husband left me for another woman. I had three young boys, no car, no job andanother baby on the way. Throughour marriage t had been agreed I would be a SAHM. I was ill equipped for this unexpected turn of events. I felt very strongly about continuing to stay home with my boys. (they were 6,4,and 2) and I was home schooling as well. It took a year to get child support so i was flat broke. There also was NO government assistance where I lived besides food stamps and Medicaid. (both of which I recieved and was VERY grateful for) I started within a couple of weeks to povide home day care. I cared for two children full time. Plus occassional after school careor a few older kids. At night when my kids slept I wrote articles for a website. I had to think creativly and work aroundd the clock to make ends meet. I was back to full time child care providing 5 days after my son was born.

My opinion is, if a woman desires to be home with her child, welfare shuld bean option for the first year of the childs life. BUT during that year programs shouldbe made available for the mother to receive job training, GED prep, college prep, etc.....whatever is her idividual need so she can stand on her own two feet and provde for her children.

In 2006 my ex husband looked in my face and told me I would never be able to make it on my own when I told him I planned to continue to stay home with them. His words to me were "You will flat on your facewithin a month. Then I will take these kids from you." That lit a fire of determination within me as mother. Five years later I still have100 percent sole custody of them. This is my pride and accomplishment. But in looking back, I really wish more oppurtunities had been made available to me to make this journey a litle easier.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

I would love a program like Canada's where parents have 1 year of paid maternity leave. I think something like that would be wonderful.

I also think jobs should be required to pay a *livable* wage to workers so that it IS possible to survive on only one income. And accordingly, that families should alter their lifestyles to make one income feasible (if they choose to live on one income). Housing needs to be affordable, and financial education needs to be a core part of school curricula so graduating students (who later become parents) can in fact survive in the real world.

Jobs that mesh well with motherhood (work-at-home positions, jobs that allow you to bring your child(ren) to work) need to be made more available and less stigmatized.

I don't believe welfare should be used in these kind of situations though... IMO 'welfare' should serve as a temporary stop-gap and involve efforts to assist in job training & acquisition, help with managing finances, etc., not as a lifestyle choice.


----------



## SuburbanHippie

I've written several papers on this very topic. It's near and dear to my heart.









The US is one of 4 countries without paid parental leave. It's disturbing. We're supposedly so "progressive," but we fall so far behind in this aspect. It tells our women that motherhood isn't worth anything when it is absolutely one of the most remarkable things we will do in life. We are raising the future of our country!

I would love to see the US with a paid parental leave similar to Sweden's. It's simply amazing. Fathers are more active in their child's lives because they have the ability to spend time with them when they are young. Mothers are able to close the wage gap and are not living dependent on their spouses. Imagine the US when women are finally worth as much as men. It would be a remarkable place to live and raise our children.


----------



## ollyoxenfree

It's really too bad that this is cast as "welfare", with all the negatives that dredges up. I get that using provocative language to inflame a polarized debate is more fun than using more rational wording to inspire a thoughtful discussion about publicly supported parental leave. It's too bad because there is a lot to talk about - how to fund it, how to organize and administer it, how long parents can access it, etc.

I thought that there were only 2 OECD countries that did not offer a publicly funded parental leave program - the U.S.A. and Australia - until last year when Australia announced it was implementing a maternal leave program. It's pretty paltry compared to other countries, but it's a start. It leaves the U.S.A. out in the hinterland on this subject.

A decent, well-funded parental leave program, accessible by either parent, is essential to a nation that wants to nurture a civilized society. Almost every other nation in the developed world understands that.


----------



## umsami

I think "welfare" is such a loaded term in the U.S. It has such negative connotations. I do think that we should offer paid parental leave with a job return guarantee, etc. I also thin a stipend as is done in France or other countries for mothers of young children makes sense. But I don't expect any of these things to happen in my lifetime. We don't have a culture of caring for the vulnerable and truly caring about children. We see that not only in situations like WIC and maternity leave--but in how we treat children in schools and day care. Motherhood and parenting are not valued. Spending time with your child, nurturing that child, is not valued. The GOP wants to reduce WIC and child insurance programs. If they have issues with providing supplemental food to pregnant and nursing Moms and young kids--then I don't have much hope for any improvement. WIC money isn't like food stamps--the food is chosen for its healthfulness--low fat/fat free milk, whole grain bread, fresh fruits and veggies, low-sugar cereals, etc. It's not like WIC Mamas are buying Coca-cola on the government's dime to feed their infants.


----------



## princesstutu

Yes, we should give mothers enough money to be able to afford staying home with their babies through age 3 years, which correlates to the social messaging we receive that says the first 3 years are the most important.


----------



## greencarnation

Considering that many jobs do not pay a living wage, and could not even cover childcare, I think that someone (not necessarily the mother) staying home with a child until school age ought to be a right. There should also be help for job-reentry and education to help parents get better jobs, when they do return to work.

I don't see how staying home to nurture, breastfeed, educate, and generally raise your child is somehow 'lazy', but making $7.25 at McDonalds, while your kid is eating formula and stuck in gov subsidized childcare is 'right'.


----------



## mamazee

I have a family member who is an economist who says that the purpose of the economy is to create jobs and opportunities for people to earn money to support themselves, and that it's the job of the government to create an environment where that happens. IMO either the government can create an environment where people can afford to feed their families and pay rent, or the government can feed people's families and pay rent. Right now, many many people don't have a lot of options. SAHM or welfare? Is it really that often a clear choice? How many people faced with that choice have the earning potential to find safe and reliable daycare plus bring home enough money to make a difference anyway?


----------



## Petronella

May I ask what is the purpose of this thread? It's been started by some person or entity called just "Mothering," as an administrator. Is this one of those threads that's being posted on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, to drive more traffic to MDC?


----------



## umsami

I really like the author's term, "motherwork."









I also thought this was very powerful...

"The experience of being regarded as a social pariah led me to become an activist. I was appalled that our society punished mothers and children for the sins of the fathers. When fathers do not support their children, it is the mothers who are labeled irresponsible and dependent! Because we care for dependent minors, we are called dependent. Because our "missing male role models" take most of the community with them, our families are labeled "broken," and our kids are called delinquent or even illegitimate. When we work for no pay, we are called lazy."

However... I think a lot has happened to encourage that fathers, even absent fathers, support their kids since the article was written. Seems to be States

are much more active in going after deadbeat Dads, garnishing wages, etc.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

The United States Government spends over $22,000 a year per inmate that we hold in incarceration. We spend 44.1 BILLION dollars paying for the War on Drugs enforcement, and over 200,000,000 rebuilding roads each year.

I hope no one begrudges me my measly six grand a year in food stamps so that I can SAH and be with my baby.


----------



## captain optimism

Currently, recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) must work. Single mothers must work at least 30 hours a week to receive benefits--20 hours if they have children under six. If you go to the TANF website, you'll see that one of the reasons for the program was to enable families to stay together, but the work requirements are still there.

Furthermore, the current policy with TANF is to get people into jobs first. States are limited in the number of TANF recipients who are allowed to seek education instead of working at whatever job they can get, and recipients who are allowed to seek education aren't supposed to do it for more than 12 months. See this fact sheet from the National Council of Churches: http://www.ncccusa.org/publicwitness/training.html

There is no "welfare as a lifestyle choice," because the 1996 welfare reform under Clinton limited the number of months any family can receive TANF. In the current job crisis, some families with parents who don't have good job skills have used up their TANF eligibility--this article describes people using food stamp dollars for other things, like children's shoes:

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/02/selling_food_stamps_for_kids_shoes_1.html

I do not see a huge danger of families going on welfare in order to subsidize moms staying at home. I think families use TANF because when you have children, you can't be proud and couch surf when you're in trouble. I think welfare reform was a huge mistake, and we're going to be seeing a lot of suffering in the current economic climate. No, I don't think we should be subsidizing moms staying at home to care for their children. We should be subsidizing their education and training to be self-supporting and providing high-quality childcare that they can trust while they are in school. We should stop limiting the number of months a family can receive subsidies, so that we won't have people who are this poor in the richest country in the world.


----------



## teraze

I'm a SAHM at present, and am blessed to have a husband who earns a somewhat reasonable salary and really lucky housing circumstances (we live in a paid-for home rent-free). BUT. I have worked my butt off and have paid lots of taxes and I can say this - with those tax dollars, I'd much rather a mom receive assistance for staying home and raising her baby versus requiring that same mom to jump through hopes to earn a measly salary while her baby is in some random daycare (that probably receives tax dollars too).


----------



## zinemama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Petronella*
> 
> May I ask what is the purpose of this thread? It's been started by some person or entity called just "Mothering," as an administrator. Is this one of those threads that's being posted on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, to drive more traffic to MDC?


I assume that is the purpose of every thread started by "Mothering."


----------



## newsolarmomma2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> The United States Government spends over $22,000 a year per inmate that we hold in incarceration. We spend 44.1 BILLION dollars paying for the War on Drugs enforcement, and over 200,000,000 rebuilding roads each year.
> 
> I hope no one begrudges me my measly six grand a year in food stamps so that I can SAH and be with my baby.


THIS. EXACTLY.

For a nation so hell bent on "family values" ( read: patriarchal, christain ones only) we are extremely family unfriendly. No paid maternity leave, forget about leave for the dad, next to nothing as far as a social net goes, no universal healthcare, and on and on. We CAN afford to end poverty, strengthen education and preserve families, we CHOOSE not too.

I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with welfare, or assistance of any kind to families, not that it even exists anymore. People get all up in arms over how illegals get healthcare (CHIP only, in TX), how mamas have more babies to make more welfare (ridiculous and racist), and how all these people "work the system". COME ON, what nonsense.

The system is broken, you have to learn to work it just to make it to e bottom rung of poverty! And most people dont even know how to do that, its a full time job you know. seriously, do these people that complain even have a clue how little you get in assistance? While the US govt is bailing out banks, paying for a drug war, not to mention the war in the middle east, the citizens are suffering. Imagine what could be done with even part of that money?

I don't know why Americans are so afraid to ask these things of their government. Independence is nice, but we are all in this together. what good is being rich if the city crumbles around you, KWIM? after all, it is OUR government, and we DO pay taxes. I wouldn't mind paying more (and I paid over 40k in taxes JUST LAST YEAR) if it meant an end to poverty, and end to sending single moms off to minimum wage jobs while their kids went to govt paid daycare. Why not cut out the middle man and just give the Mom that money, and keep families intact?

There is a strong current of "I don't want anyone to get anything they didn't bust their ass for, if you are in a bad situation it's because you are a lazy POS, Because I got MINE Jack" in this country, and it's both sick and sad.It does nothing to advance our society, our build community. I encounter this attitude all the time- people think teachers shouldn't get pensions, that minimum wage shouldn't exist, that food stamps are for leeches, that they have no obligation to anyone else. It needs to change. We are the wealthiest nation on earth, we CAN afford it, we CAN do better.

Sorry for the rant, this is near and dear to me.


----------



## Mommel

I plan to do this. I am 38 years old and six months pregnant... and single (the pregnancy was planned, the single part not-so-much). My mother is moving in to help with childcare while I'm in class, but I am midway through my Economics degree after a 14 year career in finance flat-lined following a layoff two years ago. I will live on a combination of school loans, federal grants, and whatever assistance the US government sees fit to dole out to me (WIC, Medicare, TANF) and because I'm more than halfway finished with my degree, I stand to qualify for quite a bit, including housing assistance (that is, if the waiting list for Section 8 housing wasn't closed and already 3 years long). In any case, this will likely last for at least the first year of my child's life, if not the first two, after which I hope to gain better employment than I had before I was laid off.

Is this a "stop-gap" measure? Welfare? Cheating the system? (Oh, you mean the one I paid into for 14 years that left me flat on my face in one swift motion?) I have no idea. All I know is that it's the very best option I have as a single mother to do what I think is right for my child. I get the education I need, the benefits I need, the income and support I need to make a better life for my child than the one I had, and I get to do it in a way that is consistent with my values and the values I want to pass along to my kid.

I don't care what anyone else calls it... _I_ call it survival.


----------



## Mommel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mommel*
> 
> I stand to qualify for quite a bit


Oh... and by "quite a bit", I mean less than six grand a year in assistance... I guess it didn't occur to me that my "quite a bit" is far less than it used to be when I was making $65,000/year.


----------



## nextcommercial

I'm divided on this. I know many mothers who have no interest in parenting, but they also have no intention of working. So, they use the system. I think we as a country give too much money to too many people and many of them are taking advantage.

However, there are so many families who DO deserve it. There are many moms who would happily work, if they could make enough money to support their family AND pay childcare, but our system doesn't make it easy for those who would work.

I guess I just wish there were a better way to check on those who don't deserve help from the government, but are taking it anyway.


----------



## mamaofthree

i have no problem what so ever in a mama being home with her kids even if she needs to use assistance to do it. there is such a stigma, and such hate for people who use assistance, it is heart breaking. so much talk of "family values" but no real action here in the USA. god forbid we actually help families. i guess there is no real valuing of families, no valuing of mothering and fathering, no valuing of children or the elderly. what matters most is how much crap you have and how much money you make. you mean nothing otherwise.

we cut and cut the help that struggling families need and pass it along to banks and CEO's. there is always a big long list of stuff you have to do to get assistance as a family, but a bank run into the ground... the CEO's get bonuses from our money. so while i struggled to make ends meet (4 jobs between dh and I) and we stilled needed WIC and state run healthcare the CEO is a hero and i am a loser lazy jerk. GRRRR.


----------



## Interrobang

My jaw dropped when I found out (not so long ago) that the US doesn't have paid parental leave, and unpaid only lasts 6 weeks. That's completely barbaric!

The way I look at it, having the government subsidize SAH parenthood is an investment: I'm quite sure it'd save a few hundred thousand dollars a year per person in the long run, when you account for the potential people who'd be kept out of jail if they had an involved parent around even part-time instead of raising themselves!

I do think there needs to be some kind of check on it, to keep people from just completely abusing it, but what that is, I can't say. I'm not familiar with the system in Canada or the US, so I don't know what is already in place.

In any case, it's most certainly a better use of money than space exploration, scouting around the solar system looking for our next planet to destroy, or to go chasing down minor drug offenses.


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
> 
> I'm divided on this. I know many mothers who have no interest in parenting, but they also have no intention of working. So, they use the system. I think we as a country give too much money to too many people and many of them are taking advantage.
> 
> However, there are so many families who DO deserve it. There are many moms who would happily work, if they could make enough money to support their family AND pay childcare, but our system doesn't make it easy for those who would work.
> 
> I guess I just wish there were a better way to check on those who don't deserve help from the government, but are taking it anyway.


i think the problem with this is how do you know for sure they aren't parenting well? just because they aren't doing it your way? and who gets to say which way is best? who is going to be the watchdog on this? and there are some moms who actually want to stay home with their kids and should be able to. does that make them lazy? bad? do you only deserve assistance if you work outside the home? and then what is the point?


----------



## kristandthekids

.


----------



## CourtneyM-L

I looked at this post on facebook twice before deciding to add my 2 cents. I am a single mom to twins living on welfare. Wait - not living - barely surviving. I live in housing that is subsidized as part of a domestic violence program. My rent is still $20 more than the cash assistance I receive from the state. I have to do a lot of juggling to get the electric and gas utility bills paid... I also get food stamps each month but my twins are gluten and lactose intolerant so I really have to stretch to make the money cover the groceries. I also end up begging for diapers and I am considering potty training at 16 months since I can't afford the cost. We also have health insurance through the state but it is like drive thru Dr visits for me. The twins get more attention due to their issues (second set of ear tubes and allergies) - thank God. I was let go from my job last November when the twins got sick and needed the first surgery for ear tubes. I have looked for work since then but I lost daycare assistance - so any job would have to pay well over $300 a week to cover daycare expenses. Even when I had help with daycare costs, it still cost $90 out of pocket and I was working part-time. I do not receive child support yet as my divorce has turned into a custody battle. I was able to prove DV against me but not against the children so he is asking for 50/50 custody.

I have to agree with another person who stated that there is no working the system anymore. I am getting lots of support and resources from the community and the government and we are still struggling. I worry every day about how I am going to pay the rent, keep the electricity on and buy diapers. If I earn more than $150 in a month, I could lose benefits from the state but that is not enough to cover expenses. The system is very broken and living in Arizona where the budgets are getting cut is not helping. If I didn't get help from the state (and a great church family) we would be on the street or in a shelter.

I have an associate's degree in education but I can't find a job that offers more than $7.50 an hour part-time. That isn't even enough to cover the cost of daycare for twins. Before anyone jumps on this post - I was married and the twins were a big surprise ! I had just gone off the pill and started a new job when I found out I was pregnant. After the twins were born, my marriage fell apart and the DV happened. We spent 9 weeks in a shelter before moving into subsidized housing. I have to attend classes, do volunteer hours and do case management as part of my requirements for living here. We do not have cable tv or any extras. We don't eat out or go to the movies. We don't have a car and we either walk or ride the bus to get around. I am only online because the internet connection for our staff is unsecured for the residents to tap into.

Welfare sucks and I would much rather be working part-time or at a job where I could have my children with me - but it isn't possible. I love being home with my twins but I never get a break. Life is hard and being a welfare mom is not sitting on the couch eating chocolate watching Oprah reruns.

Thanks for reading. ~ Courtney http://cocoandtwins.blogspot.com/


----------



## Mommel

This is the problem with the conservative agenda on welfare... there is this perception that prevails among conservative propaganda (yeah, I said it) that there is a large and significant subset of women who use the system with no intention of reform (i.e. back to work, becoming educated, etc)... as if it is a significant enough portion of welfare recipients to make a fiscal impact on the US budget. Show me the study that proves it. Check this out: http://www.anitra.net/homelessness/columns/anitra/eightmyths.html

Yes, in ANY system there will be fraudulent abusers of that system... but in the case of welfare recipients, that fraud is negligible. Who the HELL would spend as much time as it takes to navigate the welfare system to eek out a measly living from it fraudulently (in any country, but especially in the US), if it weren't absolutely necessary?? Do you have ANY idea what it's like to live on $6,000 a year?! Just budgeting that income is a full time job... there are no prepared meals in that budget... everything is made from scratch to save money (and I don't mean from a box, I mean from SCRATCH), every expedition outside the house is just that... an expedition... and how much time does it take to navigate public transportation to run the errands that it would take someone with a reliable vehicle half an hour to run? (I'll tell you how long: two hours, at least!), not to mention the disdainful and condescending BS that welfare recipients have to deal with from the welfare office to the grocery store clerk.

I could go on, but I won't. The fact is that the majority of fraud committed against the welfare system is done so by people that actually profit from it while also working, thereby getting more than they "deserve".

Sorry, I don't mean this personally at you, per se... but it REALLY IRKS me that this perception continues to pervade in our culture as it's perpetuated by the politicians that want more money in the pockets of their corporate investment bankers on the backs of hard-working families who are just trying to survive.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
> 
> I'm divided on this. I know many mothers who have no interest in parenting, but they also have no intention of working. So, they use the system. I think we as a country give too much money to too many people and many of them are taking advantage.
> 
> However, there are so many families who DO deserve it. There are many moms who would happily work, if they could make enough money to support their family AND pay childcare, but our system doesn't make it easy for those who would work.
> 
> I guess I just wish there were a better way to check on those who don't deserve help from the government, but are taking it anyway.


----------



## avalonbirth

Yes.


----------



## nextcommercial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> i think the problem with this is how do you know for sure they aren't parenting well? just because they aren't doing it your way? and who gets to say which way is best? who is going to be the watchdog on this? and there are some moms who actually want to stay home with their kids and should be able to. does that make them lazy? bad? do you only deserve assistance if you work outside the home? and then what is the point?


In some cases, it's obvious. The kids aren't fed, the parents aren't home, there are drugs in the house...

I have no idea who would be watch dog.... or how, I know it could never happen, but I WISH it could.

I have a friend who is being supported by a rich fiance. She lives in a million dollar home, has the best of everything, but she won't get married because she'd have to give up her welfare. She gets food stamps, free college, and a check each month.. all delivered to a house she doesn't even live in. She gets paid under the table for part time work, and hasn't paid taxes in several years. She's in school, but makes it no secret that she has no intention of working after she graduates, but she has to graduate or pay back her student loans. She proudly says "my full time job is to find a rich husband".

Another woman we know (not a friend) has a Cadillac Escalade, buys the most expensive clothes, because her boyfriends sell meth out of her home, while her five kids play in the living room. When one boyfriend gets arrested, she just gets a new boyfriend. She collects welfare, and food stamps, but sells the food stamps. I'm pretty sure she's never paid taxes.

On the other hand, another woman works two jobs just to stay above water. Her youngest child is 14, her oldest is 18. In order to qualify, she'd have to quit one or both jobs, instead of HELPing her, they want to take control away from her... she just needs help, not a complete free ride.


----------



## Mommel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
> 
> In some cases, it's obvious. The kids aren't fed, the parents aren't home, there are drugs in the house...
> 
> I have no idea who would be watch dog.... or how, I know it could never happen, but I WISH it could.
> 
> I have a friend who is being supported by a rich fiance. She lives in a million dollar home, has the best of everything, but she won't get married because she'd have to give up her welfare. She gets food stamps, free college, and a check each month.. all delivered to a house she doesn't even live in. She gets paid under the table for part time work, and hasn't paid taxes in several years. She's in school, but makes it no secret that she has no intention of working after she graduates, but she has to graduate or pay back her student loans. She proudly says "my full time job is to find a rich husband".
> 
> Another woman we know (not a friend) has a Cadillac Escalade, buys the most expensive clothes, because her boyfriends sell meth out of her home, while her five kids play in the living room. When one boyfriend gets arrested, she just gets a new boyfriend. She collects welfare, and food stamps, but sells the food stamps. I'm pretty sure she's never paid taxes.
> 
> On the other hand, another woman works two jobs just to stay above water. Her youngest child is 14, her oldest is 18. In order to qualify, she'd have to quit one or both jobs, instead of HELPing her, they want to take control away from her... she just needs help, not a complete free ride.


Well, I'll give you the meth mom... I honestly wish that welfare recipients were drug tested... there has been talk of that in the past, but unfortunately the drug trade brings more to the US economy than fixing that problem is worth (otherwise there would have been something done about it by now).

As for your gold-digger friend.... ever think that maybe there's another reason that she's not getting married that she's too embarrassed to admit? Sounds like her problem is a lot bigger than stealing welfare, and has a lot to do with her emotional survival. Knowing that if he tosses her to the curb, she won't have to reapply to welfare. Even so, that sucks and I'm sorry that I harshly judged your perceptions earlier. Obviously your experience has impacted your opinion in a way I hadn't thought of before.


----------



## desertrose

wow, some great points here.

Yes, we as mothers need to be supported so that we can be as fabulous mothers as we can be. It is confusing to me that the only help we have available to us is done so that we cannot actually raise our kids ourselves - but have somebody else do it. It really begins to look like every move we make under our government is to stimulate the economy, and that anything and everything that is true and good about us and about life (motherhood, family, tribe, nature) does not matter.

Children belong with their mothers and/or fathers. If it is someone's preference to put their child in daycare, or someone else, so be it. A mother should have the right to breast feed, in person, for as many years as it takes. Our society needs to support mothers - society needs to work around mothers, not the other way around. Someday I hope a mother and/or father's actual presence and touch will be worth as much as food and shelter.

I believe it is our god-given right to raise our babies ourselves. Our society, our government should encourage this, should support this. This is OUR country. Not their country. And our government should be an extension of our own beliefs, needs, and desires.

I have known a bad mother. I don't use that term lightly. She lost the right to raise her children. But what we need is community. We need to help each other, and when you have a bad mother on your hands, the mother needs to be rehabilitated or community needs to intervene so that the children are safe. I know that some people abuse the system. She was one of them. And then there's people like me that should be making more use of the system than I do. I need to be with my children. I have to be. But I certainly feel the pressure that I am not *supposed* to be (with them). I am suppose to let them go, so that I can get a job, collect all the assistance. But I can't do it.

I believe we need a whole system change. And like someone else said - stay at home jobs, or jobs where we can take the kids with us, if need be. Better wages so that all wages can afford a decent living. And so that families can have at least one parent there at all times. But Ideally I'd like to see children having ample time with both parents, while also being contributing members of society. And single mothers that don't have their needs met, yes they should be helped so that they can be at home with their babies, if they desire it so, and I'd even like to see mamas have the right to homeschool as well. But also given the opportunity to provide work to society, and in a way that works AROUND what they need to do as mothers, and doesn't interfere with it. And in these situations, as any, it should be made sure that single mamas are taking care of their babies good and right, that there is no abuse or neglect going on, that funds go where they are supposed to go, etc.


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
> 
> I'm divided on this. I know many mothers who have no interest in parenting, but they also have no intention of working. So, they use the system. I think we as a country give too much money to too many people and many of them are taking advantage.
> 
> However, there are so many families who DO deserve it. There are many moms who would happily work, if they could make enough money to support their family AND pay childcare, but our system doesn't make it easy for those who would work.
> 
> I guess I just wish there were a better way to check on those who don't deserve help from the government, but are taking it anyway.


Yes to all this. However, in defense of those mothers who don't want to work or parent, as hard as it is to watch, most of them are symptoms of this very same broken system. I know how many times I have wanted to throw my hands up in frustration, trying to balance rent, bills, keeping a car running in order to get to work, paying for childcare ordoing insane schedule juggling in order for both parents to bring in income (which still isn't enough to make ends meet) and say "forget it." I have been fortunate enough to see beyond poverty, so I have a vision for my family that I keep in my mind. For someone who is the 2nd or 3rd generation of abject poverty, survival on a welfare payment is enough because it's all they can imagine. They are conditioned to accept their standard of living, and to normalize it in order to cope. To them, "other people" work and make it. A frighteningly large population of children are being raised on substandard food, in substandard housing, by parents who can't meet their emotional needs, receiving a substandard education, and then the rest of the world wonders why "those people" think that the only ways to make money involve selling their body or drugs.

There is an excellent book on the issue of welfare reform, called "Flat Broke with Children."

In my ideal world, I would love to see families receive a stipend that was substantial enough to cover either the basic living expenses for the first 18 months of the child's life, or if the mother chose to work out of the home, to pay for high quality childcare. Although I prefer to stay home and enjoy it very much, I would not be so adamant about NOT going back to work full time if I didn't have to pay practically my whole paycheck just for my kids to be warehoused all day. But the choices can be so limiting. I have friends with degrees and they say it's not much better.

The bottom line is that this country pays lip service to family values, but in the end it values the dollar over the child. The way I see it, that debt will be paid.....we can either pay it on the front end, while kids are young and we have a chance to shape their future, or we can pay it later when we build more and bigger prisons. But you can't run from it.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> 
> Yes to all this. However, in defense of those mothers who don't want to work or parent, as hard as it is to watch, most of them are symptoms of this very same broken system. I know how many times I have wanted to throw my hands up in frustration, trying to balance rent, bills, keeping a car running in order to get to work, paying for childcare ordoing insane schedule juggling in order for both parents to bring in income (which still isn't enough to make ends meet) and say "forget it." I have been fortunate enough to see beyond poverty, so I have a vision for my family that I keep in my mind. For someone who is the 2nd or 3rd generation of abject poverty, survival on a welfare payment is enough because it's all they can imagine. They are conditioned to accept their standard of living, and to normalize it in order to cope. To them, "other people" work and make it. A frighteningly large population of children are being raised on substandard food, in substandard housing, by parents who can't meet their emotional needs, receiving a substandard education, and then the rest of the world wonders why "those people" think that the only ways to make money involve selling their body or drugs.
> 
> There is an excellent book on the issue of welfare reform, called "Flat Broke with Children."
> 
> In my ideal world, I would love to see families receive a stipend that was substantial enough to cover either the basic living expenses for the first 18 months of the child's life, or if the mother chose to work out of the home, to pay for high quality childcare. Although I prefer to stay home and enjoy it very much, I would not be so adamant about NOT going back to work full time if I didn't have to pay practically my whole paycheck just for my kids to be warehoused all day. But the choices can be so limiting. I have friends with degrees and they say it's not much better.
> 
> The bottom line is that this country pays lip service to family values, but in the end it values the dollar over the child. *The way I see it, that debt will be paid.....we can either pay it on the front end, while kids are young and we have a chance to shape their future, or we can pay it later when we build more and bigger prisons. But you can't run from it.*


This was my point exactly. Wouldnt it be awesome if they gave us $22,000 a year for every child we have? Ill bet that in 20 years the amount of people in prision would decrease by an insane amount.


----------



## nextcommercial

Quote:


> This was my point exactly. Wouldnt it be awesome if they gave us $22,000 a year for every child we have? Ill bet that in 20 years the amount of people in prision would decrease by an insane amount.


I would quit my job today, and be pregnant every year for the rest of my life if someone would give me $22 K a year for each child.


----------



## One_Girl

I think that a paid maternity leave for the first year or so (or even the option to use unemployment money when you have a child) would be nice. I don't think it should be a welfare regulated thing though. It should be something one parent who has been working steadily and contributing to society should get the option of doing. Welfare is a completely different situation and to be on welfare you have to be working or very actively seeking work.


----------



## kristandthekids

.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kristandthekids*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> This was my point exactly. Wouldnt it be awesome if they gave us $22,000 a year for every child we have? Ill bet that in 20 years the amount of people in prision would decrease by an insane amount.
> 
> 
> 
> $44k/year just for popping out two kids? $66/k for three?
> 
> 1. No way would that be sustainable.
> 2. The number of children in foster care would skyrocket due to people not wanting a kid but wanting money to sit at home.
Click to expand...

I was kind of joking.







Just making the point that US taxpayers are spending WAY more money on incarcerated people while people suffer from generations of extreme poverty. The prison industrial complex is expensive to keep running.


----------



## kristandthekids

.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> I was kind of joking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just making the point that US taxpayers are spending WAY more money on incarcerated people while people suffer from generations of extreme poverty. The prison industrial complex is expensive to keep running.


to be honest with you as much as i get your tongue in cheek sarcasm, you have stated a truth about the underlying philosophy which really really gets my goat.

instead of prevention one depletes the system and then blames the result out of it. probably if there was more parental support there wouldnt be so many people incarcerated.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> to be honest with you as much as i get your tongue in cheek sarcasm, you have stated a truth about the underlying philosophy which really really gets my goat.
> 
> instead of prevention one depletes the system and then blames the result out of it. probably if there was more parental support there wouldnt be so many people incarcerated.


I totally agree meemee, but I dont ACTUALLY think they should give us $22,000 a year per kid to be sahms. While it would be awesome, its not practical.


----------



## Connie B

I believe that if we are going to have any hope in this world, we have to start to value our children and the people who take care of them. I think welfare should only be for the disabled. A program where staying at home to take care of your children would be a job that you get paid to do like any other job. If a mother or a father chooses to stay home with their children they could get a check just like any government worker. But, like any job you would be held accountable for the job you do. Raises and bonuses would be based on classes taken such as child development, nutrition, parenting, ect. By doing so we would place value on parenting and take away the stigma of "being on welfare". Taking care of your children should be a respectable position. A program like this would eliminate the people who collect the money, but don't take care of their children.

I am a mother, grandmother and retired pre-k teacher. I am a firm believer that we need more education on being parents.


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Connie B*
> 
> I believe that if we are going to have any hope in this world, we have to start to value our children and the people who take care of them. I think welfare should only be for the disabled. A program where staying at home to take care of your children would be a job that you get paid to do like any other job. If a mother or a father chooses to stay home with their children they could get a check just like any government worker. But, like any job you would be held accountable for the job you do. Raises and bonuses would be based on classes taken such as child development, nutrition, parenting, ect. By doing so we would place value on parenting and take away the stigma of "being on welfare". Taking care of your children should be a respectable position. A program like this would eliminate the people who collect the money, but don't take care of their children.
> 
> I am a mother, grandmother and retired pre-k teacher. I am a firm believer that we need more education on being parents.


I like the idea except that then there is a very scary big brother element being introduced. I already hate having to sit through nutrition classes for WIC. I can guarantee that any such program would be structured in such a way that not conforming to the mainstream would mean a financial penalty, regardless of whether or not the decision was in the child's best interests. My local WIC office pushes vaccines and vehemently discourage cosleeping, for example. When I used the health department's carseat program, in addition to carseat information, the class also covered immunizations and other topics that they felt we needed to be lectured about.It just seems like it would end up being another way to pressure parents, especially young/new parents, into conformity.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally agree meemee, but I dont ACTUALLY think they should give us $22,000 a year per kid to be sahms. While it would be awesome, its not practical.
Click to expand...

actually i dont see why not. old rumania would give all college students a stiped of what was basically a starting proff salary as long as you performed. the final exam was like an interview. an oral interview with a group of faculty members. your final could be 2 hours long or 5 hours. essentially i would imagine like peer review - except ur knowledge was grilled out of you. a costudent went thru this system for his BA.

$22000 a year does not sound unreasonable to me. its about 1800 a month which would really be a good amount for a family of 3. each subsequent child could be so much extra not 22000 extra. i mean what do they pay per foster child? $550 a month? depending on the state your day care could be covered too. esp. countries that cover paid leaves get anything from 60% to full paid leave.

and yes compared to all the tax breaks and other perks corporations and industries get - why not 22000 for the families.

i mean yeah of course it is not gonna happen but 22000 i dont see as asking for the moon.

unfortunately no public program is a foolproof program. there are many who fanagle things to get their way. even in the UK young girls get pregnant as a way to get out of home and live by themselves coz they get govt support.


----------



## Theresa42

I would love for my tax dollars to go to letting single mothers stay with their children during their early years. It is very important to me that young children have their mothers. Often quality childcare costs enough to require that a working single mother apply for welfare anyway so I don't see the need to deprive a babe.


----------



## treeoflife3

I personally support stay at home parenting, even for single parents. I think it is best for children in general, not just for the children of families like mine who can afford to live off the one income we have. My daughter is no better than any other 2 year old, she isn't the only one who deserves her mommy rather than a day care.

In regards specifically to people abusing welfare, I don't know hardly anything about welfare as I've never been on it nor known someone personally who was on it (that I knew of - the topic doesn't often come up) to learn about it from but I've always wondered if it could be set up more similarly to WIC. Clearly people are concerned for some reason that a great many people on welfare are using it for drugs/alcohol and designer clothes and other such things that aren't necessary... so why not set it up with the paper checks or a card so you can only use it at a utility company or on kids shoes/clothes or for rent? Like I said, I don't know how welfare works... but if its so easy to use on things it isn't meant for, why not set it up to put limits on what you can pay for with it and where? You only get x amount for shoes so obviously you won't be buying designer shoes for your kid which means you have y amount for rent... I'm too tired to think too in depth but people always talk about welfare like the government literally just hands you cash to do what you want with... if that is the case, why not put limits on it the same way WIC has. I HAVE been on WIC and I know you can't buy anything you want in the grocery store with it even if you try.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> In regards specifically to people abusing welfare, I don't know hardly anything about welfare as I've never been on it nor known someone personally who was on it (that I knew of - the topic doesn't often come up) to learn about it from but I've always wondered if it could be set up more similarly to WIC. Clearly people are concerned for some reason that a great many people on welfare are using it for drugs/alcohol and designer clothes and other such things that aren't necessary... so why not set it up with the paper checks or a card so you can only use it at a utility company or on kids shoes/clothes or for rent? Like I said, I don't know how welfare works... but if its so easy to use on things it isn't meant for, why not set it up to put limits on what you can pay for with it and where? You only get x amount for shoes so obviously you won't be buying designer shoes for your kid which means you have y amount for rent... I'm too tired to think too in depth but people always talk about welfare like the government literally just hands you cash to do what you want with... if that is the case, why not put limits on it the same way WIC has. I HAVE been on WIC and I know you can't buy anything you want in the grocery store with it even if you try.


Some people sell their checks/food stamp cards/etc. and then use THAT money to pay for other things (maybe things they need, maybe things they don't....) I see the same problem with WIC because if you get 20 jars of baby food but your baby doesn't eat baby food, can you sell it and then buy clothes for your kid? Or could you sell it & buy yourself a manicure?

I have seen many people receiving gov't benefits (in whatever form) that look like they are abusing the program. Obviously you can't know for sure, but all the same, it's hard to be working your butt of as a cashier, barely getting by, and see someone drive off with their foodstamp groceries in their brand-new convertible.







Whether they are actually abusing the program is kind of irrelevant -- it's still hard to see, especially for people on the low end of middle-class. One big problem with various welfare programs is that there is a whole segment of people who make just enough to not qualify, but not enough to survive. I think it's hard not to feel resentful if you're working harder and able to afford less than someone on welfare. Even people who aren't abusing the system at all, are still bound to get under your skin if you're in this category.


----------



## 3timemama

Wow! I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. (greencarnation) A lot of people, (including tv "court judges") complain how their tax dollars are foing to welfare and supporting other peoples children. The reality is that if low income mothers do work, the chances of them having to utilize government funded childcare is very high. Then the same "taxpayers" will be complaining about that. Either way the mother (or father) is deemed as a drain on the economy. The truth is tax dollars are spent in other ways that people are not addressing or feel powerless to address. So it's easier to put the focus on the most vulnerable.


----------



## nextcommercial

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> Some people sell their checks/food stamp cards/etc. and then use THAT money to pay for other things (maybe things they need, maybe things they don't....) I see the same problem with WIC because if you get 20 jars of baby food but your baby doesn't eat baby food, can you sell it and then buy clothes for your kid? Or could you sell it & buy yourself a manicure?
> 
> I have seen many people receiving gov't benefits (in whatever form) that look like they are abusing the program. Obviously you can't know for sure, but all the same, it's hard to be working your butt of as a cashier, barely getting by, and see someone drive off with their foodstamp groceries in their brand-new convertible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they are actually abusing the program is kind of irrelevant -- it's still hard to see, especially for people on the low end of middle-class. One big problem with various welfare programs is that there is a whole segment of people who make just enough to not qualify, but not enough to survive. I think it's hard not to feel resentful if you're working harder and able to afford less than someone on welfare. Even people who aren't abusing the system at all, are still bound to get under your skin if you're in this category.


I think this is why I feel like I do. I work so hard just to stay above water. It's hard to not to feel a little resentful.


----------



## lari

Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right. Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM. Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare. Yes, the system is broken. Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time. Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option. People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child. To me, this says "our family is more important than others" "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" . I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like. If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children. I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise. Grrrr....


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I'm always interested in knowing what people consider welfare. Is it just cash assistance that one who lives below poverty can receive? Or are we including housing vouchers and low-income, tax-credit apartments? What about Medicaid and other subsidized healthcare plans? Food stamps and WIC and reduced or free lunches? Child care assistance (of course, that's not meant for SAHM's, but it is the alternative if one works a low-paying job)?

I guess it helps when discussing these topics to clarify what others consider "welfare", which to me, is any type of government aid.


----------



## Connie B

The big brother issue is a concern of mine also. However, if you receive welfare, you are already dealing with the big brother issue. Instead of looking at the quality of the job you're doing, they look at the amount of money you have. When you are on welfare, it is like having a big fat thumb on you to keep you down. You are not allowed to make any extra money or accumulate anything of value without having your check reduced or eliminated. In a program like I'm proposing, there would need to be guide lines in place to protect folks who disagreed with the mainstream ideas. I'm not sure about all of the details, but I would like to see a society that truly put children and families first. It would always be a choice.


----------



## erinsmom1996

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lari*
> 
> Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right. Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM. Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare. Yes, the system is broken. Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time. Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option. People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child. To me, this says "our family is more important than others" "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" . I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like. If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children. I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise. Grrrr....


I have to agree with you. I have not been a stay at home mom for my daughter but I have found jobs that allow me to be at home as much as possible even though they have nothing to do with my college degree. I never felt like I had the "right" to stay home. I had my daughter at a relatively young age and we were not financially prepared but we have made it work. I don't begrudge women who have planned ahead and can afford to stay home the right to do so. I think it is great if you can do that! However, I don't think I have been any less of a great mom because I have worked her whole life. Staying home with your children is the best option but only if you actually have that option and can afford to do so. If you are attending school or trying to get training so you can get a job in the near future, that is a little different. If you want to just be a stay-at-home mom for your child and want taxpayers to support your family, I have a problem with that.


----------



## MammaG

First, I am somewhere left of Marx (Kidding. Sort of. ) in regards to my political philosophy and I fully believe in, and vote to support, European-style social support. Universal health care, paid maternity and paternity leave, subsidized higher education....the whole nine yards.

I also support, unpopularly in homeschool circles, the US ratification of the UN's Charter of the Child. I would go so far as to say that I believe that a child has the right to a SAHP, rather than the mother (or father) having the right to be that SAHP. Also that a child has the right to breast milk, regardless of a mother's choice (which would need a whole lot of support, education and things like paid donor milk programs in order to work. Not really feasible, I understand, but I still think it). Read on before jumping on me here, I refute this!

But this scares the hell out of me:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Connie B*
> 
> I believe that if we are going to have any hope in this world, we have to start to value our children and the people who take care of them. I think welfare should only be for the disabled. A program where staying at home to take care of your children would be a job that you get paid to do like any other job. If a mother or a father chooses to stay home with their children they could get a check just like any government worker. But, like any job you would be held accountable for the job you do. Raises and bonuses would be based on classes taken such as child development, nutrition, parenting, ect. By doing so we would place value on parenting and take away the stigma of "being on welfare". Taking care of your children should be a respectable position. A program like this would eliminate the people who collect the money, but don't take care of their children.
> 
> I am a mother, grandmother and retired pre-k teacher. I am a firm believer that we need more education on being parents.


I can tell you that I spend waaaaaay more time educating myself about the choices I make for my children than any mandated requirement could ever ask. My choices, based on that research, are ones that would probably get me 'fired' from your proposed program. I homeschool my kids using an alternative understanding of child development (Waldorf). I do not vaccinate them. I use homeopathic and other alternative medical practices for my family. I breastfeeding until my children decide it is time to stop breastfeeding. I cosleep with my children. I mostly use an alternative understanding of nutrition (Traditional Foods) to provide food for my kids.

You can see that, in view of my own choices to parent outside of the mainstream, heavy-handed ideas like somehow mandating breastfeeding are completely inappropriate. I guess I think that I feel that the larger community and particularly the government as the representative thereof has an obligation to provide support and an equal obligation to trust an individual's choices. Very tough line. I guess that I would err on the side of feeling that the government would best invest in its citizenry by providing basic supports for dignified existence and a wealth of subsidized education opportunities so that individual choice can be better trusted as left to the individual. To keep using the breastfeeding example, more women would breastfeed because they would have the education, the social support and the time and the money. Some would still choose not to inevitably, but at least it would be a fair choice. Would there be abuse? Absolutely, but I can live with that.

I have come to believe that there will be no answers to these questions as long as we are so entrenched between these two political poles here in the US. I am and will continue to be a dedicated liberal, but I no longer see that there is a black and a white. So, I am a feminist, but I see where feminism has let me, a SAHM who always wanted to be such, down in a bad way (ie, you can be whatever you like, girls, as long as it is what we tell you to be! And we are going to flood the market with women workers, assume our work is done because they have the job but not equal pay, raise the cost of living, so that now it is virtually impossible to live on a single income, and now you no longer have the choice to SAH for part of your career. Thus setting women against each other for making their very tough choices. Ugh.) I would hope that feminism could broaden its narrow vision of just how women must be raised up. I vote pro-choice, but I would do anything to see the need for abortion all but disappear. I would hope that the pro-choice movement can see that it would be helping families not only by offering choice about abortion when backed into a corner, but true choices about reproduction, based on support and education. From my POV, these things, along with supporting families (and especially women and children, who, let's face facts, get a buuuuum deal in the US) can be addressed only when we act with compassion instead of by reactionary dogma.

So, YES, I support any movement towards a government that supports families so that they may make choices in dignity and not in desperation.


----------



## karina5

"WAREHOUSED"?????????????? Are you friggin' serious? Do you realize how disgusting and offensive such terminology is?


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> I'm always interested in knowing what people consider welfare. Is it just cash assistance that one who lives below poverty can receive? Or are we including housing vouchers and low-income, tax-credit apartments? What about Medicaid and other subsidized healthcare plans? Food stamps and WIC and reduced or free lunches? Child care assistance (of course, that's not meant for SAHM's, but it is the alternative if one works a low-paying job)?
> 
> I guess it helps when discussing these topics to clarify what others consider "welfare", which to me, is any type of government aid.


For the purposes of this discussion, I would consider all the things you mentioned to be 'welfare'. Anything that is government aid meant to provide basic food/shelter/etc. for those whose income falls below a certain level. I would not include general tax-paid services such as police/fire services in this category. Unemployment would be a gray area due to how it's funded.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lari*
> 
> Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right. Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM. Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare. Yes, the system is broken. Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time. Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option. People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child. To me, this says "our family is more important than others" "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" . I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like. If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children. I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise. Grrrr....


From the parent's perspective, I can understand your point that it's a parent's privilege. From a child's perspective, I don't agree. Children NEED to be near their parents or loving caregivers. Children deserve that, it's not a privilege IMO, it's a right. Not to sound corny, but children are our future, so it affects all of us, not just individual families. I'm not saying there is one 'right' lifestyle (i.e. SAHM'ing) but that we should make it possible for parents to provide a lifestyle that they feel is in their child's best interest.
It's not as simple as "plan to SAH before you have children"... there's a PP upthread who discussed her plan and how it was thrown off by an unexpected separation from her partner. There are men who lose their jobs right after their wives quit to SAH with the kids. In my case, I didn't WANT to be a SAHM, but I had a high-needs baby who needed me at home (luckily I finagled a WAH position but the alternative would have been to quit... even if it meant going on gov't assistance for a bit). While I do agree that we each have a responsibility to provide financially for our children, I also feel that we have an obligation to help each other out in rough times.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinsmom1996*
> 
> I have to agree with you. I have not been a stay at home mom for my daughter but I have found jobs that allow me to be at home as much as possible even though they have nothing to do with my college degree. I never felt like I had the "right" to stay home. I had my daughter at a relatively young age and we were not financially prepared but we have made it work. I don't begrudge women who have planned ahead and can afford to stay home the right to do so. I think it is great if you can do that! However, I don't think I have been any less of a great mom because I have worked her whole life. Staying home with your children is the best option but only if you actually have that option and can afford to do so. If you are attending school or trying to get training so you can get a job in the near future, that is a little different. If you want to just be a stay-at-home mom for your child and want taxpayers to support your family, I have a problem with that.


Well I feel like my daughter has a right to be raised by her parents and see me more than a couple hours in the morning before daycare and 3-4 hours at night before bedtime. Assuming I could get a day job. My choices are either work full time at a job that barely covers the cost of child care or stay home with DD and collect "welfare" which in our case is food stamps and being on medicaid (never did the WIC thing) and be judged because I make a choice that I feel is MUCH more valuable on an individual level (other mamas could probably contribute a lot more financially to their family) to my family. Yay for me







It's fun enough getting the stink eye at the grocery store from people when I buy the expensive organic dairy stuff and then use my foodstamps ebt card, I guess now I have the pleasure of knowing people think I am "abusing" the system...

I DON'T want taxpayers to support my family but unfortunately the way this country is my options are limited and me staying home with DD is vitally important in my eyes. Important enough that I am willing to take the scorn from those that feel like I am doing something wrong. I suppose I should add, just so people don't think I am totally a drain on the system and one of "those people"...We have 1 vehicle for our family, a 95 toyota pickup that we can barely squeeze into and we live with my MIL...Mamas who work outside of home are making HUGE sacrifices for their families that they feel is best...so are those of us who are choosing to stay at home a lot of the times...I may have made barely enough to cover childcare with a full time job but our budget would have a little more leeway than it does now with me not working...


----------



## meemee

isnt welfare short time?

by welfare i mean cash benefits. that's 2 years.

foodstamps and medicaid depends on income i believe. no limitation on that i think (though for some reason i thought foodstamps was at least 5 years not more).

this is a country that does not take care of children. there is no support except for minimal low quality support. it depends on the parents.

let me tell you welfare is a terrible way to live. not only is it not enough to live 'any life' but at every step of the way you face a lot of brutal social disrespect.

i have had long talks about this with my xfil whose dissertation was on this subject. and while some abuse the system - there are way way way more people who are hugely helped by it.

v. v. v. few people see the 'bad' side of welfare. how it keeps the poor poor and treat them as inhumane. u wont see it probably as you dont live in the ghetto. one only sees the 'people making use of welfare' side. no one really sees 'govt uses its own citizens thru welfare'. i mean walmart having a dept to help its employees file for welfare should tell us something.

i have volunteered with non profits working with single moms and low income families and i have seen the other side. the govt keeping welfare recipients on welfare. why? because they are able bodied people and they should be put to work right away even if it means minimum paying job with no hope of improvement.

so if moms want to stay home to help raise their children because the govt refuses to do so then more power to the moms/parents to choose to stay home on welfare.

and the 'our hard earned tax dollars' talk bugs me to no end. it really makes my blood boil. the percent of ur tax $$$ going to fund welfare is laughable compared to the amount going to fund war, corporations and other nefarious organizations the govt funds. it is because of this attitude the rich get away with whatever they want to do.


----------



## redbirdlady

As someone who once had to be on welfare as a single mom, I'd like to bring some hard numbers to the discussion.

I received zero child support, and had two daycare-age children. Daycare costs, at the lowest-priced daycare in my city (and the immediate surrounding area) were $130/week for my younger child and $115 for my older child. My mortgage was $550/month (the housing voucher list in my area is closed; the people that made it on in time were on a 2 year wait at the time. The income restricted apartments in the neighborhood would have run me $600/month for a 2br - more than my mortgage for my 4br house with a yard.) Electricity averaged $50/month (no a/c, no central heat). My car was paid off, but I had to pay for insurance and gas. We didn't have cable/dish service and my dad paid for me to have a phone, otherwise I wouldn't have had one at all. Food stamps and WIC more than covered us to keep us fed.

TANF (what most people are referring to when they say "welfare" - it is a monthly cash payment) for a 3-person family was $87 per month. The childcare voucher only SUBSIDIZED my daycare, and I paid a copay of $18 per week (total for both kids). So, on average, my welfare "payment," what I could use on things other than daycare, was $2 per week. I more than spent that in gas to get my kids to and from the daycare.

By the way, if your kids are absent from daycare for more than 10 days a month, they will pull your welfare. There is no option, at least in this state, to only use the daycare on the days that you need it, for job searching or irregular schedules. You pay by the week and your child is expected to be there every day. If you have children and want to get the TANF/welfare payments, the kids MUST be in daycare. Period.

And, in my state, there is a limit of 5 years on "welfare." That is a LIFETIME limit.

The government paid $230 a week to the daycare. They also paid me $25/week in gas cards, which I had to drive 30 miles round trip to pick up, because they refused to mail them, and refused to let me pick up a few weeks' worth at a time. So I got to drive down there every week - taking time away from looking for a job or whatever else - to sit for an hour in a waiting room and drive all the way back. But hey, the good news is, if you don't have a car of your own, the government will pay for a CAB SERVICE to pick you up at your home and bring you to job interviews, places to apply for jobs, and take you with your kids to and from the daycare, etc. God only knows how much the cab service cost them.

*So, the government is shelling out $255/week, plus the cost of the paper pushers, for me to be on welfare. That would more than cover my cost of living, to let me stay at home with my kids, lessen my stress level having to pump milk and store it for the daycare, having to deal with the paper pushers, and be able to spend actual quality time with my children. With money left over. Heck, the government could've kept the leftover money!*

A couple of months into it, I got a job that paid almost $20/hour, but it was a PRN schedule and I didn't always work 30 hours per week. (I think it averaged out to 20...some weeks I worked 6 days straight, more than 40 hours total, and some weeks I only worked on Saturdays. Because Saturdays were required, I had to pay a separate babysitter to watch my kids, and ended up making about $50 for a 9 hour workday on Saturdays.) I had my daycare subsidy and welfare payments revoked, because I couldn't get my hours up to 30, and was told to get a minimum wage job and work 30 hours per week and I'd end up with more money in the end. 20 hours a week at $18/hr before taxes is $360/week. Daycare was $245 right off the top. Plus the additional babysitter. 30 hours a week at $7.25 is $217.50 before taxes, but my copay to the daycare would have only gone up by a few dollars, so I would've kept most of that money (after taxes.) That's not counting if I would have had to pay for a separate babysitter if I worked outside of daycare hours.

The counselor said, "Why don't you just get a different job?" What, they're falling out of the sky now? (This was during the depth of the recession.)

It was one of the most stressful things I've ever experienced in my life. Dealing with the paper pushers, who felt like "babysitters", was horribly demeaning and degrading. I had a degree and they were annoyed that while I was getting interviews, if I apply for the same job that 200 other out of work people are applying for, it lowers the odds that I'll get hired, even if I do give a great interview. They never helped me to get a job...the best they did was have a posting of available jobs that you could pick up once you trekked down to their office to pick up your gas card. Once I did get a job, I had to embarrassingly hand papers over to my brand new employer for them to verify the hours I worked. Like I'm a delinquent doing community service or something. It was horrible.

Oh, and God forbid one of your kids gets sick. It's a ton of paperwork and you still have to pay the daycare even if you can't go to work. The state won't adjust your copay because your kid got sick. And we all know how much daycare kids get sick/pass sickness around.

I ended up having to put a lot on credit cards and eventually had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. I was the girl who went to summer school in college to get done faster, who lived in a junky apartment for the first year out of college and kept eating ramen noodles so that I could put more than 50% of my income toward paying off my student loans. And had them paid off by the time I'd been out of college for 2 years. And now I was on welfare and bankrupt. Not something I was proud of.

Every 3-6 months, I had to go in to have a meeting with my counselor (and arrange for a day off work to do it, since the wait always took a few hours, even with an appointment), where they would look at every dime I had. If I ever managed to save any money, it was used against me and my benefits were recalculated. If I got a check for my birthday, it was counted as "income." They once suggested that I sell my paid-off, reliable car (that was worth about $4500) and buy a cheaper car. I am the only owner of my car, it was 8 years old, I know that I have kept it up well, and it would make ZERO sense to trade it in for a car whose upkeep may not have been as good. We bought nothing but food for almost a year. My kids wore the same five outfits to daycare each week, and my dad bought them shoes. I drove on bald tires and had to borrow money to pay to renew my license when it came up for renewal.

I paid into the system for many years, and I ended up in my situation by no fault of my own, and I was horrified when I found out what it was like when you needed the help. Having lived through it and come out on the other side through the grace of a power much higher than me, I wouldn't wish it on any single mom. Ever.


----------



## contactmaya

And may it succeed.

Whats the purpose of any thread?

Who cares?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zinemama*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Petronella*
> 
> May I ask what is the purpose of this thread? It's been started by some person or entity called just "Mothering," as an administrator. Is this one of those threads that's being posted on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, to drive more traffic to MDC?
> 
> 
> 
> I assume that is the purpose of every thread started by "Mothering."
Click to expand...


----------



## Connie B

I agree with you and I was the same kind of parent, however I have seen too many people abuse the system and the system abuse them, therefore I would like to see some accountability. I am talking about basics, like food, clothing, shelter, etc. I think that parenting is the most important job in the world and maybe the least valued. Right now preschools and daycares are regulated in CA, but depending on the school, there are a wide range of philosophies and interpretations of them. Some I agree with and some I don't, but at least in most cases the child's basic needs are being met. I just want to find a way to take care of the children and make stay at home parenting a respectable and admirable job. It comes down to "women's work" being valued. I have seen how the welfare system kills spirits over the years and it is not right. I am just toying with ideas. For instance, I would like to see child development classes required in the 5th grade. It is a information that most people will need way more than history or science.


----------



## Just1More

Maybe we should think outside the box.

Welfare, etc is bad because...

1.) It punishes people who are trying to do differently.

2.) It cannot be properly regulated.

3.) And, maybe we are the wealthiest nation in the world, but, we have no money.

What if we just stopped welfare? I wonder what would happen?

Is it possible that by "helping" humanity through the government, we have hindered our natural response of compassion? I am reminded of a young mother who asked people at her church to help her family through a difficult time. The response was, "Have you filed for food stamps?" What?!?!

I have a lovely home, and have been blessed with plenty of money. I would be happy to help an honest, hard-working family.

But, people who want to help are so hindered by the government's help, they are stuck. It is very frustrating.

And, I, also, have seen many abuses of the system. I suppose that perhaps the type of person I would want to help (and have) isn't using welfare anyway. They are already skirting the system through a network of friends and family. When we were first married, I was appalled at the conversation of women around me. The question was NOT, "What do we NEED?" but rather, "What can we GET?" They were willing to take anything they could qualify for, even though they could probably make it without. And, then I was further shocked when dh finished college and got a well-paying job. We took a budgeting class through his work and were horrified to find that WE would "qualify". And that we were encouraged to take it! Seriously?!? He was making more than 4 times what we were used to living on at that point.

I think I'm rambling now, but I hope someone else can catch my thoughts and flesh them out a little.

(Okay..something is coming to me....what about starting a "sponser family" thing. Like, maybe there could be a way to sign up to sponser a family in need. Like...a mentor or something. I know there could be awful abuses, and I would dread any horrid training that would happen. No, that wouldn't work either. What I'm saying is, I would like to be able to pick a family from a list of families, and help them. Maybe that single mom with twins doesn't need anything more than money. Maybe that young mom with a rough home life needs a lot more. But, I have no idea how to deal with that.)

Thoughts?


----------



## mamazee

My only thought about that is that people who are struggling and can't get by without that help - and there are lots of people in that situation - shouldn't be in a position of having to rely on someone else's generosity if and when they feel like giving money, or have their families go hungry.


----------



## JavaJunkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> And may it succeed.
> 
> Whats the purpose of any thread?
> 
> Who cares?










I don't really care. But I do find it...tacky.

Mainly because of this statement:

Quote:


> Surely we can all agree that having a parent at home during infancy, toddlerhood, and the early years of childhood is much better for the child.


----------



## treeoflife3

sponsoring a family.. that reminds me of some math I did one night awhile ago. I wanted to find out how much the richest people in America made compared to my husband and I. I found that the top earners were making in 30 SECONDS what we will make in 20 YEARS. They could literally donate one day of pay and pay hundreds of family's bills for a month or a year giving those families a chance to save money and get their heads above water. We aren't even poor in my opinion. We pay all our bills with some left over without any government assistance... and yet 20 years later we will finally have made what a few people made in 30 seconds. It boggles my mind.

It frustrates me that there is such a divide among the extremely wealthy and those in poverty. I don't suggest the wealthy HAVE to give up money to pay for the poor, but I really feel like divides like that just simply shouldn't happen. I think it is completely ridiculous that the very tops of some companies make more in a year than most of us will ever see in our entire lives while the people working the bottom jobs IN THAT SAME COMPANY can't even afford to make ends meet month to month. I feel like there needs to be some sort of cap... the highest earners can't make more than x% of the lowest earners within the same company. It really just doesn't make sense that anyone can make SO MUCH while so many go without anything.


----------



## Dandelionkid

I don`t understand why that statement is tacky. I would consider it true in most cases. Doesn`t mean not having a parent home with the child is bad for the child but I would think most people would agree that having one parent home in the earliest years would be best for the child.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JavaJunkie*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care. But I do find it...tacky.
> 
> Mainly because of this statement:


----------



## Connie B

Children who are well taken care of by their parents benefit all of us in the long run.


----------



## Youngfrankenstein

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dandelionkid*
> 
> I don`t understand why that statement is tacky. I would consider it true in most cases. Doesn`t mean not having a parent home with the child is bad for the child but I would think most people would agree that having one parent home in the earliest years would be best for the child.


I agree, is someone going to say that people think it's *better* to have a child raised at home without a parent? This isn't saying anything bad about working parents whether they have to or choose to.


----------



## Adaline'sMama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> Well I feel like my daughter has a right to be raised by her parents and see me more than a couple hours in the morning before daycare and 3-4 hours at night before bedtime. Assuming I could get a day job. My choices are either work full time at a job that barely covers the cost of child care or stay home with DD and collect "welfare" which in our case is food stamps and being on medicaid (never did the WIC thing) and be judged because I make a choice that I feel is MUCH more valuable on an individual level (other mamas could probably contribute a lot more financially to their family) to my family. Yay for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's fun enough getting the stink eye at the grocery store from people when I buy the expensive organic dairy stuff and then use my foodstamps ebt card, I guess now I have the pleasure of knowing people think I am "abusing" the system*...
> 
> I DON'T want taxpayers to support my family but unfortunately the way this country is my options are limited and me staying home with DD is vitally important in my eyes. Important enough that I am willing to take the scorn from those that feel like I am doing something wrong. I suppose I should add, just so people don't think I am totally a drain on the system and one of "those people"...We have 1 vehicle for our family, a 95 toyota pickup that we can barely squeeze into and we live with my MIL...Mamas who work outside of home are making HUGE sacrifices for their families that they feel is best...so are those of us who are choosing to stay at home a lot of the times...I may have made barely enough to cover childcare with a full time job but our budget would have a little more leeway than it does now with me not working...


Yeah that. Tons of people dont think its okay to buy all organic stuff with food stamps. I get dirty looks all the time.


----------



## Hannah32

I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help."

I refuse to play that game. I support paid parental leave for all and a better social safety net for all, including single-payer health care.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hannah32*
> 
> I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help."


Exactly. My DH summed it up as jealousy, and I do think that's what it is. People are jealous if you have nice things like an expensive car or organic produce. They are jealous if you get help they're not getting. They are jealous if you are staying at home while they're working 12-hour shifts. It would be nice if we could all be content with what we have and help out those who need it and gracefully accept help ourselves when we need it. I won't lie, I'm not remotely left wing, but I think every human has basic rights (including food, shelter, childcare by parent or affordable daycare) and we should go the extra mile, by whatever means works, to make sure everyone has their basic rights met... especially for our children.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hannah32*
> 
> I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help."
> 
> I refuse to play that game. I support paid parental leave for all and a better social safety net for all, including single-payer health care.


agree but those same people probably aren't willing to go to the lengths that others have, how many people who pay tons of money for private healthcare are willing to cut costs in other areas of their lives? Sell the extra car, drive a piece of junk...live with a family member because it's way cheaper...Never go out to eat, NEVER go on vacation etc...It's all about choices. All some people see is the "help" us poor folks are getting and are jealous as you said. Well I am jealous that I don't have a nice car to drive but once again these are choices I've made and I can live with them without letting my jealousy get to the point where I think those people are bad or wrong or whatever.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
> 
> I would quit my job today, and be pregnant every year for the rest of my life if someone would give me $22 K a year for each child.


Probably not. (well, I cannot speak for you but that is not how it works In Canada. Most people do not have large families)

If I work for 700-900 hours, I can receive maternity leave for about 1 year. Maternity leave is 55% percent of gross pay per week to a maximum of about 450$. If you have a decent job, you could earn around $22,000 per year on mat leave.

Despite this, there is not a huge trend of people working, going on mat leave, working, going on mat leave, working, going on mat leave.....

Nor, for that matter, do super rich people who can afford as many kids as they want keep having kid after kid after kid.

Kids are a blessing and a responsibility. Many people have ideas in their heads about family size. Money is only one factor in how large you grow you family.

Now, it is very possible that if the USA offered a decent mat leave, the population would swell initially. It is also possible, given the financial hardship the US is under, it might cause a temporary raise (not sure though - our stats do not go up significantly in difficult financial times....)

edit to add: a quick google search of birth rates in USA and Canada shows that the US has a higher birth rate than Canada - despite having less generous maternity leaves.


----------



## SuburbanHippie

I hate that the word "welfare" was used in the original title of the article. It's been turned into a derogatory term that drudges up the stereotypical "welfare mom." Chain smoking, booze drinking, sleeps all day, parties all night, kids run wild, etc. This is about as far off as you can get from the reality of the situation. I realize though that the title is there to incite interest and get people's blood boiling, but it still irks me.

What is "welfare" really? Financial help from the government, right? Lots of big business gets welfare then. Look at how much these companies have paid in taxes according to Forbes magazine. What about financial aid for college students like Pell Grants? Is that not the same thing? Is it considered socially acceptable because they are trying to do something to enrich their future? Isn't raising a responsible child enriching the future of our country? It's really all about perspective. We are wiling to shell out money to GE and big oil, but our hard working mothers (and lets all agree it is a HARD job) get the shaft? What is wrong with this picture?


----------



## NiteNicole

This is how we live because we have private health care. We are lower middle class and falling fast because of our shitty private health care. Do you know how much an MRI costs? I do. I also know how much physical and occupational therapy cost because I can't afford them for my daughter, nor do we qualify for ANY programs. I can tell you a long and depressing tale of what it's like to be lower middle class with a special needs child and private insurance, but it would take all day.

I don't begrudge anyone else the help they get, but I wouldn't mind a little myself.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> agree but those same people probably aren't willing to go to the lengths that others have, how many people who pay tons of money for private healthcare are willing to cut costs in other areas of their lives? Sell the extra car, drive a piece of junk...live with a family member because it's way cheaper...Never go out to eat, NEVER go on vacation etc...It's all about choices. All some people see is the "help" us poor folks are getting and are jealous as you said. Well I am jealous that I don't have a nice car to drive but once again these are choices I've made and I can live with them without letting my jealousy get to the point where I think those people are bad or wrong or whatever.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NiteNicole*
> 
> This is how we live because we have private health care. We are lower middle class and falling fast because of our shitty private health care. Do you know how much an MRI costs? I do. I also know how much physical and occupational therapy cost because I can't afford them for my daughter, nor do we qualify for ANY programs. I can tell you a long and depressing tale of what it's like to be lower middle class with a special needs child and private insurance, but it would take all day.
> 
> I don't begrudge anyone else the help they get, but I wouldn't mind a little myself.


yes I do unfortunately...as well as the out of pocket cost of a reconstructive knee surgery...

My issue was more with those claiming that being a sahm and taking food stamps or being on state insurance (I'm in ma so it's a little different here being mandatory and all) is a bad thing... It's not like we are out living the high life because we get food stamps and free health insurance..choices choices

I personally think private insurance is just effed up and national healthcare for all...but then again I'm with bernie sanders being a democratic socialist so I must be crazy!


----------



## Hannah32

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> agree but those same people probably aren't willing to go to the lengths that others have, how many people who pay tons of money for private healthcare are willing to cut costs in other areas of their lives? Sell the extra car, drive a piece of junk...live with a family member because it's way cheaper...Never go out to eat, NEVER go on vacation etc...It's all about choices. All some people see is the "help" us poor folks are getting and are jealous as you said. Well I am jealous that I don't have a nice car to drive but once again these are choices I've made and I can live with them without letting my jealousy get to the point where I think those people are bad or wrong or whatever.


Well, there are a lot of people working and driving crappy cars (mine is 13 years old) and paying tons and tons of money for private health insurance. I wouldn't assume that anyone who isn't on assistance doesn't know how to squeeze a buck. I've had to get quite good at it over the past few years.

But by trying to keep us mad at each other, it's easier for the big corporations that run the country to do as they wish, most of the time. That's the real game here, IMO.

And I love Bernie Sanders too.


----------



## Ldavis24

ahh bernie sanders


----------



## umsami

Excellent post. 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuburbanHippie*
> 
> I hate that the word "welfare" was used in the original title of the article. It's been turned into a derogatory term that drudges up the stereotypical "welfare mom." Chain smoking, booze drinking, sleeps all day, parties all night, kids run wild, etc. This is about as far off as you can get from the reality of the situation. I realize though that the title is there to incite interest and get people's blood boiling, but it still irks me.
> 
> What is "welfare" really? Financial help from the government, right? Lots of big business gets welfare then. Look at how much these companies have paid in taxes according to Forbes magazine. What about financial aid for college students like Pell Grants? Is that not the same thing? Is it considered socially acceptable because they are trying to do something to enrich their future? Isn't raising a responsible child enriching the future of our country? It's really all about perspective. We are wiling to shell out money to GE and big oil, but our hard working mothers (and lets all agree it is a HARD job) get the shaft? What is wrong with this picture?


----------



## t2009

Ultimately I think "welfare" (as TANF, food stamps, etc) is NOT the way to support families for many of the reasons stated above. Paid maternity/paternity leave, subsidized QUALITY childcare, health care for everyone, some sort of income tax deduction/credit for an at-home parent (since they'd be foregoing the paid leave & subsidized childcare & WORKING in a way that society just can figure how to recognize yet...), agricultural subsidies that work for small, organic farmers & help open up access to healthy food for all... these things would help bring dignity to families at all levels & with all sorts of different configurations & it would allow parents to make real choices about what is best for their families.

I really hate arguments about welfare based on who deserves what. Guess what? We ALL benefit from some sort of "welfare"... not TANF but other tax credits & subsidies that either put money in our pockets or help us keep more of our paycheck. And those who need the most "help" are the working poor -- they are numerous & typically don't qualify for the "handouts" but also don't generate enough income to qualify for many of the generous tax credits that round out our "welfare" tax policy. We are really failing these families with our current policies.


----------



## Alyantavid

nm


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *karina5*
> 
> "WAREHOUSED"?????????????? Are you friggin' serious? Do you realize how disgusting and offensive such terminology is?


I'm sorry that you are disgusted and offended. I realize that many people don't have a choice. I have been there. I had to put my 9 month old in daycare because I came home and found Grandma sound asleep while he was unrestrained in a bouncy seat that he was too big for in the first place, on top of a piece of furniture. I also discovered that she had been putting him in his booster seat that was meant for eating at the table, and sliding it from room to room to keep him stationary while she sewed, cleaned her house, etc. I felt at that point that daycare was the lesser evil. However that didn't change my feelings about it. However, I was a single parent. I had to work. there was no fall back system for me, so I put him in daycare, and he cried, and I cried, and that was just the way it was.

I have worked in MANY childcare settings, as an aide and later as a preschool teacher. I've worked in three states and in another country and I've done in home daycare. I am not saying that all daycare is evil, and certainly most daycare teachers care about the kids, but there is no possible way to meet all the kids' physical AND emotional needs and keep them challenged and engaged. You need supplies, materials, sufficient adult presence, creativity, patience, space, money...it's a long list, to do it right. And no matter how thoroughly you investigate the childcare facility, there is NO way to know all that goes on. They will tell you that they have a certain ratio. What they will never, ever tell you is that in order to maintain ratios, they shuffle kids from room to room all day. And it's always the youngest kids, the ones who can't talk. So while you are thinking your 2 year old is having a blast doing arts and crafts (and that's what his pre-filled-out "Today I Did...." sheet says) he actually spent naptime and most of his afternoon in the infant room, where they put him in an exersaucer so he wouldn't step on the babies. When an infant teacher wants to go to lunch, to keep ratio, 4 babies have to get shuffled around. The two oldest are going into the toddler room, where walking, hair-grabbing one year olds are all over them, while the little ones sit in carseats in the director's office. This happens all the time. I used to work at a Goddard School, where parents pay half their salary for quality infant care, and although it was the cleanest and safest daycare I've worked at, the kids were no happier. And the babies still were left to CIO no matter what the parent requested, and they still trash talked the parents and other staff behind their backs.

So yes, I consider it warehousing. I think part time daycare, a few hrs a week or whatever, can be beneficial for everyone, and I know that there are places where they care aout the kids. I don't think daycares are inhumanely cruel places of confinement or something. But when you have 4-15 kids to an adult, staying in basically one or two rooms all day with a little time in a fenced in, controlled outdoor environment, for 45-50 hours a week, which is what I was referring to, then yes, imo that is warehousing. I can't think of a single room in my house that would entertain my kids for 10 hrs a day. And I'm told we have a lot of fun stuff.....playdough, paints, art/craft supplies, puzzles, legos, etc. We'd go stir crazy!

Whenever I worked in childcare and it would get to be 4:45 or so, I'd start thinking "I'm really ready to get out of here now." And then I would think about the kids I was watching who still had another hour to go.

And again, I am NOT judging those who need to put their children in daycare. I have a friend who keeps her twin girls in daycare 50 hrs a week even though she only works 20, because she has serious mental health struggles, and she just cannot cope with them. She feels bad about it, and I encourage her NOT to, because that is what she, personally, has to do, to keep things going and maintain her sanity, and provide her kids with emotional stability. And there are many moms out there who *need* to work whether for financial reasons or sanity reasons, and I have been there, so my comment was not meant to insult those families. I'm just stating the honest fact that it's not ideal. The kind of daycare a mom will get when her other choice is welfare, is 9 times out of 10, going to be warehouse variety. That's a fact.


----------



## 3xMama

I've not read through all the responses, but here is my two cents.

If I had any way to work and pay for daycare and still make a profit, I would. But as it stands, any job I qualify for I would end up paying out more in childcare than I would bring in. I would be paying to work. Tell me how that would be a good thing? Tell me how my family and I could survive on that?! I'd much rather see tax money go to a mother (or father for that matter) in a similiar position than have her work, make little to no profit and have so little time to be with her kids. And I would gladly pay out more in taxes if I actually saw that money come back to me rather than going into some CEO's pocket after a billion dollar bailout. He gets a bonus and I'm left in the dust on food stamps because our net income is $16 over...gross is $400 under but that $16 sure did make up for it (this was before DS1 was born). It really disgusts me how we treat our vulnerable (pregnant women, elderly and children) and poor.


----------



## glorysmom

*If a family needs help, lets help them!*


----------



## mamamoo

As someone who has been working at the same daycare for the last 2.5 years I can say that this account is 100% accurate, and exactly the reason I put in my 2 week notice yesterday. I tried and tried to get our owner/director to do the right things for our center, we did have an amazing infant room when a friend and I worked in there together, but she left cause of all the crud there and I got moved to kitchen duty. Now I get to do dishes while I hear the babies being made to scream themselves to sleep and listen to the *girls* that are "taking care" of them talking about how gross the breastmilk is that they have to reheat for the babies who are lucky enough to be b'fed. IT SUCKS and goes against everyything I believe in. I am getting far more welfare through childcare subsidies and foodstamps than it would take to let me stay home with my kids. Most of us don't ask for this life. I was married for 10 years and had 5 kids with my husband thinking we would be together ad I would be able to stay home with them. Thank goodness the help we do get is there...what I really really need is to be able to focus on school(working and going to school is near impossible for me, five kids, no sleep, etc I have no clue how people do it.) so that I can support hese 5 kids. Child support is not something I get to count on(which I think is a HUGE part of our "welfare" problems...these noncustodial parents are getting away with not caring for their kids, my X is ordered to pay about $500 a month...for *5* kids, I have friends whose Xs are ordered to pay $50 a month! It is crazy. Not to mention the fact that nothing happens to him when he just chooses to not pay when changing jobs and garnishment hasn't started yet). When we start placing value on the important things in life, our society will blossom. I just hope it happens in my lifetime.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> 
> I'm sorry that you are disgusted and offended. I realize that many people don't have a choice. I have been there. I had to put my 9 month old in daycare because I came home and found Grandma sound asleep while he was unrestrained in a bouncy seat that he was too big for in the first place, on top of a piece of furniture. I also discovered that she had been putting him in his booster seat that was meant for eating at the table, and sliding it from room to room to keep him stationary while she sewed, cleaned her house, etc. I felt at that point that daycare was the lesser evil. However that didn't change my feelings about it. However, I was a single parent. I had to work. there was no fall back system for me, so I put him in daycare, and he cried, and I cried, and that was just the way it was.
> 
> I have worked in MANY childcare settings, as an aide and later as a preschool teacher. I've worked in three states and in another country and I've done in home daycare. I am not saying that all daycare is evil, and certainly most daycare teachers care about the kids, but there is no possible way to meet all the kids' physical AND emotional needs and keep them challenged and engaged. You need supplies, materials, sufficient adult presence, creativity, patience, space, money...it's a long list, to do it right. And no matter how thoroughly you investigate the childcare facility, there is NO way to know all that goes on. They will tell you that they have a certain ratio. What they will never, ever tell you is that in order to maintain ratios, they shuffle kids from room to room all day. And it's always the youngest kids, the ones who can't talk. So while you are thinking your 2 year old is having a blast doing arts and crafts (and that's what his pre-filled-out "Today I Did...." sheet says) he actually spent naptime and most of his afternoon in the infant room, where they put him in an exersaucer so he wouldn't step on the babies. When an infant teacher wants to go to lunch, to keep ratio, 4 babies have to get shuffled around. The two oldest are going into the toddler room, where walking, hair-grabbing one year olds are all over them, while the little ones sit in carseats in the director's office. This happens all the time. I used to work at a Goddard School, where parents pay half their salary for quality infant care, and although it was the cleanest and safest daycare I've worked at, the kids were no happier. And the babies still were left to CIO no matter what the parent requested, and they still trash talked the parents and other staff behind their backs.
> 
> So yes, I consider it warehousing. I think part time daycare, a few hrs a week or whatever, can be beneficial for everyone, and I know that there are places where they care aout the kids. I don't think daycares are inhumanely cruel places of confinement or something. But when you have 4-15 kids to an adult, staying in basically one or two rooms all day with a little time in a fenced in, controlled outdoor environment, for 45-50 hours a week, which is what I was referring to, then yes, imo that is warehousing. I can't think of a single room in my house that would entertain my kids for 10 hrs a day. And I'm told we have a lot of fun stuff.....playdough, paints, art/craft supplies, puzzles, legos, etc. We'd go stir crazy!
> 
> Whenever I worked in childcare and it would get to be 4:45 or so, I'd start thinking "I'm really ready to get out of here now." And then I would think about the kids I was watching who still had another hour to go.
> 
> And again, I am NOT judging those who need to put their children in daycare. I have a friend who keeps her twin girls in daycare 50 hrs a week even though she only works 20, because she has serious mental health struggles, and she just cannot cope with them. She feels bad about it, and I encourage her NOT to, because that is what she, personally, has to do, to keep things going and maintain her sanity, and provide her kids with emotional stability. And there are many moms out there who *need* to work whether for financial reasons or sanity reasons, and I have been there, so my comment was not meant to insult those families. I'm just stating the honest fact that it's not ideal. The kind of daycare a mom will get when her other choice is welfare, is 9 times out of 10, going to be warehouse variety. That's a fact.


----------



## Polliwog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> I have worked in MANY childcare settings, as an aide and later as a preschool teacher. I've worked in three states and in another country and I've done in home daycare. I am not saying that all daycare is evil, and certainly most daycare teachers care about the kids, but there is no possible way to meet all the kids' physical AND emotional needs and keep them challenged and engaged. You need supplies, materials, sufficient adult presence, creativity, patience, space, money...it's a long list, to do it right. And no matter how thoroughly you investigate the childcare facility, there is NO way to know all that goes on. They will tell you that they have a certain ratio. What they will never, ever tell you is that in order to maintain ratios, they shuffle kids from room to room all day. And it's always the youngest kids, the ones who can't talk. So while you are thinking your 2 year old is having a blast doing arts and crafts (and that's what his pre-filled-out "Today I Did...." sheet says) he actually spent naptime and most of his afternoon in the infant room, where they put him in an exersaucer so he wouldn't step on the babies. When an infant teacher wants to go to lunch, to keep ratio, 4 babies have to get shuffled around. The two oldest are going into the toddler room, where walking, hair-grabbing one year olds are all over them, while the little ones sit in carseats in the director's office. This happens all the time. I used to work at a Goddard School, where parents pay half their salary for quality infant care, and although it was the cleanest and safest daycare I've worked at, the kids were no happier. And the babies still were left to CIO no matter what the parent requested, and they still trash talked the parents and other staff behind their backs.
> 
> So yes, I consider it warehousing. I think part time daycare, a few hrs a week or whatever, can be beneficial for everyone, and I know that there are places where they care aout the kids. I don't think daycares are inhumanely cruel places of confinement or something. But when you have 4-15 kids to an adult, staying in basically one or two rooms all day with a little time in a fenced in, controlled outdoor environment, for 45-50 hours a week, which is what I was referring to, then yes, imo that is warehousing. I can't think of a single room in my house that would entertain my kids for 10 hrs a day. And I'm told we have a lot of fun stuff.....playdough, paints, art/craft supplies, puzzles, legos, etc. We'd go stir crazy!


I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.

Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.


----------



## Super~Single~Mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.
> 
> Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.


I'm going to agree with Polliwog. My ds is in daycare about 40-45hours per week. It's a wonderful program. He is always in the same room (I've showed up to pick him at various times of the day and he's never anywhere else, unless its his classes turn to do "Kung Fu"), and his school has "floaters" who go from room to room when its the teachers break time, or who cover while the teacher is in the bathroom with one of the children.

The children certainly aren't Warehoused during the day.


----------



## purslaine

I think some childcare is warehousing and some isn't. I have seen both - I bet most of us have.


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> I think you've worked in crap child care programs. I've worked with, and monitored programs that received child care subsidy dollars, and have rarely seen programs like the ones you've described. Yes, there are many out there but most are not. Some states have MUCH strjcter regulations than others which makes a difference but most programs aren't like that at all. Many programs have extra staff (often called floaters,) to cover ratios during breaks and when needed during the day. I've seen many directors cover breaks in the infant room since that's often the room that requires ratios to be maintained at all times. I've seen thousands of children playing from opening to closing and not getting bored. Classrooms are not like home.
> 
> Yes, there are many programs where children are warehoused and that I wouldn't take a dog to. But, that's not the majority and it's condescending to imply that that's the norm.


No, actually I've worked at three centers that were NAEYC accredited...4 or 5 stars. Although they accepted government subsidy, the location and the price (because subsidy only covers a certain amount) meant that most of the children had fairly wealthy parents....doctors, investors, lawyers, etc.

I too have seen directors who pitch in where necessary, and as a lead teacher I used to plan activities for those last two hours, to keep the kids entertained and get their minds off the kids who were already being picked up. I also worked with parents on potty training. But I have worked, as I mentioned, in THREE states, and in another country, and I can say that while there are good daycares out there they are the exception, not the norm. Perhaps you were lucky enough to see the good side of the child care industry. That's wonderful. But it is not condescending to state the truth which is that most parents who are using government subsidized childcare as an alternative to welfare, which is who we are talking about in this thread, are going to end up with poor quality childcare for their kids. I'm not being condescending. I hate it. I think it's wrong. I think every mom should have te opportunity to stay home, but if she chooses not to, she should not have to feel bad about her child being in childcare, because it should be a delightful experience for the child. But this is not the way it is. I have been on the inside of at least 4 Kindercares in my city alone. I wouldn't take my child toany of them. Nor to the Goddard School, nor to Childtime or any Knowledge Learning Corp owned childcare facility. These are big names. Many people trust them because they have security systems on their doors, and a policy manual three inches thick, and bright sunny classrooms. They look nice, and they feed the kids, and they have nice outdoor equipment. I'm just saying that it is not all it's cracked up to be and I can almost guarantee that any daycare you find, I will be able to find a problem with it in two days. Or maybe I just have impossibly high standards. :shrug oh well.


----------



## Polliwog

Actually, in the work that I've done (in three states,) I've been in hundreds of child care centers at various points in the day (quite often announced.) A good percentage of programs that accept government subsidy are wonderful. Better than the average private pay family can afford. Not all, of course, or even most, but a big percentage. I've also been an NAEYC accreditation program validator. While the new accreditation program has it's drawbacks, it is MUCH harder for low-quality programs to become accredited, and maintain their accreditation status.

Some of the highest quality early childhood programs in the country are just for our nation's poorest children. My kids were lucky enough to qualify for, and attend, Early Head Start (for children ages 0-3) and Head Start (for children 3-5.) My kids qualified because they were in foster care and had significant risk factors. I never would have been able to afford those programs if I had to pay..


----------



## milkybean

Just to answer the OP...

My mom got foodstamps and probably some sorts of other welfare, to stay home with me and my brother until I was 4 and my brother was 2. At that point her good friend who ran a Montessori school would let us in (she didn't normally let 2 year olds in, as she didn't run a daycare, but my brother has always been brilliant and ahead of everyone, and it wasn't daycare for him, but school, even at that age), and let my mom clean the school for partial tuition, so my mom went back to work.

I am eternally grateful that she got to spend that time with us, and that we got to spend that time with her. I think that it allowed us all to be a lot more normal than we otherwise would have been, as our home life was absolutely out of control otherwise, thanks to my father.

My mom was horribly embarrassed countless times for using foodstamps, and actually never set foot in a certain Safeway again thanks to how the cashiers treated her (it's possible she never set foot in ANY Safeway again), but she did it because she felt it was just that important, to be with us.


----------



## mamamoo

But EHS and HS are not for profit agencies. THere is a huge difference. The EHS program here (to use as a daycare, HS is preschool and is free) costs money. DSHS will pay if you are working, but if you are going to school for longer than a year or notin a technical program they don't help with childcare.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> Actually, in the work that I've done (in three states,) I've been in hundreds of child care centers at various points in the day (quite often announced.) A good percentage of programs that accept government subsidy are wonderful. Better than the average private pay family can afford. Not all, of course, or even most, but a big percentage. I've also been an NAEYC accreditation program validator. While the new accreditation program has it's drawbacks, it is MUCH harder for low-quality programs to become accredited, and maintain their accreditation status.
> 
> Some of the highest quality early childhood programs in the country are just for our nation's poorest children. My kids were lucky enough to qualify for, and attend, Early Head Start (for children ages 0-3) and Head Start (for children 3-5.) My kids qualified because they were in foster care and had significant risk factors. I never would have been able to afford those programs if I had to pay..


----------



## hildare

can we next start a poll about the inverse proportion between IQ and use of the term "welfare mom?"


----------



## new2this

To answer the OP since I haven't read all the post yet.

I think welfare is highly over used and abused. It does need an overhaul of some sorts. Just as I think if a person gets pregnant they should not be going to welfare in order stay home. I am all for a parent staying home however when one chooses to have sex they chose to have a risk of having a child and therefore be prepared without assistance to support said child. If that means not being able to stay home so be it. I am in favor of better maternity leave programs maybe not for a full year but close to it. Not only that our government can't afford it in our current state that it is in.

Assistance should be a last resort type thing if that means going without things like TV, Internet, cell phone in order to provide for the family so be it. But government assistance should not be a first step thing in helping. Its there for a reason and are great programs when used the way they are meant to be used. But society has made it to where welfare and like programs are a first line choice for many then what the programs were originally designed for.

I am all for helping people when help is needed. But sadly the programs are so highly abused that its hard for the ones that truly need the help to get it.

Most people can survive off of one income if they chose to, however most people are not willing to make those changes in their lifestyles to do so.


----------



## Polliwog

When it comes to funding, there is absolutely no difference between Early Head Start and Head Start. Nothing. The federal government pays for a six hour day (for full time Head Start or Early Head Start center-based programming.) Some EHS and HS programs offer wrap-around child care for families who need more than six hours of school. Those are what families pay for, not the six hours that EHS/HS pays for. Both EHS and HS can offer extended care.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamamoo*
> 
> But EHS and HS are not for profit agencies. THere is a huge difference. The EHS program here (to use as a daycare, HS is preschool and is free) costs money. DSHS will pay if you are working, but if you are going to school for longer than a year or notin a technical program they don't help with childcare.


----------



## mammal_mama

We have drawn some sort of assistance for a good part of the past eleven years since dd1 was born. We've also always had at least one parent bringing in an income. It was just dh until about a year and a half ago. Then the job market really went downhill for him nearly two years ago. and he was unemployed for about a year. During this time he drew unemployment and, of course, our food stamps were increased. We continued to qualify for the girls' Medicaid, which they've gotten for years; dh and I also get a 100 percent discount at a hospital in the area for any medical care we need.

A little over a year ago, I was blessed to get hired on with a company that pays me to work from home, giving telephone English lessons. This is great work for me because it enables me to spend time with my family when I have breaks between lessons. A few months later, dh also got a work-from-home job working opposite hours from me but it was very stressful for him, both emotionally and health-wise. He has some serious and chronic health issues, and, this past February, he had his second TIA and had to be hospitalized for a couple of days.

Of course, I still needed to give lessons during this time, even though I was the only adult in the home; we couldn't afford for me not to (it was just for one day since the first day he was in the hospital was my day off). I just had to keep checking in on the girls during my breaks between lessons; this meant it took me a little longer than usual to get all my reports sent in, but it was manageable. I'm so thankful that, with all dh's health issues (and this isn't the first time he's been hospitalized, just the first time since I'd started working) -- I'm really thankful that I'm able to work from home, and that I have the flexibility to set my own hours so that I can be as available to the girls as I need to be, at any time when dh might not be able to be here due to his medical issues.

Dh did try to resume his job a few days after returning from the hospital, but, after just a few hours, he had a terrible headache and was having a very hard time concentrating. I encouraged him to go ahead and quit and just focus on the girls and his health, and I expanded my availabilities for lessons. I currently get about 32 to 35 hours a week of lessons with about 46 hours a week of availability (the job is classified as part-time permanent so the system blocks me from getting full-time hours). The pay is good enough that I think it's equal to or greater than the pay of any 40 hr/wk job I'd be likely to get outside the home. Plus, me working outside the home just wouldn't be a good option for us.

So...we get food stamps, children's Medicaid, and adult hospital discounts. We also have high speed Internet access. I need it for my job,but we actually had it before I got this job. I honestly can't imagine being low income without having Internet access. We find out about so many wonderful things being given away. Dh sometimes picks up a little extra cash when people are getting rid of stuff like old refrigerators and washers. They post about it on places like Craig's list, and it's so much nicer (and more engergy efficient and eco friendly) to drive to where you know there is something than just drive around hoping you'll find something. He uses his dolly to load the old appliances into our minivan (he takes the back seats out) and hauls the stuff to the metal run. Every little bit helps.

He just picked up a very new-looking couch in a beautiful floral print from an older lady who has too many back problems to sit in it anymore. So we have a nice couch now. Of course, I'm sorry if anyone's working 12 hour shifts and coming home to a crappy couch -- still, if you have Internet, you have a wonderful opportunity to find out about nice things you can avail yourself of for free or at very low cost. So I wouldn't begrudge poor people their Internet. We can (and do) certainly manage fine without Cable, but Internet, I think, has practically become essential in this day and age. Not to mention it makes it so much easier for dh to fax in any updates he needs to send to our caseworker.

Oh, and, yes, I think it's good to provide economically-challenged families with support so that all children can have a parent with them at all times.


----------



## MommaBirdie

I do believe that being a SAHM is very beneficial to children.
And you can make it work without going on welfare, I've seen online forums of single mothers who not only stayed at home until their children were school aged, but also home schooled them.

I pretty much am against big government, and that includes welfare.
I'm a big believer in private charities, but that's just me.


----------



## Lillitu

I am a "welfare mom". I get foodstamps, cash assistance (used to be called TANF, now called CALWorks in my state), and medical for me, my partner, and my son.

Both my partner and I have been looking for work, but it has not been forthcoming. I am in grad school, which counts towards the "work requirement" of CALWorks. They expect me to be training or working 32 hours a week, while my partner gets to be the SAHD- he got an exemption because our son is so young. If my son were 5, it would be a different story. And of course, we only get 60 months of cash assistance, period.

We get cash that is $300 less than our monthly rent. We also have $200 car insurance, $175 mobile phone bills, $60 internet (a must for a grad student), and (?) non-food items we shop for. We only get food with WIC and foodstamps- so we must be careful to plan carefully so we do not go hungry at the end of the month.

I would LOVE for one of us to have a FT job and provide benefits for our family. But the economy being what it is, I don't know when that will happen. It seems like we are always hustling, trying to make up that additional $600 in the budget that we have no job for. We are constantly stressed out and fighting. It sucks.

Welfare moms are warriors.


----------



## mamamoo

Our HS programs here are about 3.5 hours long. It is from 8:15 to 11:30 or 12:15 to 3:30. That's it. When I went to get my youngest enrolled in EHS I would have had to pay for anything outside of the "regularly scheduled class times". There was not a free 6 hour time frame, and dshs will not pay for childcare if I am only in school. The head Start near my house only offers the preschool program that I explained above. I think there must be some variation from state to state maybe?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polliwog*
> 
> When it comes to funding, there is absolutely no difference between Early Head Start and Head Start. Nothing. The federal government pays for a six hour day (for full time Head Start or Early Head Start center-based programming.) Some EHS and HS programs offer wrap-around child care for families who need more than six hours of school. Those are what families pay for, not the six hours that EHS/HS pays for. Both EHS and HS can offer extended care.


----------



## lynnesg

I believe that the welfare system is heavily abused. I know first hand since I had a close friend who got pregnant on purpose with no med. insurance or a dime to her name and had that baby on MY tax dollars and then didn't get a job for a year purposely because she got the state to pay her to stay home while getting free medical, free housing, foodstamps, formula and all the other things the ''takers'' in society get for free while we work to pay their way. UGH!!! I think if people need to assistance while times are tough, fine, but be prepared to pay it back. That's only fair, right? If you want a car, you have to pay for it, if you want to own a home, you have to pay for it, I am so sick on the entitlement mentality in this country. I am fortunate enough to be a SAHM but my DH and I both went to college, that us and our parents paid for, not that govt, and own a nice home that WE paid for and the nice things that we worked super hard to have. We had children when we were financially able to. We have 2 kids and only 2 kids because that's what we can afford. It's called being accountable and responsible. We are the MAKERS.


----------



## contactmaya

To use your terminology, every mother is a 'maker'. Mothering is work. Getting pregnant, giving birth, caring for a child-hardly an easy way to get welfare. There are many easier ways to earn a living.

Even if your friends intentions were dishonest, that makes her dishonest, but it doesnt make her a parasite, or any more a 'taker' than any person who benefits from tax payers, you included.

There may be those you abuse the system, ive never met one, but the system abuses them disproportionately.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I believe that the welfare system is heavily abused. I know first hand since I had a close friend who got pregnant on purpose with no med. insurance or a dime to her name and had that baby on MY tax dollars and then didn't get a job for a year purposely because she got the state to pay her to stay home while getting free medical, free housing, foodstamps, formula and all the other things the ''takers'' in society get for free while we work to pay their way. UGH!!! I think if people need to assistance while times are tough, fine, but be prepared to pay it back. That's only fair, right? If you want a car, you have to pay for it, if you want to own a home, you have to pay for it, I am so sick on the entitlement mentality in this country. I am fortunate enough to be a SAHM but my DH and I both went to college, that us and our parents paid for, not that govt, and own a nice home that WE paid for and the nice things that we worked super hard to have. We had children when we were financially able to. We have 2 kids and only 2 kids because that's what we can afford. It's called being accountable and responsible. We are the MAKERS.


This isn't judgmental at all.







Seriously, how do your tax dollars, as a SAHM, pay for your friend's welfare any more than her own tax dollars did before she had that baby? WTF is the makers vs. the takers?


----------



## hippiemombian

I have read through a few posts and this is my take on the situation. I was married for 6 years and while I was married I had 2 children. Needless to say my marriage ended and I was left flat on my back. I had no education, no job skills, no car, no money, nothing. I was in that situation because it was decided that I would be a SAHM until my children were school aged and even if I was working I wouldn't make enough to cover childcare. After my marriage ended I fell in love with the most amazing woman I know and because we live in a state where we don't have equal rights I am not entitled to things like insurance through her employer. Anyway, she is one of the hardest working people I know and we still weren't making ends meet. We were living in a hotel working scuzzy jobs telemarketing and didn't have a gallon of milk in our fridge. I did what I had to a filed for foodstamps and medicaid. This was a lifesaver. It's been about 1 1/2 years and I am needing to renew my applicaiton actually. I'm not proud that I am on state assistance, but I have to do what I have to do. I don't work because childcare cost upwards of $1200 a month. I don't think I am using the system though. I have these children from a previous relationship that at the time I could afford. My partner and I are both full-time students, she works a full-time job, we coupon and shop second-hand.We are trying to make it and no matter how hard we try we aren't cutting it.


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> This isn't judgmental at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, how do your tax dollars, as a SAHM, pay for your friend's welfare any more than her own tax dollars did before she had that baby? WTF is the makers vs. the takers?


My DH's tax dollars paid for her poor choices. Our tax dollars. Tax dollars that I myself paid into the system before having children and making the decision to stay home. I am in no way against welfare or other subsidies for the people that run into hard times and need the assistance until they get back on their feet, but these days, it's easier for people to just go out and get foodstamps and welfare and medicaid, so where is the incentive to work? There is no denying that we are raising a society of moochers. The *makers* are the people that work and pay into the system and the *takers* are the people that don't work and take away from the system. My statement is absolutley not judgemental, its based on facts. I live in CA, the most liberal, broke state in the country and I see it all the time. People get their welfare checks and go out to a nice dinner or buy $100 pair of jeans. Instead of budgeting for groceries, they go out and get food stamps. When times are tough, you cut back, but for so many people now, these subsidies are a ''bonus'', extra cash in their pockets and its taking away from the people who truley need it while bleeding the system dry. If I bought a car, I wouldn't expect Uncle Sam to pay for it, I would pay it back to my lender. Same goes with having kids. I shouldn't be a burden on the system because I chose to have children. If I ever took state or public assistance, I would feel indentured and pay it back. To me, that's being accountable. To sum up my rant, I see nothing wrong with getting assistance, but no one can disagree, that today's day in age, it so heavily abused and there are far too many on it who absolutley don't need it.


----------



## junipermoon

People with more than the average amount of resources in our society often have them because they take part in a system that exploits others and steals their resources.

Are parents who utilize assistance taking advantage?! Our families can't even live and farm on the land without "renting" it or "buying" it from folks who "own" it on paper--rediculous sets of ideas that are all about keeping those with money and power in a position to keep being able to exploit others and profit off of others.

I feel like we are having the wrong conversation.


----------



## t2009

Lynnesg - You mentioned in your earlier post that you went to college & own a home... Did you take any subsidized loans to pay for your education? Do you claim any tax deductions or credits relating to your mortgage or home ownership? I am assuming you do (since most of us can't pay for college on our own & take advantage of every tax credit we could possibly qualify for...) -- THAT is welfare, too, but we don't like to call it that.

I'm not trying to be snotty, but many of us think we are far more self-sufficient than we really are. Could you afford to SAH if you had to pay back unsubsidized loans & had to pay the full amount on your mortgage interest, etc.? Sure, the super-wealthy could, but the rest of us rely on government assistance in some form or another.

I also don't agree with the caricature of those on "welfare" as using government money as a "bonus". ANY system is subject to occassional abuse. But after the welfare reforms during Clinton's presidency it has actually become VERY difficult to qualify for assistance. It's not so easy as it seems. And if a few misuse their assistance, that's just the (relatively small) price we pay for having any sort of welfare system at all. I don't think we can be such hypocrites as to cut assistance completely because a few find ways to misuse it but continue to quietly take our tax credits & do such useless things as go on vacation (even though we know we should save save save). Just sayin'.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> My DH's tax dollars paid for her poor choices. Our tax dollars. Tax dollars that I myself paid into the system before having children and making the decision to stay home. I am in no way against welfare or other subsidies for the people that run into hard times and need the assistance until they get back on their feet, but these days, it's easier for people to just go out and get foodstamps and welfare and medicaid, so where is the incentive to work? There is no denying that we are raising a society of moochers. The *makers* are the people that work and pay into the system and the *takers* are the people that don't work and take away from the system. My statement is absolutley not judgemental, its based on facts. I live in CA, the most liberal, broke state in the country and I see it all the time. People get their welfare checks and go out to a nice dinner or buy $100 pair of jeans. Instead of budgeting for groceries, they go out and get food stamps. When times are tough, you cut back, but for so many people now, these subsidies are a ''bonus'', extra cash in their pockets and its taking away from the people who truley need it while bleeding the system dry. If I bought a car, I wouldn't expect Uncle Sam to pay for it, I would pay it back to my lender. Same goes with having kids. I shouldn't be a burden on the system because I chose to have children. If I ever took state or public assistance, I would feel indentured and pay it back. To me, that's being accountable. To sum up my rant, I see nothing wrong with getting assistance, but no one can disagree, that today's day in age, it so heavily abused and there are far too many on it who absolutley don't need it.


So then what about your friend's tax dollars? The ones she (presumably) paid into the system for the years she worked before becoming a SAHM for this past year? What about the fact that many US citizens do not mind the fact that our taxes help fund all sorts of things from roads to libraries to schools to WIC to low-income housing to section 8 to subsidized childcare (which, btw, if your friend decided to work, she'd probably receive - thus, your tax dollars would be paying for that).

Some of us are okay knowing children have lunch at school for free if their income is under the limits. And that's the thing; if you qualify, you qualify. I'm pretty sure it's not actually that easy to abuse the system. If they say you cannot have X amount of assets, it's hard to get around that. I won't even argue the fact that people who receive assistance such as food stamps are worthy of a good pair of jeans or a night out every once in a while. You can search "food stamps" here and come up with a lengthy thread where I spoke my mind.

It's really not taking away from anything your family has, really, so find some comfort knowing that people everywhere have a roof over their head or help paying their heating and food in their bellies because our country is the way it is. It's not perfect; there are many flaws to the system, and unfortunately that leaves room for some fraud as well as plenty of people who are left without meeting their basic needs. But complaining about how well a friend has it because she is low enough income to qualify for some help is just silly. You really think she wouldn't trade financial places with you in a heartbeat?


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *t2009*
> 
> Lynnesg - You mentioned in your earlier post that you went to college & own a home... Did you take any subsidized loans to pay for your education? Do you claim any tax deductions or credits relating to your mortgage or home ownership? I am assuming you do (since most of us can't pay for college on our own & take advantage of every tax credit we could possibly qualify for...) -- THAT is welfare, too, but we don't like to call it that.
> 
> I'm not trying to be snotty, *but many of us think we are far more self-sufficient than we really are.* Could you afford to SAH if you had to pay back unsubsidized loans & had to pay the full amount on your mortgage interest, etc.? Sure, the super-wealthy could, but the rest of us rely on government assistance in some form or another.
> 
> I also don't agree with the caricature of those on "welfare" as using government money as a "bonus". ANY system is subject to occassional abuse. But after the welfare reforms during Clinton's presidency it has actually become VERY difficult to qualify for assistance. It's not so easy as it seems. And if a few misuse their assistance, that's just the (relatively small) price we pay for having any sort of welfare system at all. I don't think we can be such hypocrites as to cut assistance completely because a few find ways to misuse it but continue to quietly take our tax credits & do such useless things as go on vacation (even though we know we should save save save). Just sayin'.


That's a very good point you made (see bolded part). DH and I get about $10k a year from the government in the form of tax refunds. Essentially, the government is paying the interest on our mortgage. Property ownership in the US is highly subsidized. I had the same conversation with my father who often talks about welfare queens, etc., and the conversation of how the average American (specifically property owners) are subsidized made him really, really uncomfortable. Why? Because he buys into the theory that great people do it on their own. While I think there are a lot of people who are hard workers and take very little or nothing from the system, the ones who are usually screaming loudest against welfare are the ones who have benefited from the same government, albeit, in different and more palatable ways. Property ownership is a highly valued thing in the US. Many people, however, would not be able to own property but for assistance from the government (in terms of credits, deductions, etc.).


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> My DH's tax dollars paid for her poor choices. Our tax dollars. Tax dollars that I myself paid into the system before having children and making the decision to stay home. I am in no way against welfare or other subsidies for the people that run into hard times and need the assistance until they get back on their feet, but these days, it's easier for people to just go out and get foodstamps and welfare and medicaid, so where is the incentive to work? There is no denying that we are raising a society of moochers. The *makers* are the people that work and pay into the system and the *takers* are the people that don't work and take away from the system. My statement is absolutley not judgemental, its based on facts. I live in CA, the most liberal, broke state in the country and I see it all the time. People get their welfare checks and go out to a nice dinner or buy $100 pair of jeans. Instead of budgeting for groceries, they go out and get food stamps. When times are tough, you cut back, but for so many people now, these subsidies are a ''bonus'', extra cash in their pockets and its taking away from the people who truley need it while bleeding the system dry. If I bought a car, I wouldn't expect Uncle Sam to pay for it, I would pay it back to my lender. Same goes with having kids. I shouldn't be a burden on the system because I chose to have children. If I ever took state or public assistance, I would feel indentured and pay it back. To me, that's being accountable. To sum up my rant, I see nothing wrong with getting assistance, but no one can disagree, that today's day in age, it so heavily abused and there are far too many on it who absolutley don't need it.


I have to leave soon. But I can say this....

I was on welfare for about 18 months 15 years ago. I feel absolutely no guilt about it - I needed to feed my family and house us and did what I had to do. I have easily paid back (with taxes) any money I got during that period. I am quite happy with my tax dollars going to feed families, thank you very much. There are other things I am way less happy about).

I do have some issue with chronic or generational welfare - but it is a bit of a culture thing, a culture we all created (partly through very low wages among other thing). Even still, children of those families who are chronic welfare users deserve to be fed and housed. Children should not pay for issues of their parents.

Oh, and people can buy snazzy jeans if they want to. As long as their kid is fed and housed, I do not care how they spend their meager, meager welfare allowance. I bet the vast majority of welfare money does indeed go to food and housing and other essentials.


----------



## moonfirefaery

lynnesg-You seem to be operating under the assumption that the "takers" do not contribute and have not in the past. You're wrong. SAHMs, welfare or not, are contributing to our economy by raising the next generation of tax-payers. Many of them have paid income taxes before and will do so once their kids are in school. They also pay sales and property taxes.

When we create a society where mothering is a luxury for the priveleged, we are taking from the underpriveleged, children, mothers, and our country's future. We don't compensate parents for their work, and we begrudge them basic living allowance so that they can raise their children well--but we'll be more than happy to benefit from the tax dollars those children grow up to pay. So who are the real takers?

Also, are you aware that when studies are done researching the "mooching off welfare" issue, the problem of people abusing the system, they generally find a figure right around 10%? This 'issue' is nothing more than a red herring that the priveleged use to try to keep us from forcing our country to take care of the underpriveleged.

As far as the example of your tax dollars paying for someone else's poor choices... why is it that you think her child does not deserve quality mothering simply because you do not agree with your choices? Why should he suffer and be underpriveleged? Should we punish the child for the sins of the parent? And more importantly, is it your place to judge her choices? Did she make them deliberately knowing what the consequences would be? Does she deserve to be judged so harshly, punished, or to have her child punished?


----------



## moonfirefaery

It is great to do it on your own, if you can, but not everyone can. At least not well. And don't all children deserve to be mothered well? Even if their parents are single, doing it all alone, and even if mommy and daddy don't make very much.

I have to work. But my son deserves to have me stay home and raise him nevertheless, even though I can't, and there absolutely should be a way that I can stay home with him if I choose. Sadly, I can't seem to find such a path.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> It is great to do it on your own, if you can, but not everyone can. At least not well. And don't all children deserve to be mothered well?


I don't think that having a SAHM equals being mothered well, or that having a working mom equals not being mothered well.


----------



## lynnesg

Property ownership in and of itself stimulates the economy, where people taking foodstamps and welfare does not. Yes, we claim tax credits, but we pay far more into the system than we will ever get out. Yes, we paid for our own college tuitions by going to a jr. college and then our local state college both out of our own pockets. We did not rely on the govt to subsidize that either, although I am all for people getting subsidies to better their lives as far as education goes. I understand that the poverty line is encroching further into middle America and a lot of people are struggling but the notion that you are entitled to state or federal assistance because you want to be a SAHM is billigerent to say the least. I totally agree with Kathy that a welfare abusing mom's children should not suffer the hardship of their mother's crappy decisions, but is it fair to *my* family that our taxes go up and we have less money to take home because we are paying for all the people? And $650/month in welfare monies (in CA) is not meager when coupled with foodstamps, free medical and the housing assistance. Geez, where is the incentive to work anymore? And for the second time: I do not shune those who took/take welfare because they have no other options, it is the people who abuse it that are hurting everyone else.


----------



## Hannah32

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Property ownership in and of itself stimulates the economy, where people taking foodstamps and welfare does not.


Well that's convenient. LOL. You know, it has been well documented by economists, even Republican ones, that food stamps are a very good economic stimulus.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hannah32*
> 
> Well that's convenient. LOL. You know, it has been well documented by economists, even Republican ones, that food stamps are a very good economic stimulus.


Of course food stamps and cash assistance stimulate the economy. Just as EIC tax refunds do. Food stamps can even be used at many farmer's markets, so it's a win-win. The local economy is boosted, the real food movement benefits, family businesses earn an in income, and the food stamp recipient gets healthy fresh produce. And even when they are used at walmart to buy, gasp, skittles and soda, the economy is absolutely stimulated.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Yes, we paid for our own college tuitions by going to a jr. college and then our local state college both out of our own pockets. We did not rely on the govt to subsidize that either,


Those ARE subsidized forms of education.

Most of us use things paid for or subsidized by the government -- public schools, libraries, parks, etc.......

we all drive on roads.


----------



## lynnesg

You ladies are truley grasping at straws here. And the $700 billion dollar stimulus package worked too, right? It only cost 1.2 million dollars per job created, but hey, jobs were ''created'' right? But did the ends justify the means? Of course education is subsidized at all levels (K-Univ.) but we didn't take any financial aid or assistance from that. We worked through school. I take it from the defensive posts I am receiving that most of you have/are taking assistance and trying to justify yourselves with the notion that you are ''stimulating'' the economy.


----------



## hippiemombian

I don't know why people think that welfare is so much money and that anyone who wants it can get it! I live in FL and I have a friend that applied for cash assistance and food stamps. In order to apply she had to fill out a nearly 20 on-line page application listing every expense she had and all monies coming in. Every facet of her life was looked at. After submitting the application she had to send in lease agreements, utility bills, shot records, birth certificates, any employment information. She then had to meet with a councilor to discuss career options and/or job trainings. She also had to cooperate with child support enforcement providing all information they requested. On top of that she had to meet certain number of hours per week taking career readiness classes and keep a log of all jobs she looked and applied for. All of this for $300 a month for her and her 2 kids. She got money in food stamps as well. Idk how anyone can survive off of $300 a month unless they had no bills. While I am sure there are people that "abuse" the system, a lot of people don't. If the government wanted people to get off their asses and work they should fix the price of child care. For my two children it is $1200 a month. Most jobs I could be hired for pay $7.25 an hour maybe $8 if I'm lucky. If I were making $8 an hour working 40 hours a week before taxes I would make $1280. I wouldn't even be able to pay child care. It is very easy for someone who hasn't been in this position to say "Well I did it this way everyone should be able to." The reality of it all is not everyone is put in ideal situations and people have to do what they have to do. Right now that means SAH with my kids & using government loans to pay for school and help pay my monthly bills. My partner works and goes to school and we are doing EVERYTHING we can do to just get by. Hell we don't even have a car at this point. So until nay sayers have walked a mile in the shoes of those that actually have to work to pay the bills each month then they should keep their opinions to themselves.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> I take it from the defensive posts I am receiving that most of you have/are taking assistance and trying to justify yourselves with the notion that you are ''stimulating'' the economy.


That is quite the assumption. People can be defensive on behalf of other people or ideas without it being a personal issue.

Ranting against people on welfare or the welfare system does not help the situation.

I think the way to help people off welfare is through supportive, smart programs and resources.

Most parents are very practical people. In order to work, they need to bring home more money than welfare supplies. Things that help move people off of welfare and into jobs:

-subsidized daycare. This is a MUST. (tbh - daycare costs are just as high as welfare. Often higher. I have no problem with paying welfare to single moms with young children. We are either going to pay for welfare or subsidized daycare - might as well let the mom figure out if she wants to work with a babe or not).

-welfare programs that offer incentive for people to work. This is what got us off of welfare - DH was able to find part time work and keep 25% of what he earned. He eventually got more hours and we went off welfare altogether. If there was no 25% he might not have taken the part time job. It sounds awful - but many people are not going to want to work if they do not get some extra $$ out of it. What does not sound so awful is that many people cannot afford to work if they do not get extra $$. Bus fair and work attire costs money. It costs more money to work.

-while not as essential, I also got free milk, eggs, community kitchen access and nursing support when I was preggo with my son. It helped to put more money in my pocket, and gave us decent nutrition, all of which have been shown to break the poverty cycle.

I knew many people who were on welfare- the ones who moved off of it were given appropriate support for their situation while they needed it. The ones who did not move off it were given a pittance and no resources and really did not have the energy to get off welfare.

HTH

Kathy


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I take it from the defensive posts I am receiving that most of you have/are taking assistance and trying to justify yourselves with the notion that you are ''stimulating'' the economy.


have you ever taken any assistance? have you ever had to go thru any demeaning experience of being seen as a 'sucker'?

sadly it seems - in anything - one only looks at life through one's experience.

it would be good to walk in each other's shoes someday to get another perspective. this lack of perspective is what is destroying our country. people in policy making roles who have never ever lived the lifestyle of the people they are ruling over.

sociologically speaking research shows - dissertation esp. how welfare - whether abused or not - actually suppresses people to one level without giving them the opportunity to move on. many get into welfare and get out successfully. many are generations of welfare users and as much as they try they cannot get out. why? because u better take that $8 job and not waste our money. dont you dare wait to find something better to come along.

and yes i took welfare. and yes one day i will be stimulating the economy in a bigger way than welfare could ever give me the freedom to do so if i remained in their program. and yes. not having much has taught my child what is important and thus she would definitely be stimulating the economy not in the regular sense but in a far more deeper way i hope.


----------



## lynnesg

I'll give you all a little background on me. I grew up ass poor. My parents had me while my dad was in college and my mom was 19. They couldn't afford rent so my mom managed apartments so we could get free rent. My dad worked nights and weekends as a mechanic to get through school and we lived on oatmeal and spaghetti. We had one 17 year old car and no new clothes. We lived in a one bedroom apt. where I slept in a playpen in my parents room. My dad didn't get a grant for school, instead he took out loans because his mother told him college was a privalege, if he wanted to go, he had to pay his way, it wasn't the states job to pay for it. After my dad graduated we moved back down to San Diego and managed apts. in a real bad area to get the free rent. My dad made minimum wage as an intern and my mom stayed home with me and baby brother. We were medicaid kids. My parents never took foodstamps or welfare because we did manage to scrape by without it. As soon as my dad got his job, we got off the medicaid and onto his companys insurance. We were poor as crap. My parents saved for 7 years for a down payment on a house and we never went out to dinner and vacations were a joke. My mom clipped coupons all the time and my parents never bought a new car. But they worked hard. They could have easily have passed on the hard work and went for the handouts but they didn't. They tought me to budget, work hard and save. As an adult I have never been on assistance and hopefully will never have to. Times are different now. My dad still says he is grateful that their was help when we were kids but that now anyone can get a freebee even when they don't need it. I applaud those who took it while they needed it and made something of themselves, because that is what it is there for. Its the generational receipients and people who take it when they don't need it that peeve me.


----------



## mamamoo

Are you kidding me? $650? Do you realize that subsidized housing waiting lists are years long? Here in Spokane, WA the list is closed to even wait...there are so many people on it. A TANF grant for my family of 6 is $742 a month. My rent alone is 950 and I live in a really, really bad neighborhood, lucky for me I was a lucky one who got the housing subsidy when they were doing a lottery. I don't receive TANF, I have been trying to find ways around it, but you explain to me how I would be living highon the hog with that amount of money. Do you realize how much the basics are for a family of 6? Shampoo, tp, clothes, etc? Not to mention electricity and a phone? Yes, a phone is a necessity, for job reasons, for the kids who stay home alone, etc. I think it is people like you, perpetrating this idea of the welfare queen that are truly doing this country a disservice. As long as we can be pitted against each other no one really has to focus on the real issues at hand(non-living wages, no benefits, the rich getting richer at the expence and health of the lower classes, the enormous amount of money that goes to corps as subsidies(you know, corporate welfare). I sincerely hope that you never, ever have to walk in these shoes and have to feel the scorn you are dishing out to women who just want to do the best for their children.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Property ownership in and of itself stimulates the economy, where people taking foodstamps and welfare does not. Yes, we claim tax credits, but we pay far more into the system than we will ever get out. Yes, we paid for our own college tuitions by going to a jr. college and then our local state college both out of our own pockets. We did not rely on the govt to subsidize that either, although I am all for people getting subsidies to better their lives as far as education goes. I understand that the poverty line is encroching further into middle America and a lot of people are struggling but the notion that you are entitled to state or federal assistance because you want to be a SAHM is billigerent to say the least. I totally agree with Kathy that a welfare abusing mom's children should not suffer the hardship of their mother's crappy decisions, but is it fair to *my* family that our taxes go up and we have less money to take home because we are paying for all the people? And $650/month in welfare monies (in CA) is not meager when coupled with foodstamps, free medical and the housing assistance. Geez, where is the incentive to work anymore? And for the second time: I do not shune those who took/take welfare because they have no other options, it is the people who abuse it that are hurting everyone else.


----------



## mamamoo

Wow, I didn't even get to this point. Good thing one of your parents wasn't mentally ill. Thank goodness your dad didn't abandon your family. Good thing your mom didn't have a drug or alcohol problem. I can not believe that people do not have the capacity to walk in someone else's shoes. If you saw my family or some of the things we have you would probably be heated that I have cable and a big tv and a cell phone. The behind the scenes stuff you don't see is that my mom pays for my phone because she cares about me and my kids and knows I have a crappy car and she doesn't want me stranded somewhere with all of them. My X sister in law passed down their old tv to us which is huge and I would have never bought something so extravagent, but it was a gift, along with the cable she prepaid for us for a year(I chose to not have cable because it's not a necessity). I did not ask for this stuff, but because you judge without knowing any background info you would already have your mind made up about me. That is a sad, sad thing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I'll give you all a little background on me. I grew up ass poor. My parents had me while my dad was in college and my mom was 19. They couldn't afford rent so my mom managed apartments so we could get free rent. My dad worked nights and weekends as a mechanic to get through school and we lived on oatmeal and spaghetti. We had one 17 year old car and no new clothes. We lived in a one bedroom apt. where I slept in a playpen in my parents room. My dad didn't get a grant for school, instead he took out loans because his mother told him college was a privalege, if he wanted to go, he had to pay his way, it wasn't the states job to pay for it. After my dad graduated we moved back down to San Diego and managed apts. in a real bad area to get the free rent. My dad made minimum wage as an intern and my mom stayed home with me and baby brother. We were medicaid kids. My parents never took foodstamps or welfare because we did manage to scrape by without it. As soon as my dad got his job, we got off the medicaid and onto his companys insurance. We were poor as crap. My parents saved for 7 years for a down payment on a house and we never went out to dinner and vacations were a joke. My mom clipped coupons all the time and my parents never bought a new car. But they worked hard. They could have easily have passed on the hard work and went for the handouts but they didn't. They tought me to budget, work hard and save. As an adult I have never been on assistance and hopefully will never have to. Times are different now. My dad still says he is grateful that their was help when we were kids but that now anyone can get a freebee even when they don't need it. I applaud those who took it while they needed it and made something of themselves, because that is what it is there for. Its the generational receipients and people who take it when they don't need it that peeve me.


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes

I'm of mixed thought. On one hand, why should *YOU* (generic you, welfare-mom-getting-to-stay-home) get to stay home on the government's dime with your child while I have to work because we (DH and I) make too much and have too much to qualify? Plus, DH would *kill* me if I quit my job--not that I can, I'm in the military. He gets to be the SAHP, but I do almost everything-cooking, cleaning, making and taking to appointments (except Autism/Sensory Disability therapies). On the other hand, I'm fully aware of the grey-area, the point at which you no longer qualify, but your standard of living would crash (because you'd be paying for food, childcare, etc out of pocket), giving you less money overall to pull yourself out of poverty. Sometimes life happens. We have special-needs kids, to the point that they need a parent at home because no employer would tolerate their schedules, but I make too much money to get assistance, other than WIC and reduced price school lunch, which we don't take advantage of because of our special diets. Food stamps would help immensely. Getting SSDI is too much a hassle, it seems, and the chance is great that we make too much money to qualify anyhow.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> I don't think that having a SAHM equals being mothered well, or that having a working mom equals not being mothered well.


Of course not. Some SAHMs ignore their children, for example. I am a working mom; I used to be a SAHM. I can't mother my children as well as a SAHM now because I simply can't afford to...but I do think the actual quality of my mothering would be better if I could afford to stay home, if only because I'm a single mom. I don't like the idea that kids NEED a SAHM; but I also don't like the idea that some kids don't deserve one because their mama made poor choices or doesn't have much money or a spouse, KWIM?


----------



## hildare

and yet we never have these heated debates about the use of 'your' tax dollars being spent to bomb little babies in other parts of the world. hmmm....

oh wait.. i know why... it doesn't let some of us feel so sanctamonious to discuss that, does it?


----------



## moonfirefaery

lynnesg - No one is saying that anyone is entitled to welfare in order to be a SAHM. It's not about entitlement. Providing a subsidy for parents of young children, like many other civilized governments do, so that they can stay home with their young children if they choose promotes quality daycare, bonding, and breastfeeding. It's about the benefits of providing financial support to families who need it. I also have my eye on improving availability and affordability of quality daycare to working parents and advocating for maternity leave WITH pay. Social programs benefit families and are good for children.

As for stimulation of the economy, spending welfare dollars does stimulate the economy; when you buy groceries you're putting that money back into the economy. And, once again, please remember that people on welfare still pay sales tax on their regular purchases and property taxes.

I don't receive any assistance whatsoever. I'm defensive because my toddler has been in daycare after daycare since he was ten months old, and I think he'd have been better off at home with me if I could afford it.

Most people who go on welfare go off of it within 2 years. Most people use it only temporarily. You also have to QUALIFY to get on food stamps, which means you have to need it. Some people lie to get approved, but studies suggest only about 10% of people are actually committing welfare fraud. Receiving foodstamps doesn't mean that if you actually happen to have money left over after bills for once, you don't deserve to buy a nice pair of jeans or even a Wii. How do you know that person buying expensive jeans isn't using her birthday money? Or should people on welfare have to use that for food too?


----------



## mamazee

I'm always a bit suspicious of the "people on welfare buying expensive things" claim, because people can buy used things at Goodwill that were expensive new, and can get gifts from grandparents. Just because someone has something expensive does not mean they bought it themselves with money from welfare. And there isn't a rule that poor people aren't allowed to have nice things. Welfare isn't so much money that people on it are using that money for frivolous things, unless it is very, very occasional.


----------



## moonfirefaery

And it isn't like if she didn't ever buy an expensive pair of jeans, she wouldn't need food stamps. Even $100 doesn't buy much food anymore.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *2lilsweetfoxes*
> 
> I'm of mixed thought. On one hand, why should *YOU* (generic you, welfare-mom-getting-to-stay-home) get to stay home on the government's dime with your child while I have to work because we (DH and I) make too much and have too much to qualify?


I think this is a big part of the issue. There are many people who just don't have the choice to stay at home, because the other parent makes too much money to qualify for help (but not enough to actually get by) or because of other issues. I have to work (though I fortunately do get to WAH now) because my house is worth 100K less than when we bought it. We bought a 'cheap' (for this area!) house at an all-time low, and prices dropped even further so we are stuck. We can't sell the house and move somewhere cheaper/rent, because we'd still be 100K in debt. We can't qualify for welfare-type assistance because we own a house and our income is just above the cutoffs. You could say we shouldn't have bought a house, but it really was a good move at the time -- plus I HAD NO IDEA how motherhood would change me -- I thought I'd WANT to WOH, I thought DH (who makes half my salary) would SAH, and I certainly didn't expect a kid like mine who would actually NEED me at home [more than a typical child might]. I wasn't stupid or negligent -- you just can't foresee every little thing, and even the best-laid plans can go awry. So we are stuck in the lower-middle income bracket, using old t-shirts for TP and making our own toothpaste







...and feeling just a tiny bit resentful that my tax dollars are going to support someone ELSE staying home while I struggle to make it through yet another day. I can certainly understand why someone in a similar/worse situation would be upset about this. You're watching everyone else have nice things while you feel like you can't... You are struggling almost as/just as much as the 'welfare mom' but you don't even get to be home with your kids... I totally get that feeling. But I also understand why someone would 'choose' to go on welfare if it were an option... I think we are all just doing the best we can with what life has thrown at us, some of us are more fortunate than others, but I don't see why we can't help each other get back on our feet...


----------



## moonfirefaery

Crunchy, my situation is different from yours, but like you, I struggle as much as a welfare mom without being on welfare or being able to stay home with my children.

Think how a subsidy to promote children having a stay-at-home parent could help both of us, even if it's just for the first few years as it is in most countries that offer such a program.


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamamoo*
> 
> Wow, I didn't even get to this point. Good thing one of your parents wasn't mentally ill. Thank goodness your dad didn't abandon your family. Good thing your mom didn't have a drug or alcohol problem. I can not believe that people do not have the capacity to walk in someone else's shoes. If you saw my family or some of the things we have you would probably be heated that I have cable and a big tv and a cell phone. The behind the scenes stuff you don't see is that my mom pays for my phone because she cares about me and my kids and knows I have a crappy car and she doesn't want me stranded somewhere with all of them. My X sister in law passed down their old tv to us which is huge and I would have never bought something so extravagent, but it was a gift, along with the cable she prepaid for us for a year(I chose to not have cable because it's not a necessity). I did not ask for this stuff, but because you judge without knowing any background info you would already have your mind made up about me. That is a sad, sad thing.


And looking at your signature, you have 5 kids. Did it ever occur to you to stop having kids you cannot afford to support? Instead of making excuses for ''needing'' subsidies, how about trying to better your own life through school and setting a good example for your kids. I did walk in your shoes at one point, luckily for me, my parents didn't make excuses for staying on the assistance and made something of their lives.


----------



## treeoflife3

If having your tax dollars go to welfare bothers you then don't worry. My tax dollars are going to welfare. Yours are just going to roads and schools. I'd prefer mine to go to welfare anyway. Who, knows, I might need it someday. Better to pay in now so I don't feel guilty later. Problem solved.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

That's a big leap, lynnesg, to assume that everyone who defends welfare is receiving it. It is quite possible to be okay with our tax dollars helping children or anyone else in need, without being the dreaded "welfare mom" people like you look down upon.

Here's hoping you never actually need any help - I mean, b/c it sounds like you would be too proud to accept it, even if you and your kid were homeless and alone and cold and hungry, or worse, very ill and in need of medical assistance w/o the ability to pay for it. You'd probably just pull up your bootstraps, right?


----------



## junipermoon

I would urge you to consider the example you are setting for your own children in voicing these hurtful sentiments. Directing hurtful statements at others hurts you and your children more than the person you are addressing in your post, because it sets the example that pointed and unmitigated hostility is appropriate whereas respecting the right of 5 blessed children alive on our planet to simply exist is not appropriate. Anger over openness and judgment over love--that's a painful way to live, sister.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> And looking at your signature, you have 5 kids. Did it ever occur to you to stop having kids you cannot afford to support? Instead of making excuses for ''needing'' subsidies, how about trying to better your own life through school and setting a good example for your kids. I did walk in your shoes at one point, luckily for me, my parents didn't make excuses for staying on the assistance and made something of their lives.


----------



## lynnesg

I tell you what, I want to have 5 kids too. Of course, we can't afford the added insurance costs or the extra food to feed them, but you ladies have shown me the light! I can be a stay at home mom without having to pay for it! I am so glad I found the easy way to live. I will stop taking my birth control, tell my husband to quit his engineering job working 60+ hours a week and go push carts at Wal Mart because this is the way to go! There goes his high paying, highly taxed job that pumps the neccesary money into the system to pay for your families, but I want to be able to have more kids too! Oh well, I guess if you can't be them, join them? I am so tired of paying my mortgage, I am going to move into the section 8 apts. up the street. Screw the $900/month insurance premium and the $30 co-pays, I can get it for FREE! No more clipping coupons, its foodstamps baby! I guess I realize that my ''hurtful'' ''judgemental'' comments are too mean and that setting an example to children to 'live withing their means' is a ''bad example'' so I am going to become another leach. Sign me up, I want to be another cancer on society!


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Of course education is subsidized at all levels (K-Univ.) but we didn't take any financial aid or assistance from that. We worked through school. *I take it from the defensive posts I am receiving that most of you have/are taking assistance* and trying to justify yourselves with the notion that you are ''stimulating'' the economy.


You are targeting my post, and I have never received any needs based assistance. I just thought your argument was weak. Many things are subsidized or paid for straight out of government funds that aren't needs based (your college education and the city swim team that my kids are on, for example) and those things benefit us all.

You are against things being *needs* based, not things being subsidized. You don't think that some people should be more because they have less to start with.

I'm not defensive. I've got nothing to defend.


----------



## lynnesg

Well I can't chat anymore ladies, I am off to the mall to buy my designer jeans. My husband will be so thrilled to learn that he didn't have to pay for them! And I am stimulating the economy by taking money from the government! SWEEEEEEET!


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Well I can't chat anymore ladies, I am off to the mall to buy my designer jeans. My husband will be so thrilled to learn that he didn't have to pay for them! And I am stimulating the economy by taking money from the government! SWEEEEEEET!


Don't forget to stop and get your hair did, and nails, too!


----------



## CatsCradle

I'm sorry to see this discussion deteriorate to the above. I agree with previous PPs that what we really should be addressing is how to promote and establish good family leave policies, affordable (and quality) daycare and other things which ultimately benefit everyone (from employers to individuals to the tax payer). I would be willing to pay higher taxes (as they do in Europe) for promoting the general welfare (welfare as in good of the society).

I was lucky to get a three-month maternity leave from my employer and my DH got a four month paternity leave (we split the time). I will forever value that option from our employers. They didn't have to do it, but apparently they saw a value in it (and it has been shown that good family policies on the part of employers promotes productivity and loyality in the long term). We both could have opted to take additional time unpaid, but due to the nature of our professions, we went back to work. Being that I am in a highly paid profession (and DH's good salary), we had a lot of quality care options at our fingertips. Childcare and other work expenses were only part of a larger budget, and honestly, we were never put in the tough position of having no money for basics at the end of the day. Needless to say, I can't pat myself on my back for my good fortune. My life has consisted of a series of fortunate events (combined with work) which have allowed me to achieve certain levels of financial comfort. I won't go into why I am fortunate except to say that by virtue of certain socio-economic advantages, I had a leg up compared to a lot of people.

That being said, I recognize the fact that there are many among us who did not have the same opportunities and advantages. I also realize that people go down on their luck for any number of reasons, no matter how hard they have tried or how persistent they have been in their ventures.

When people try to lump everyone into the attitude stated above (cancer on society), it really really shows me that there is a certain lack of misunderstanding for how the system really works and the reasons for it. Are there abusers? Yes. Does that defeat the whole purpose of the system? No. Do we need to redefine, as a society, what is important to us in the long term? Yes.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I tell you what, I want to have 5 kids too. Of course, we can't afford the added insurance costs or the extra food to feed them, but you ladies have shown me the light! I can be a stay at home mom without having to pay for it! I am so glad I found the easy way to live. I will stop taking my birth control, tell my husband to quit his engineering job working 60+ hours a week and go push carts at Wal Mart because this is the way to go! There goes his high paying, highly taxed job that pumps the neccesary money into the system to pay for your families, but I want to be able to have more kids too! Oh well, I guess if you can't be them, join them? I am so tired of paying my mortgage, I am going to move into the section 8 apts. up the street. Screw the $900/month insurance premium and the $30 co-pays, I can get it for FREE! No more clipping coupons, its foodstamps baby! I guess I realize that my ''hurtful'' ''judgemental'' comments are too mean and that setting an example to children to 'live withing their means' is a ''bad example'' so I am going to become another leach. Sign me up, I want to be another *cancer on society*!


Disgusting. No one is advocating people having more kids than one can afford; we're advocating that we make it easier for parents to stay at home, if they need and want to, especially while their kids are young or if their kids have special needs. The consequences won't be as disastrous as you predict; other countries have similar programs and are reaping the benefits. The bolded part especially makes me want to throw up, because poor people are not cancers on society. What does providing subsidies to SAHMs have to do with your husband quitting your job? I don't understand how the two are conneceted, why that is relevant at all. Your husband giving up a high paying job for a low-paying job has nothing to do with SAHMs or welfare.

You realize you're advocating for poor people to push carts at Walmart at minimum wage, so that they can pay half or almost all of their pay to substandard daycare for their children, so that your tax dollars won't benefit them? It kind of makes me lose my sympathy for that unlikely and irrelevent situation. Do you think people push carts at Walmart because they want to do it, because they want to be poor and collect welfare? Are you kidding?

Do you think people on welfare don't use the methods you describe of pinching pennies? Do you think they don't use coupons too? Do you think poor people on welfare spend frivolously and aren't thrifty, too? You know you have to actually BE POOR to get welfare, right? They have to PROVE they are poor, prove that they don't have the money to spend frivolously, and most of them--according to statistics--aren't lying to qualify.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Well I can't chat anymore ladies, I am off to the mall to buy my designer jeans. My husband will be so thrilled to learn that he didn't have to pay for them! And I am stimulating the economy by taking money from the government! SWEEEEEEET!


 You can't buy jeans with food stamps; very few people receive cash payouts from welfare, and most use them to pay bills. Moreover, the cost of even a nice pair of jeans wouldn't feed a family of four for even a week. Are poor people only allowed to be poor? If they ever have extra money after paying their bills, they're required to save it or spend it ONLY on necessities? So if they can afford a SINGLE luxury, even a luxury that wouldn't cover their grocery costs, they're required to forego it because they are poor? What are you trying to insinuate with your sarcasm exactly?


----------



## lynnesg

America is full of the most generous people to be found. We take care of our poor and needy more than any other country in the world. Is childcare too expensive? Yes. Is healthcare ungodly expensive? Yes. Those are the issues at hand that need addressing. I hate seeing mothers who have kid after kid and then complain that we aren't providing enough for them. You are getting all the amentities one needs as well as your children and yet you belittle me because I want to see you get off the lifetime support? And I look like the bad guy because I have the gall to say what everyone else thinks and will not say.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> You can't buy jeans with food stamps; very few people receive cash payouts from welfare, and most use them to pay bills. Moreover, the cost of even a nice pair of jeans wouldn't feed a family of four for even a week. Are poor people only allowed to be poor? If they ever have extra money after paying their bills, they're required to save it or spend it ONLY on necessities? So if they can afford a SINGLE luxury, even a luxury that wouldn't cover their grocery costs, they're required to forego it because they are poor? What are you trying to insinuate with your sarcasm exactly?


Poor people should only wear jeans they hand-sewed from scraps of fabric they found in a dumpster, didn't ya know?

What she really means is, it's not fair! and she's bitter b/c she can't afford a pair of $100 designer jeans on her DH's salary, so why should anyone else get to buy them?


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> You can't buy jeans with food stamps; very few people receive cash payouts from welfare, and most use them to pay bills. Moreover, the cost of even a nice pair of jeans wouldn't feed a family of four for even a week. Are poor people only allowed to be poor? If they ever have extra money after paying their bills, they're required to save it or spend it ONLY on necessities? So if they can afford a SINGLE luxury, even a luxury that wouldn't cover their grocery costs, they're required to forego it because they are poor? What are you trying to insinuate with your sarcasm exactly?


Is anyone here from CA? Anyone at all? The cash payout in CA is for a family of 4 is $650/month. Then you get mediCAL, foodstamps and subsidizing housing. My friend that I have mentioned in the posts told her boyfriend not to look for a job because they would 'lose' the state cash assistance if he got a job. Again, providing no incentive to work. Maybe I am biased because I live in this liberal, broke state that is so burdened with carrying people financially. Our taxes go up every single year; we spend over half our income in taxes and then the people taking our taxes complain that its not enough.


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> Poor people should only wear jeans they hand-sewed from scraps of fabric they found in a dumpster, didn't ya know?
> 
> What she really means is, it's not fair! and she's bitter b/c she can't afford a pair of $100 designer jeans on her DH's salary, so why should anyone else get to buy them?


BWAHAHAHA! That's it, tell her what's she won Johnny! I am bitter because I want the jeans but I don't want to pay for them! I want my neighbor to pay for them.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> And looking at your signature, you have 5 kids. Did it ever occur to you to stop having kids you cannot afford to support? Instead of making excuses for ''needing'' subsidies, how about trying to better your own life through school and setting a good example for your kids. I did walk in your shoes at one point, luckily for me, my parents didn't make excuses for staying on the assistance and made something of their lives.


 How DARE you attack another mother for how many kids she has? Maybe they were born before her circumstances became so difficult? Maybe they were born despite her being on birth control? Maybe she was supporting them just fine and then things changed? Maybe school isn't an option for her, due to being unable to afford it or unable to go to school while also raising children? Your post is full of assumptions and the veiled insinuation that the mama you are attacking does not want to make something of herself. It's not women, like me and the other poster you're questioning, who need the subsidies; it's children and our society that would benefit. No one is providing excuses to you; we're explaining how the world isn't the utopia you imagine where everyone can provide for themselves all the time without help. You think people on welfare are just moochers who aren't doing anything to better their lives...when many people on welfare are going to school, and most will be off of it within 2 years according to the research. You have this image of people on welfare out there just taking your tax money for free and doing nothing with their lives but shopping, and it's absolutely false and ignorant.


----------



## lynnesg

And where are the dads when all this is going on? Where is the childsupport they need to be paying?


----------



## moonfirefaery

Lynnesg, your friend who told her boyfriend not to get a job is the exception to the rule, not the norm, as it's estimated (once again) that less than 10% of people are exploting the system in this manner. No one is here advocating having their neighbors pay for their jeans; we're advocating financial help for SAHMs so that they can pay bills and buy food, while still being able to mother their young children. But according to you, they don't deserve that or any nice clothes, because they are poor. Even the poor mothers of special needs children should have to put those children in daycare and work work work for minimum wage so that your tax dollars don't get used to support "cancers of society." My last daycare provider got paid very little watch a single mother's 3 kids, one of whom had special needs that the daycare provider could barely cope with much less understand. That little boy would have been better off at home with his mom, but he doesn't matter; paying a caregiver to take care of him would be a waste of tax dollars, right?

Eww eww eww.

This is all making me very sad. And sick.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> And where are the dads when all this is going on? Where is the childsupport they need to be paying?


 Who knows? Should we punish the mothers and the children for the fathers' inadequacies? Perhaps the father is dead, with another woman, on the run from the child support agency in hiding, working under the table, drunk, in rehab, in jail, in another country, dropped off the face of the Earth, or pushing carts at Walmart for a minimum wage that isn't anywhere near a living wage. Take your pick. My husband pays child support, but it doesn't make me any less poor or any more capable of being a SAHM to my three year-old. He won't ever even remember what it was like to have a SAHM, unlike his brother, because he went to daycare at 10 months old. But he should just stay in daycare so your tax dollars don't get wasted on me staying home to extended breastfeed, which helps improve his health and would drive down healthcare costs/premiums if we all were able to stay home and EBF...


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> America is full of the most generous people to be found. We take care of our poor and needy more than any other country in the world. Is childcare too expensive? Yes. Is healthcare ungodly expensive? Yes. Those are the issues at hand that need addressing. I hate seeing mothers who have kid after kid and then complain that we aren't providing enough for them. You are getting all the amentities one needs as well as your children and yet you belittle me because I want to see you get off the lifetime support? And I look like the bad guy because I have the gall to say what everyone else thinks and will not say.


actually, everyone else doesn't think this.

When I was a single mom of 1 I worked full time, went to school full time, and didn't qualify for anything. My job provided health insurance and I budgeted carefully for food. I lived with my parents, but it was not at all a piece of cake in any way, and I paid market level rent, utilities, car insurance, phone, etc. In fact, I bought groceries for everyone in the house. My ds was always -ALWAYS- dressed in designer clothes and people often though I MUST be getting assistance and spending it on brand name clothes. Actually, I shopped thrift stores and used a lot of oxyclean to make them look new. lol. When he outgrew them, I would carefully wash and press them and then sell them on ebay or to local consignment stores or on craigslist. I never bought myself anything, I didn't go out, and I rarely had much money left over from one month to the next. I didn't get a dime of assistance, or child support. Eventually I discovered that medicaid would pick up my ds' copays from my insurance, and that was nice.

But the fact that I didn't qualify for anything, in spite of living so close financially, didn't make me think that my friends who had more kids and better jobs and still qualified for assistance, were a cancer on society or any other such nonsense. I just thought, "well, gee, that sucks for me, but it's good for them." And moved on. That is a dangerous level of jealousy and pettiness, to begrudge someone the very minimal assistance that the government provides.

And a year later, when I found myself in a domestic violence shelter, eating food that other people provided and wearing clothes other people gave me, using donated bus vouchers to go look for work, I was very grateful that the assistance issue was one aspect of my life I didn't have to eat crow about.

Oh---and America is not full of "the most generous people to be found." It is full of the most pretentious, "let me give you this in public so everyone can shake my hand and pat my back" show offs to be found. Just to clarify. Why do you think so many big businesses advertise about their fablous charity programs while their CEO's are paying the people at the bottom sometimes 1% of what the people at the top are making? That's not generosity. It's all about the marketing and the money. Yes, there are good, wonderful people out there, in every country, this one included. But Americans are not innately more generous. They just like everyone to know when they are.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Is anyone here from CA? Anyone at all? The cash payout in CA is for a family of 4 is $650/month. Then you get mediCAL, foodstamps and subsidizing housing. My friend that I have mentioned in the posts told her boyfriend not to look for a job because they would 'lose' the state cash assistance if he got a job. Again, providing no incentive to work. Maybe I am biased because I live in this liberal, broke state that is so burdened with carrying people financially. Our taxes go up every single year; we spend over half our income in taxes and then the people taking our taxes complain that its not enough.


I live in NM, and honestly, I have no idea what the cash assistance amount is or if it's even easy to get subsidized housing here (I know, for example, that many states have waiting lists years long), but I can tell you that there's no way I would want to give up my beautiful huge 5 bedroom house and have my DH give up his good job just so we could "take advantage of the system" (we have four kids, so I'm going to assume as a bigger family we would get more assistance). Wait, living in the projects has always been my dream! I do know NM is one of the most poverty stricken states, and there is a pretty decent gap between the "rich" and the "poor" here.

So, if your friend is telling her boyfriend not to apply for what is probably a min. wage so that they don't lose the help they've got, sounds like they can't win either way. I mean, if he does work at walmart or wherever, then after it's all said and done they will probably just break even - meaning, it would be the same amount of money leftover every month whether he worked or they collected welfare. I'm not saying I would do that, myself, but I can see why it would be appealing. The thing is, either way, they are going to be poor. They can't be living it up, even with $600 or whatever a month - even if that's after housing and food. Since you are joking about having your DH quit and living off the government, let's assume he makes $100k a yr (after all, you live in CA, so that would not exactly be rich - but liveable) do you still think your friend would prefer welfare to your financial situation? Comparing min. wage jobs - which often are labor heavy, to a middle-income office type job is silly.

I guess I'm trying to help you look at if from your friend's view, whether you agree with how they are living their life or not. Unfortunately, they probably feel stuck. I do agree with you about bettering one's life and going to school and such - but I don't agree with putting down others who are at a disadvantage just b/c you don't agree with the politics. Do something to change things - b/c worrying about what low-income people do with the little money they have isn't really going to make the world a better place.


----------



## mammal_mama

Well, I'm in the Midwest and $650 is about $100 more than the combined total of our monthly house payment, real estate tax, and home insurance payment. However, from what I hear, that would cover maybe 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of renting a very small apartment in Southern California. So I don't exactly see what your point is? Sure, people get more $$ in assistance on the east and west coasts. Because it costs a heck of a lot more to live there. How do you think you and your family would manage, living where you are, on $650 a month? Does that really sound like utopia to you?

If you say you couldn't make it on $650 a month, should I rub your face in it by talking about how that would be totally ( or maybe kinda sorta) doable for me and my family here in the Midwest? Not really doable in terms of covering all our expenses, but doable in the sense of freeing us from having to worry about the house payment?

Does that mean that everyone on the coasts should head for the Midwest or rural south when hard times hit, because of the lower COA? I honestly don't see that as helping anyone! It's not like we all need to be competing for the same jobs and educational opportunities.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Is anyone here from CA? Anyone at all? The cash payout in CA is for a family of 4 is $650/month.


----------



## waiting2bemommy

ugh. nvm. After reading back a bit this has to be a troll.

No one actually thinks that $650 a month is a lot of money, right? Common sense would tell you that the childcare that the government is going to subsidize when they get jobs is going to cost more than $650. If the goverment doesn't subsidize childcare, then say both parents find jobs for $10/hr, at 40 hrs a week, that's 800/week or $3200/month. 1/4th of that goes straight to childcare. Another 1/4th is going to health insurance (and that is a conservative estimate, based on what my SO's employer deducts). The remaining $1600 is expected to cover rent in CA, food, gas, car insurance, household items, electricity, water, trash, gas, and phone. It's easy to say people shouldn't buy clothes, ever, but when you live like this for a long period of time eventually you need a new pair of jeans. My dollar store flip flops finally broke this week. It's 90 degrees, should a poor person own one pair of shoes and use them all the time, for every season and outfit? It is irresponsible of us to go to Old Navy and spend $15 outfitting the whole family with new flip flops because we get food stamps? It has to be a troll because surely noone thinks this is a reasonable point of view.

I should also add that SUSIDIZED HOUSING IS NOT FREE. You pay 30% of your income in most places, and that does not include utilities. So out of that $650, at least $200 is gone for rent. Then there is still all the expenses I named above. It's hardly a lavish lifestyle, either way.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> America is full of the most generous people to be found. We take care of our poor and needy more than any other country in the world. *Is childcare too expensive? Yes.* Is healthcare ungodly expensive? Yes. Those are the issues at hand that need addressing. I hate seeing mothers who have kid after kid and then complain that we aren't providing enough for them. You are getting all the amentities one needs as well as your children and yet you belittle me because I want to see you get off the lifetime support? And I look like the bad guy because I have the gall to say what everyone else thinks and will not say.


Childcare only seems expensive because you need a living wage to pay a living wage to the childcare provider. I think when you address the cost of childcare you need to factor in the reality that childcare providers are providing a valuable service and need to be paid a living wage as well as other costs such as licensing, facilities, etc. The standard cost of unsubsidized childcare in NYC (at a reputable center) is $1,200/month. It can be more or less for nannies or in-home care depending on the situation. I would guess that many people who need public assistance are those who live in cities where the cost of living is much higher than other parts of the country. So how do we get moms to work who can't afford those childcare costs? We either subsidize the cost of childcare or childcare facilities directly, or we give the parents a raise. Problem is, unskilled labor (outside of things such as the construction trades and the like) pay minimum wage or a wage that can't begin to cover family costs if childcare is part of the mix. The gap between the low paid and highly paid workers in this country is widening and widening. It isn't as simple as saying: Get a job. The welfare-to-work programs which make a single mother get on a bus at five in the morning to go work in a factory in another town and get home at 9:00 at night is a major fail. For one, she is lucky if she gets paid in proportion to the work she is doing (since the purpose of the program - from what I understand - was to make people work for their benefits). I'm a working parent and there are days that I have to put in some long hours, but I also have the luxury of creating some balance in my life and for my family. The solution isn't to create a bunch of serfs who will eventually run around chopping off heads (think French Revolution) because of the extremes in the economic system. We still hold tight to some sort of rugged individualism ideal, which while in theory makes sense, but given the diversity of our society and the extreme greed exhibited by those at the top, doesn't work in practice.


----------



## moonfirefaery

$650 wouldn't even pay my rent here, so to see someone bedgrudging that amount to poor people with children is...not pleasant, to put it pleasantly.

CatsCradle, your posts are superb!


----------



## treeoflife3

It is really cheap to live where I live and 650 still wouldn't cover our monthly house payment. Never mind utilities, insurance, food, car payment, cell bill, internet and basic cable, clothes for my growing like a weed toddler (the 3T stuff I bought her a month ago is already getting tight! wtf) shoes, gas, oil changes, new tires....

I'm privileged enough to not need assistance. all we currently qualify for is WIC but we make enough to be able to make the decision to not use it simply because we don't like what we'd get for it. I'm also a SAHM and we are talking about trying for another in 6 months. I'm so fortunate to be able to live how we do. However, my husband is also getting out of the military soon and while we are confident in his abilities of getting another job (not to mention his GI bill paying him to go to school so we have that income option as well) should something go very wrong and we need assistance, 650 a month is not going to get us far at all. two minimum wage jobs here (because I'd have to stop being a SAHM) and the child care help that they have here thankfully won't get us very far either.

Welfare is hardly a lifestyle choice we could make and be comfortable and happy with, even with not having another child. More than likely, we'd be stressed and fighting so much from that kind of 'lifestyle' that either my husband would have to join the army again (which causes marital problems as it is) or we'd just end up divorced due to the stressed.

I've never known anyone who was abusing the system, and while I'm sure they exist, I refuse to treat 'welfare' as if it is something MOST people using it are abusing because I think MOST people would be far too embarrassed to want to keep using it and MOST people couldn't even abuse it anyway if they wanted because like us, it just wouldn't be feasible. It sounds great to get some cash and a bunch of money for food but it is hardly ENOUGH for most people and I think most people wouldn't want to live penny to penny.

There will never be a perfect system and any system will have a loophole that allows for a small group of people to abuse it. Just be thankful you are fortunate enough to not be in a position to have to use it. I went to school with homeless kids. My husband was homeless for a time growing up. It isn't a fun life to live and I can't find it in me to judge anyone who needs help based on the few who mess it up. A few bad apples shouldn't ruin the whole bushel.

and no, I don't think welfare as it is now should be used so moms can SAHM. I DO think however there should be a better system in place to allow women to stay home for at least 6 months if they would like without having to worry about the loss of income for staying home. Some kids do need a SAHP and those families shouldn't have to worry about meeting that need. Some parents feel that is what is best for their children and should be able to provide for that. Some families will think it is unnecessary and won't use it and some families will find their kids do better having at least partial daycare during the week (because yes, those kids exist just as much as the ones who need a sahp) and those parents also will not use the system for staying home. Staying home isn't necessarily better than working, but staying home does have its benefits and shouldn't be treated as just lazy. Working also isn't necessarily better. What it comes down to is children deserve to have their needs met. I know for a fact my child would NOT have done well going to daycare even parttime but especially full time. Not before the age of one and especially not before 6 months. I'm fortunate to be able to be home but parents with a child like mine aren't always fortunate.


----------



## new2this

I don't think the people who don't abuse the program are the norm. I believe its the other way around. And not talking about people who had kids first then found themselves in a situation like lost job or accident or something like that. However if you found yourself in that situation its not wise to keep having more kids till you are off the assistance as well as on your feet to provide without the help. Things like financial aid and WIC, reduced day care, reduced lunches are a great thing to help those who otherwise would be struggling. I would rather do away with cash assistance all together and just give food stamps. Although with drug testing, proof of where money has gone and make those who use it go through some financial classes as well as other types of classes. I believe in setting people up to have the ability to get a job. Not stay home to take care of their kids while not doing anything productive to society ( I got it you are raising your kids to be part of our future ,but looking at how our future is going yeah I think we need to fix what we have now rather then what is going to be happening in the future) because they wanted to be a mother. I didn't ask you to pop out any kids so why should I have to help support it through welfare. Even in the event of unplanned pregnancy.

And we have been on government assistance so I know what its like. And the people I saw sitting in the office and the entitlement attitude that they are owed something was just mind blowing. And then seeing the news and people being busted for selling their food stamps, or seeing people use the excuse after excuse.

I dont' understand the thinking either with the rich keep getting richer. I mean they made a choice and they are seeing a pay off from it. So why should they have to share their wealth with those who made different choices then them? I am all for helping those truly in need. However most people truly can live without a lot of thing and make the choice not to.

(all yous are general and not directed to anyone)


----------



## hildare

welcome to the new mdc where trolls abound and people get to decide for you how many kids you should be having.....


----------



## lynnesg

I made troll status! YES! My differing opinions earned me TROLL status. I guess I will celebrate with getting ''my hair and nails did' right Drummer?


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *new2this*
> 
> I don't think the people who don't abuse the program are the norm. I believe its the other way around. And not talking about people who had kids first then found themselves in a situation like lost job or accident or something like that. However if you found yourself in that situation its not wise to keep having more kids till you are off the assistance as well as on your feet to provide without the help. Things like financial aid and WIC, reduced day care, reduced lunches are a great thing to help those who otherwise would be struggling. I would rather do away with cash assistance all together and just give food stamps. Although with drug testing, proof of where money has gone and make those who use it go through some financial classes as well as other types of classes. I believe in setting people up to have the ability to get a job. Not stay home to take care of their kids while not doing anything productive to society ( I got it you are raising your kids to be part of our future ,but looking at how our future is going yeah I think we need to fix what we have now rather then what is going to be happening in the future) because they wanted to be a mother. I didn't ask you to pop out any kids so why should I have to help support it through welfare. Even in the event of unplanned pregnancy.
> 
> And we have been on government assistance so I know what its like. And the people I saw sitting in the office and the entitlement attitude that they are owed something was just mind blowing. And then seeing the news and people being busted for selling their food stamps, or seeing people use the excuse after excuse.
> 
> I dont' understand the thinking either with the rich keep getting richer. I mean they made a choice and they are seeing a pay off from it. So why should they have to share their wealth with those who made different choices then them? I am all for helping those truly in need. However most people truly can live without a lot of thing and make the choice not to.
> 
> (all yous are general and not directed to anyone)


Exactly this. Its all about getting the help when you find yourself in bad times, not getting yourself into a situation and expecting the govt to pay for your shitty choices with the entitlement mentality.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I agree that welfare shouldn't be the system that supports SAHMs; we need a new, better government program to enable parents to give quality childcare to their children in the early years.

Lynnesg, it was your sarcasm, attitude, and ridiculous remarks that earned you the title of troll.

new2this, do you have any statistics to show that people who abuse the system are the norm? I've never seen any to support such a claim.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I made troll status! YES! My differing opinions earned me TROLL status. I guess I will celebrate with getting ''my hair and nails did' right Drummer?


I didn't think you were a troll. I think there is a real disagreement (and strong opinions) in this country (US) on the subject and the discussion is long overdue. I don't think we can move toward solutions, however, without letting go of assumptions that seem to permeate the conversation.


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> *I agree that welfare shouldn't be the system that supports SAHMs; we need a new, better government program to enable parents to give quality childcare to their children in the early years.*
> 
> Lynnesg, it was your sarcasm, attitude, and ridiculous remarks that earned you the title of troll.
> 
> new2this, do you have any statistics to show that people who abuse the system are the norm? I've never seen any to support such a claim.


How is this not welfare?


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Is what they have in Canada considered welfare? You know, you receive paid leave for a year after a baby's birth (funny, their birthrate isn't super high). Don't you also receive X amount per month depending on your family size? Oh, and free healthcare! None of it, as far as I know, is based on income levels, so the stigma isn't there.

maybe that is the kind of support she is talking about...


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> Is what they have in Canada considered welfare? You know, you receive paid leave for a year after a baby's birth (funny, their birthrate isn't super high). Don't you also receive X amount per month depending on your family size? *Oh, and free healthcare! * None of it, as far as I know, is based on income levels, so the stigma isn't there.
> 
> maybe that is the kind of support she is talking about...


Oh my god, you KILL me, you are so cute! Free healthcare. Another ROFL comment. What is free about shelling out 60% of your income in taxes and having rationed second rate care. And as soon as the govt runs out of money for the year, that's it. No more operations or second opinions. That's why so many Canadians come to the US for medical services. Their govt is running the medical show. Not to mention, you pay a premium per month, it is in no way free. They are taxing you and charging you and denying you. What's free about that?


----------



## new2this

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I agree that welfare shouldn't be the system that supports SAHMs; we need a new, better government program to enable parents to give quality childcare to their children in the early years.
> 
> Lynnesg, it was your sarcasm, attitude, and ridiculous remarks that earned you the title of troll.
> 
> new2this, do you have any statistics to show that people who abuse the system are the norm? I've never seen any to support such a claim.


My statistic is more of an opinion as to what I have seen around me as I never did state it as a fact I said I believe so more less in my opinion. And really if less people actually abused the program I don't think there would be the outcry in changing it if it was being used as it was meant to be used. Of course its all my own opinion. But frankly those who use welfare or any other type of assistance like that really don't have room to say hey this isn't fair or even complain about it or be picky because well the job just isn't what they want to do. I am all for helping people when its needed. Just as I don't think welfare should totally go away. But it needs to be highly revamped.

We qualify for WIC but don't use it because I am not working we made the choice that I would be a SAHM but if it came down to it where we were looking at not being able to provide for our already kids as well as cover our needed expenses (not wants) then you bet I would sacrifice being at home to go to work even if that meant working different shift then my husband. I feel while yes we struggle some due to having to buy formula, the higher cost of food here and over all living we sure could use the help.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Oh my god, you KILL me, you are so cute! Free healthcare. Another ROFL comment. What is free about shelling out 60% of your income in taxes and having rationed second rate care. And as soon as the govt runs out of money for the year, that's it. No more operations or second opinions. That's why so many Canadians come to the US for medical services. Their govt is running the medical show. Not to mention, you pay a premium per month, it is in no way free. They are taxing you and charging you and denying you. What's free about that?


Okay, I didn't mean free as in no one pays for it - of course the docs and hospitals etc., have to get paid somehow... but you were complaining about spending half of your DH's income in taxes, and then paying hundreds of dollars a month for health insurance. All that and you still don't get a yr of maternity leave and there are people, children even, right now in this country who are uninsured or under-insured. Obviously, there is no perfect system, in any country - they all have their pluses and minuses.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Exactly this. Its all about getting the help when you find yourself in bad times, not getting yourself into a situation and expecting the govt to pay for your shitty choices with the entitlement mentality.


 OMG, this is so rude, ignorant, and judgmental! Do you think people get themselves into situations only because of crappy choices? Sometimes bad things happen to good people; sometimes people make choices, forseeing positive consequences, only to have it blow up in their faces. Stop with the judging; your assumptions are only that: assumptions. It's not always, or even usually, crappy choices that make someone need assistance. Sometimes, crap happens.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Drummer's Wife, no, the paid maternity leave provided by other countries to new mothers (be it 6 weeks or a year, depending on the nation) is NOT considered welfare, nor do they complain quite so much about an "entitlement mentality" over providing that subsidy to young parents to benefit the children of their nations.

Whether lynnesg intends to or not, she is behaving increasingly like a troll.


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> OMG, this is so rude, ignorant, and judgmental! Do you think people get themselves into situations only because of crappy choices? Sometimes bad things happen to good people; sometimes people make choices, forseeing positive consequences, only to have it blow up in their faces. Stop with the judging; your assumptions are only that: assumptions. It's not always, or even usually, crappy choices that make someone need assistance. Sometimes, crap happens.


You are too busy picking apart my postings to even take them in. Its the people like my exfriend I can't stand. She had a baby because she wanted one, got every freebee she could and is a POS mother. She never picked up her daughter who had to have a $2300 helmet (paid for by the taxpayers) to fix her flat head. She didn't nurse her because she got free formula and didn't get a job although her mom would have watched the baby because CA paid her to 'stay home'. Most days she would bring her dd to her mothers and she and her BF would go get stoned and shop on the money they got from the state. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE I CAN'T STAND. Go back and reread every post I wrote. I never said I am not for the people who need it. It's the people who abuse it. My comments became irate because everything I said, you would attack me on.


----------



## oaktreemama

I am a firm believer in the idea that everyone does better when everyone does better.

That isn't happening in this country. The people who have all the toys spend their time worrying that someone somewhere is getting something for free-especially those sneaky illegals or other brown people. Yet, often these very same people are in industries that receive huge government subsidies and tax breaks every year. They enjoy capital gains tax breaks, no inheritance tax, they put tax deferred money into their 401k's and their children's college funds. They write off their mortgage taxes and their property taxes.

But when we say hey lets use some of our money for truly family friendly policies like extended maternity leave, high level childcare, and health insurance for all our children-my GOD-SOCIALISM. The sky is falling. Look at all these lazy bums taking my hard earned money!!!!! The disconnect is mind boggling.

When in fact the few people that I know who are on some kind of assistance are incredibly stressed every day. They have to worry about their jobs, their crappy car, their crappy apartment or run down house, and their dwindling sick days. They worry about a higher than average electricity bill, a sudden and unexpected sickness, a major appliance failing, or even how they can afford to get their laundry done each week when the landlord doesn't replace the broken dryer. There is NOTHING fun about it for them. They aren't lazy-they are stressed to the max and treading water to merely survive.

The argument shouldn't be about who deserves government assistance because we all receive it in one form or another. The argument should be about what social policies and payments are the most successful for supporting struggling families and helping them get back on their feet. It should be about skills and trades and programs that keep families together and on their feet. It should be about creating an environment that help children overcome shortcomings or disparities so we can mitigate the cycle of poverty so many people get stuck in.


----------



## Dandelionkid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *3xMama*
> 
> I've not read through all the responses, but here is my two cents.
> 
> If I had any way to work and pay for daycare and still make a profit, I would. But as it stands, any job I qualify for I would end up paying out more in childcare than I would bring in. I would be paying to work. Tell me how that would be a good thing? Tell me how my family and I could survive on that?! I'd much rather see tax money go to a mother (or father for that matter) in a similiar position than have her work, make little to no profit and have so little time to be with her kids. And I would gladly pay out more in taxes if I actually saw that money come back to me rather than going into some CEO's pocket after a billion dollar bailout. He gets a bonus and I'm left in the dust on food stamps because our net income is $16 over...gross is $400 under but that $16 sure did make up for it (this was before DS1 was born). It really disgusts me how we treat our vulnerable (pregnant women, elderly and children) and poor.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'm taking them in. I can't stand people abusing the system either, but your friend's boyfriend wouldn't have made very much money working at minimum wage so as someone else pointed out it's understandable fothem to make that choice. Your ex friend is just your ex friend though; she's not every woman, and she's not the epitome of the welfare mother. I've read everything you've wrote, and not all of what you said is only about your ex friend. You've made some general statements and sarcastic comments that were both ignorant and judgmental; you even attacked another mom for the # of kids she had, which makes it laughable that you accuse me of attacking you.

It wouldn't be welfare if we gave the subsidy to everyone, not just poor people, the same way many other civilized countries do. They call it maternity leave, and it's something ALL mothers (and fathers in some countries) are "entitled" to have.


----------



## Dandelionkid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Oh my god, you KILL me, you are so cute! Free healthcare. Another ROFL comment. What is free about shelling out 60% of your income in taxes and having rationed second rate care. And as soon as the govt runs out of money for the year, that's it. No more operations or second opinions. That's why so many Canadians come to the US for medical services. Their govt is running the medical show. Not to mention, you pay a premium per month, it is in no way free. They are taxing you and charging you and denying you. What's free about that?


Your perspective is extreme. I'm from Canada. Firmly middle-class and we spend *33%* on taxes. ER visits are triaged. Waits could be shorter but you have a true emergency or need OR immediately you get it- no waiting. Currently diagnostics for unknown conditions (unless something serious suspected) and orthopedic surgeries such as total hip/knee take too long but the government continues to take steps to decrease these wait-times.

Curious where you came up with the fact that when our government runs out of money we don't get healthcare for the year? This is truly funny as well as absurd. Health-care here is year-round 

I would take this system any day over private-for-profit.

Edited to add: Also- we don't pay premiums in the province I live in. When we did pay premiums they were 88/month and often paid through occupational benefits. If I remember it right ow-income did not need to pay. I imagine you are getting your info straight from the republican propaganda machine?


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I'm taking them in. I can't stand people abusing the system either, but your friend's boyfriend wouldn't have made very much money working at minimum wage so as someone else pointed out it's understandable fothem to make that choice. Your ex friend is just your ex friend though; she's not every woman, and she's not the epitome of the welfare mother. I've read everything you've wrote, and not all of what you said is only about your ex friend. You've made some general statements and sarcastic comments that were both ignorant and judgmental; you even attacked another mom for the # of kids she had, which makes it laughable that you accuse me of attacking you.
> 
> It wouldn't be welfare if we gave the subsidy to everyone, not just poor people, the same way many other civilized countries do. They call it maternity leave, and it's something ALL mothers (and fathers in some countries) are "entitled" to have.


How do you know he would have made minimum wage? That's quite an assumption on your part, is it not? That everyone who takes welfare must only qualify for minimum wage jobs? Instead of getting an honest contruction job his father offered him which would have pulled their assistance, he worked 'under the table' as a tatoo artist taking in all the money without paying the taxes and still getting the assistance. IE: the cash ''BONUS'' I referred to. This is not atypical either. My best friend is a hair stylist and one of her coworkers got foodstamps of $300/month. Last year my best friend said she was going to apply for them too. She didn't need them, but they were so easy to get, why not? This is the problem with our society. That blogger having 5 kids and complaining about $700 being too little to pay for shampoo and toilet paper is horrendous. Beggers cannot be choosers. Should I have said she needed to stop having kids, probably not, but again, I am openly opinionated and say what others are too afraid to. There are far more people who abuse the system than you may like to think there is.


----------



## oaktreemama

It is not that you say what others are afraid to say. It is the fact that many people realize that this argument is much more nuanced and multi faceted. Your argument is simplistic and lacks any cohesion other than the same tired refrain of welfare queens and cheats.


----------



## Hannah32

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> You ladies are truley grasping at straws here. And the $700 billion dollar stimulus package worked too, right? It only cost 1.2 million dollars per job created, but hey, jobs were ''created'' right? But did the ends justify the means? Of course education is subsidized at all levels (K-Univ.) but we didn't take any financial aid or assistance from that. We worked through school. I take it from the defensive posts I am receiving that most of you have/are taking assistance and trying to justify yourselves with the notion that you are ''stimulating'' the economy.


Nah, I've always been too fortunate to qualify. But Bernie Sanders is my man.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Lynnesg - Once again, you're talking about your ex friend, not every woman. Most people who take welfare are not abusing the system; most qualify for only minimum wage jobs, because most lack the opportunities for an education that the priveleged are so quick to take for granted. I think there are far LESS people who abuse the system than YOU like to think, based on the statistics I've seen.


----------



## azgirl

Here is the thing...

There are no easy answers.

I was raised in circumstances very similar to lynnesg and with similar lessons and values. Only in my case my dad is/was both severely mentally ill, a non-native English speaker and has/had trouble just going along and doing the right thing. His mental illness presented after I was born, in his mid-twenties which is pretty typical. All that to say that my mom really didn't end up in her circumstances through bad choices. We were the poorest people we knew and my mom received very little assistance. We were on the Medicaid-type program at the time (just us kids, my mom paid for her own insurance through her job). We also got reduced-price lunch at school. Our only car had no A/C and it gets up to 125 degrees where I grew up in the summer. She clawed her way up and now owns her second home etc. etc. Even as a single mom she never missed a day of work in 11 years at one point and that was with a very small support system. The life my mom created for us and herself was a mind-blowing achievement. One I attribute in large part to the fact that she was first-generation poor. She did not come from a culture of poverty or learned helplessness or a sense of defeat or whatever. My childhood was extremely secure (I went to school with the same kids from 2nd grade through High School and college with some of them) My childhood was also one of constant, palpable anxiety as are many of the lives of poor people. You can't slip up and you can't make a mistake. I began working and earning money at age 11. I was 100% responsible for myself in college but I was able to live at home rent-free a couple of times. I usually worked two jobs throughout college including two jobs my senior year of high school and I worked 70 hours a week the summer before college. I got my first real idea of how government assistance works when I made friends with a nice boy in one of my classes and found out he had a Pell grant. I don't know how things are now, but at the time Pell grants were free money. You did not have to pay them back. The formula to calculate what you receive in aid took into consideration your parents income and your (the student's) to determine how much you could be expected to pay towards your education. The money earned by the student themselves is given much more weight than the parents income. This boy came from a normal, middle class family. His parents were both teachers. Now, teachers didn't make a lot of money then and they don't make a lot of money now but the year I went to college my mom made 18,000. I still have the paperwork. (yes, I hoard a little bit, childhood poverty and anxiety has had lasting repercussions  I remember where I was sitting when this boy told me why he didn't have to work his way through school. He took out loans (as did I), he had a Pell grant and his parents pitched in a little. I realized that had I not worked in High School saving up for college etc. I would have qualified for FREE money. This had an impact on me for years because for a long time I blamed my lack of academic achievement and life achievement in general on the fact that I couldn't just concentrate on school or whatever. I now know that was not the case and I have benefited enormously from those circumstances, but whatever.

It is the same with welfare. You are penalized if you save money etc etc. And you know what? There isn't any way around that. There is no good way to handle welfare and people in need. Mothers are vulnerable while their children are small. There is no good replacement for a committed partner or extended family that provides financial support and/or childcare. No. Good. Solution. Sorry. The posters here who claim that government assistance fraud and abuse are exceptions either run in incredible circles or do not have much contact with folks on assistance. I have never met ONE person on assistance that doesn't abuse the system. I abused the system in a small way myself when I traded a punch on my lunch card at school for cash because I wanted a bagel and cream cheese instead of the hot lunch of the day. It is human nature to be resourceful and to work within a system and then the system adjusts and becomes more cumbersome and ridiculous and byzantine to deal with the abuses and so on and so on. I have a friend who works nights at Walmart while her husband is home sleeping. Just night after night of people buying booze and cigarettes along with food with their food stamp card. People with fresh tattoos using food stamps. I am pretty shocked at people that think it's okay for people to get any assistance and also buy 100 dollar jeans. It's shocking. If you don't think that is abusing the system, then I guess I see why you don't think most people abuse the system...

Anyway, I don't know any Conservatives or Libertarians who supported the government bail out of big business. I don't listen to Conservative radio or Fox News...were the bailouts defended there? My understanding is that the only people who support the bailouts and handouts to big business are politicians and big business that keep them in power. I get kind of tired of that being brought up as if the same people that have a problem with "welfare moms" or whatever wholeheartedly supported bailouts to big business. Check out your favorite politicians and see how they vote on farm subsidies...which are pretty huge transfers of our tax dollars to huge business that are using that money to undermine our health...

The poor pay sales tax etc. but a full 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. One very overlooked cause of the growing income gap between households is this: we have had a huge increase in single mothers and a huge increase in two-wage earner households. The difference in income and standard of living between a single mom and a family with two working people is gigantic. And it's a gigantic difference that cannot be attributed to any unfairness we might have in our current economic system. These realities may not fit on a bumper sticker, but they are realities none the less.

I think we have to have a safety net and programs to help people move out of dire circumstances. I do not think we should pay people to stay home with kids. SAHMs are very financially vulnerable and the longer they stay out of the job market the more vulnerable and left-behind they are. The poorest women with the most unreliable partners are the least able to afford to not be working. Even if a job barely covers childcare expenses now, that same job or field has a chance of being more lucrative as time goes on. The vulnerability of SAHMs has been discussed and debated here on MDC....I think that there may be some creative ideas out there for how to handle the issue of parental leave, the bottom line is that plenty of families make it work on very small incomes.

I don't think it's fair to call people who are angry about this issue "trolls" it is hard to remain respectful sometimes if you work tooth and nail for what you have while others have better stuff on your dime. Isn't it perfectly reasonable to be upset by that???? Explain how you address the inequity inherent in a working person deciding not to have more kids than they can pay for while someone receiving assistance chooses to continue having children? Or how it must feel to be working at 1 am at Walmart while yet another person with a brand-new iPhone uses food stamps (or card as it were) to buy groceries? It does explain the perplexing, to some, fact that so many struggling, working-class people are politically conservative.

You do not have to think being poor is "easy" to have a problem with "welfare".


----------



## oaktreemama

Quote:


> I don't think it's fair to call people who are angry about this issue "trolls" it is hard to remain respectful sometimes if you work tooth and nail for what you have while others have better stuff on your dime.


But there are always going to be people who work the system. By your argument we should cease funding any program-defense, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, highways, national parks...The list goes on. There is fraud everywhere-a small percentage of people are always going to steal. To deny people in need because some of them may work the system isn't the answer.

It is easy to single out poor people-they have nowhere to go and very few defenders.

Again and again what I see from people who worry incessantly about other people getting something for "free" is a lack of true critical thinking and a lack of desire to actually figure out ways to make things better.


----------



## babygirlie

Just wondering how in the world do welfare people get so much in food stamps or cash?!?! Im disabled, my dd is disabled and my dh unemployed from a minimum wage job. We get $80 and that covers just dd gluten free noodles for the month. How do you get 6 grand a year? With a $900 mortgage this 80 bucks is chump change and even with free milk which were all allergic to for the most part sure isn't having me live large but begging everywhere I go.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> Is what they have in Canada considered welfare? You know, you receive paid leave for a year after a baby's birth (funny, their birthrate isn't super high). Don't you also receive X amount per month depending on your family size? Oh, and free healthcare! None of it, as far as I know, is based on income levels, so the stigma isn't there.
> 
> maybe that is the kind of support she is talking about...


Hello,

I am not sure a Canadian has answered (long thread) so I will.

Both parents are entitled to a combined 50 weeks or so of mat/pat leave in Canada. The plan is run by Employment Insurance (a branch of the government) and you have to have been employed prior to mat leave to receive it. If you have not been employed you do not receive it. It is 55% of your gross income to a maximum of 425 per week (or so). Your job is protected during this period. Of course if you do not qualify for the above, but need cash, you can apply for welfare.

there are several programs for families (not related to the above)

universal child bonus: $100 per month regardless of income, to age 7.

Child tax benefit - it is based on the number of kids, their ages

provincial money of some sort, probably based on a number of factors.

I will say that I am firmly in a middle class bracket and I get about 200 per month. I have no kids under 7.

Despite all of this, the birth rate in Canada is slightly lower than the USA.


----------



## mamayogibear

The TANF program really pisses me off. You have to sign up when you dont' have a job or you have an income that disqualifies you. So you have to be jobless to get in the program. But while jobless you have to send your kids to a government funded daycare for at least 25 hours a week. No matter how much job searching you are not going to be in interviews for 25 hours a week! You can't be a stay at home mom and on TANF they make you leave your kid at a state run daycare for at least 25 hours a week and tried to make me leave my baby for 32 hours!!!

I did TANF for one month in April because I was looking for a job as a CNA and couldn't find one. I had two interviews a week about an hours each. So while my kids had to be in daycare all day everyday I had intereviews for two of the twenty-five hours! The rest of the time I was job searching online, calling places emailing my resume etc...

The worksource program seems like a sham to me, you have to go to their office every day when you could be doing something useful instead and you have to leave your kid in a state run daycare all day everyday. It seems like the only jobs that the TANF program helps create are ones in the over croweded state run daycares. I've had an interview since I dropped out of the program and had my one friend watch the kids. It sure seemed better than being away from them for 25 hours a week just to go to an interview!

Needless to say I've dropped out of their program, they can keep their three hundred dollars a month. I'd rather have no money and time with my baby! Aside from a few bills we don't have any expenses, we cloth diaper and use hand me downs for clothes and toys... I've found a work at home job but I'm not sure if it's a scam or not but hey I'd rather work online for ten hours a week and not get paid than be away from my kids all day and not get paid!

Maybe once I find a job but haven't started working I'll sign up for TANF again so I can afford to send my kids to daycare while I work (I doubt my income will be over the price of two kids in daycare though).

End of vent about how much TANF pisses me off. Thanks for listening!


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> But there are always going to be people who work the system. By your argument we should cease funding any program-defense, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, highways, national parks...The list goes on. There is fraud everywhere-a small percentage of people are always going to steal. To deny people in need because some of them may work the system isn't the answer.
> 
> It is easy to single out poor people-they have nowhere to go and very few defenders.
> 
> Again and again what I see from people who worry incessantly about other people getting something for "free" is a lack of true critical thinking and a lack of desire to actually figure out ways to make things better.


My problems with our system are many, I have philosophical issues but not coincidentally these programs have major practical problems also. Yes, I am very much opposed to the quantity and methods of spending on defense, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA and highways. I have very little knowledge about spending on national parks but I do know that it isn't a lot and it is not creating deep societal problems the way that other spending does. I am extremely philosophically opposed to a lot of government spending. I am in no way singling out poor people.

I agree that there may be a lot of people striving and struggling to support their families and are upset that others are getting things for free that don't have the privilege or luxury to sit around and brainstorm ways to make things better. They are EXPERIENCING the struggle. I am sure you know people that are working hard and scraping by without government assistance who are bothered by people who are getting stuff for free. Don't you? Am I the only one who knows poor people or who has been poor people who DIDN"T go after or accept every cent of government assistance they could?

Listen, I won't argue with you that a lot of people spout stuff without thinking critically. Are you saying that all the people who are unconcerned about people getting free stuff and believe the government should take MORE money from some to give to others are critical thinkers who have an ardent desire to figure out ways to make things better while those that ARE concerned about people getting free stuff and don't want more money transferred from one group to another don't think critically and don't want to figure out ways to make things better? Because that sounds a lot like: "People who think like us are kind, decent and intelligent, and people who think like THEM are mean-spirited, small-minded and stupid" LOTS and LOTS of people feel that way. One thing I will say about THEM is it is really hard to have a decent conversation with people who think like that...


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamayogibear*
> 
> The TANF program really pisses me off. You have to sign up when you dont' have a job or you have an income that disqualifies you. So you have to be jobless to get in the program. But while jobless you have to send your kids to a government funded daycare for at least 25 hours a week. No matter how much job searching you are not going to be in interviews for 25 hours a week! You can't be a stay at home mom and on TANF they make you leave your kid at a state run daycare for at least 25 hours a week and tried to make me leave my baby for 32 hours!!!
> 
> I did TANF for one month in April because I was looking for a job as a CNA and couldn't find one. I had two interviews a week about an hours each. So while my kids had to be in daycare all day everyday I had intereviews for two of the twenty-five hours! The rest of the time I was job searching online, calling places emailing my resume etc...
> 
> The worksource program seems like a sham to me, you have to go to their office every day when you could be doing something useful instead and you have to leave your kid in a state run daycare all day everyday. It seems like the only jobs that the TANF program helps create are ones in the over croweded state run daycares. I've had an interview since I dropped out of the program and had my one friend watch the kids. It sure seemed better than being away from them for 25 hours a week just to go to an interview!
> 
> Needless to say I've dropped out of their program, they can keep their three hundred dollars a month. I'd rather have no money and time with my baby! Aside from a few bills we don't have any expenses, we cloth diaper and use hand me downs for clothes and toys... I've found a work at home job but I'm not sure if it's a scam or not but hey I'd rather work online for ten hours a week and not get paid than be away from my kids all day and not get paid!
> 
> Maybe once I find a job but haven't started working I'll sign up for TANF again so I can afford to send my kids to daycare while I work (I doubt my income will be over the price of two kids in daycare though).
> 
> End of vent about how much TANF pisses me off. Thanks for listening!


This stuff makes me want to bang my head into a wall. That is ridiculous!!


----------



## oaktreemama

Quote:


> ARE concerned about people getting free stuff and don't want more money transferred from one group to another don't think critically and don't want to figure out ways to make things better?


I am saying that poor people are easy scapegoats-lazy, have too may children, steal, and drive Cadillacs to pick up their food stamps. That argument is intellectually and financially dishonest and is used by people who themselves reap plenty of benefits.

Many people who criticize government spending or complain about money transferred from one group to another scapegoat poor people and give other government giveaways a pass. Because somehow they have earned the programs that give them money. Anything that seeks to level the playing field is called a "job killer" or as you yourself said, 'transferring wealth" i.e. socialism.

I wonder when we became so obsessed with the idea that life is a constant battle making sure no one gets one extra little thing they don't deserve. Those aren't the kinds of battles we will win and IMO aren't the kind of social policies that make sense.


----------



## waiting2bemommy

Hey, she's not lying. I never even considered TANF because I've never had a problem getting a job (I'm not picky and I guess I interview well). But when I left my ex to live in a women's shelter and subsequently ended up staying with my mother, she encouraged (ok, practically forced) me to apply for TANF. The reasoning behind this was that I couold live in ehr house and pay her rent with the TANF money, and therefore be a SAHM and do all her housework, etc. And my mother is not (anymore) low income. So this "milk the system" mentality certainly exists and not just with the very poor.

Anyway, I went down there and applied for TANF. I found out that I qualified for $250, but since my ds was not vaxed (hello Big Brother) they would penalize $50 every month. Also, they would pursue my ex for child support, but whatever they got would be theirs to keep, to pay themselves back for my TANF payments. I would $50 a month out of the $400 he was supposed to be paying. This would therefore cover about half my rent to my mother. No problem, I told the social worker. In between looking for jobs, I'll just clean a few houses to make up the rest of the rent. But no! If I was honest and reported that income, the amount that I earned would be deducted from my next month's payment. Further, since it was not full time employment, it would not "count" in my job search, and if I decided to just clean houses anyway, I would be kicked off all benefits because that wasn't an acceptable job.

Next, I looked at my options for going back to school. Since I was about half way to my Associate's degree, I asked about collecting the cash payment while I went to school, and using financial aid from school to cover the rest of the bills. No, that's not acceptable either. no matter what your level of education the only acceptable programs were ones that could be completed in 6 months or less. I took the list home, researched it, and discovered that not one single program would result in a skill that paid more than $9-10 an hr.

Finally I conceded to the job search. I had three weeks to find a job and then I would be put into "voluntary" job training, which would consist of me taking a job search class at the social services office for 35 hrs a week for 2 weeks, and then being put into what is commonly known as workfare, which is "volunteer" (unpaid) work for 40 hours a week at a location of their choosing. This is purportedly to give uneducated people a chance to build their resume. while that may be a nice fringe benefit, giving someone $200/month to work 40 hours a week doing ANYTHING sounds suspiciously like slave labor to me.

I took my $200, on a debit card, and then voluntarily removed myself from the program, cleaned houses, nannied, and kept my child with me.

The way it's set up makes sense in theory but legislature rarely accounts for individuality. There is no one size fits all solution to the problem of poverty.


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oaktreemama*
> 
> I am saying that poor people are easy scapegoats-lazy, have too may children, steal, and drive Cadillacs to pick up their food stamps. That argument is intellectually and financially dishonest and is used by people who themselves reap plenty of benefits.
> 
> Many people who criticize government spending or complain about money transferred from one group to another scapegoat poor people and give other government giveaways a pass. Because somehow they have earned the programs that give them money. Anything that seeks to level the playing field is called a "job killer" or as you yourself said, 'transferring wealth" i.e. socialism.
> 
> I wonder when we became so obsessed with the idea that life is a constant battle making sure no one gets one extra little thing they don't deserve. Those aren't the kinds of battles we will win and IMO aren't the kind of social policies that make sense.


I don't know who you are referring to?? You are talking in generalities and not addressing a single thing that I have said. I don't think you have to address me at all, but I am a specific person who has typed specific things and you are quoting me so please stick to addressing things that I have actually said when you quote me. If you want to speak in generalities, fine, but don't quote my posts as if you are addressing something I have said. What other government giveaways am I giving a pass to? What political giveaways have others on this thread given a pass to? Who are these people who rail against "welfare" and give a pass to other government giveaways? I am not bitter or obsessed with the idea that life is a constant battle making sure that no one gets one little thing they don't deserve. What are you talking about??? If you knew what I really thought you might be inclined to call me a starry-eyed optimist. I find it so weird that you are using my posts to make points that have nothing to do with what I typed...

Which of MY points was intellectually and financially dishonest? I may not be an intellectual heavyweight but I would like obvious intellectual dishonesty pointed out to me if it can be done respectfully...

Furthermore, I think that quoting ME and then arguing strongly about what some phantom "people" think while not addressing anything I, the person you quoted, has said, is intellectually lazy and dishonest. I don't disagree that a person who rails against poor people who are "lazy, have too may children, steal, and drive Cadillacs to pick up their food stamps" while they themselves get handouts is intellectually dishonest but I have yet to meet such a person or read about one. Do you have a link? An example? And no, I don't think someone who takes a mortgage deduction is taking a handout. They are reducing the amount of their money they give to the government. I think people should do everything they legally can to reduce what they have to give the government. I don't support with or agree with the mortgage deduction. I don't think it's fair for the government to use the tax code to encourage or discourage any behavior. I don't think homeowners should get a bigger tax break than renters, but that is the flawed system that we have. I don't fault people for getting food stamps if they qualify. It is rational to take advantage of the situation that you are in. I am all for changing the system/situation. I do have problems with people who lie or cheat to avoid taxes and people who lie or cheat to get food stamps or other types of assistance.


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *waiting2bemommy*
> 
> Hey, she's not lying. I never even considered TANF because I've never had a problem getting a job (I'm not picky and I guess I interview well). But when I left my ex to live in a women's shelter and subsequently ended up staying with my mother, she encouraged (ok, practically forced) me to apply for TANF. The reasoning behind this was that I couold live in ehr house and pay her rent with the TANF money, and therefore be a SAHM and do all her housework, etc. And my mother is not (anymore) low income. So this "milk the system" mentality certainly exists and not just with the very poor.
> 
> The way it's set up makes sense in theory but legislature rarely accounts for individuality. There is no one size fits all solution to the problem of poverty.


I think the "milk the system" mentality is found, on some level, in every human being on Earth!! I am not being cynical either. I just think it is one version of problem solving and resourcefulness. I agree that there is no one-size-fits all solution to the problem of poverty. I will get all crazy and say that I don't think there is any government solution to the problem of poverty or anything else, really. I don't think there are any easy solutions period.


----------



## Momily

> Surely we can all agree that having a parent at home during infancy, toddlerhood, and the early years of childhood is much better for the child.


No, I don't agree with this statement, or the implication made above that those of us who work outside the home during our children's infancy and toddlerhood are going to end up with incarcerated children.

I think that having a parent at home can be one wonderful way to raise children, but I don't think it's much better, or even neccessarily any better than other options.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Regarding the $100 pair of jeans, if I'm poor and collect welfare, and my loved one sends me birthday money, or I save $10 a week for 10 weeks, or I actually have $100 leftover after bills for once in my life and need a new pair of pants for work, then I damn sure have the right to buy those jeans. Poor people have the right to a few nice things; it's not like you don't deserve to have anything but the bare necessities ever if you're receiving help...what a ridiculous notion. Poor people should do nothing but be poor, I guess *eyeroll*


----------



## moonfirefaery

I don't like people milking the system, but I don't think we should use them as the reason we deprive poor people who really need help of that help that they so desperately need...nor should we begrudge poor people a single nice article of clothing to their names simply because they need help. How much groceries do you think that $100 would buy? I'll spend my birthday $ on whatever I please, thank you, regardless of what help I'm getting--not that I'm getting any since I don't qualify, but no, I do NOT begrudge those who do qualify the assistance or the nice pair of pants. And I am one of those struggling single moms trying to fight for existance in a two-wage world.


----------



## oaktreemama

I am speaking generally because this is a parenting thread and not a political discussion.

Quote:



> Who are these people who rail against "welfare" and give a pass to other government giveaways?


The entire debate about public policy since Reagan took office has been framed in this vein beginning with his claims about a "welfare queen."

I am not going to go off on this tangent anymore because I kept my answers rather vague to avoid a political discussion in the parenting forum. I was just really puzzled by your hostility towards me as I quoted one small part of your post asking me a specific question that I then responded to. You are seeing insult where none was intended. Just because I quoted one part of your post hardly means the entirety of my post was directed at you.

I am participating in a conversation with ten pages worth of people and giving my opinion and beliefs that the argument on how we think about welfare shouldn't be based on the people who abuse it, but rather the people who truly need it.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> America is full of the most generous people to be found. We take care of our poor and needy more than any other country in the world. Is childcare too expensive? Yes. Is healthcare ungodly expensive? Yes. Those are the issues at hand that need addressing. I hate seeing mothers who have kid after kid and then complain that we aren't providing enough for them. You are getting all the amentities one needs as well as your children and yet you belittle me because I want to see you get off the lifetime support? And I look like the bad guy because I have the gall to say what everyone else thinks and will not say.


you look like the bad guy because you talk like a heartless twit who received her talking points from the genius minds of people like glen beck...

I don't think a lot of people here are thinking what you are lame enough to say because what you are saying is incredibly obnoxious, disconnected and mostly just wrong.

Hi, from a SAHM mom on foodstamps...oh you just hate me don't you


----------



## moonfirefaery

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ldavis24*
> 
> you look like the bad guy because you talk like a heartless twit who received her talking points from the genius minds of people like glen beck...
> 
> I don't think a lot of people here are thinking what you are lame enough to say because what you are saying is incredibly obnoxious, disconnected and mostly just wrong.
> 
> Hi, from a SAHM mom on foodstamps...oh you just hate me don't you


You sure better not own ANY nice clothes, ESPECIALLY expensive jeans!


----------



## poorlittlefish

Why is it when someone has an opinion that goes against everyone elses, they are a heartless twit? Is it possible to disagree without name calling?


----------



## new2this

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamayogibear*
> 
> The TANF program really pisses me off. You have to sign up when you dont' have a job or you have an income that disqualifies you. So you have to be jobless to get in the program. But while jobless you have to send your kids to a government funded daycare for at least 25 hours a week. No matter how much job searching you are not going to be in interviews for 25 hours a week! You can't be a stay at home mom and on TANF they make you leave your kid at a state run daycare for at least 25 hours a week and tried to make me leave my baby for 32 hours!!!
> 
> I did TANF for one month in April because I was looking for a job as a CNA and couldn't find one. I had two interviews a week about an hours each. So while my kids had to be in daycare all day everyday I had intereviews for two of the twenty-five hours! The rest of the time I was job searching online, calling places emailing my resume etc...
> 
> The worksource program seems like a sham to me, you have to go to their office every day when you could be doing something useful instead and you have to leave your kid in a state run daycare all day everyday. It seems like the only jobs that the TANF program helps create are ones in the over croweded state run daycares. I've had an interview since I dropped out of the program and had my one friend watch the kids. It sure seemed better than being away from them for 25 hours a week just to go to an interview!
> 
> Needless to say I've dropped out of their program, they can keep their three hundred dollars a month. I'd rather have no money and time with my baby! Aside from a few bills we don't have any expenses, we cloth diaper and use hand me downs for clothes and toys... I've found a work at home job but I'm not sure if it's a scam or not but hey I'd rather work online for ten hours a week and not get paid than be away from my kids all day and not get paid!
> 
> Maybe once I find a job but haven't started working I'll sign up for TANF again so I can afford to send my kids to daycare while I work (I doubt my income will be over the price of two kids in daycare though).
> 
> End of vent about how much TANF pisses me off. Thanks for listening!


So your real problem is having to put your child into a state ran daycare while they provide you with a way to find and hopefully find a job?

When a person is jobless and looking for help they don't have a right to be picky. Its not like the state ran daycare is going to screw your kid up. And when a person is jobless yeah looking for a job is suppose to be your job meaning spending at least 6 hours a day looking for one.

Oh but you are willing to abuse the program to get the 300.00 a month once you have a job but when its on your terms not theirs. Yeah this is stuff why people are upset with how the program has turned out. Entitlement all the way.


----------



## moonfirefaery

poorlittlefish - it's not her opinion, but her attitude that makes others think she is heartless or trollish. She attacked another mother for the number of kids she has; she has referred to poor people as cancers of society. She has made other offensive comments; many other posters have expressed similar opinions to hers, WITHOUT such offensive/judgmental comments and without personally attacking other posters... I think that Lynnesg could do the same, if she wanted.


----------



## moonfirefaery

new2this, I don't see where mamayogibear said anything about abusing the program to get $300 a month; that she would still qualify after obtaining a job doesn't mean she's abusing the system. She has to be poor to qualify; she has to show all aspects of her finances and PROVE that she needs it in order to get it. She hasn't suggested that she would lie in order to obtain it. Why do you think only the jobless need assistance and that mamayogibear wouldn't need it if she had a job? Also, why should she HAVE to put her kid in a daycare for 25 hours a week even on days she doesn't have an interview or have to work? She isn't complaining about access to daycare; she's complaining that it's MANDATORY, at least that's how it seems to me based on her posts. So she chooses NOT to have help until AFTER she has a job... why is that a problem?


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *new2this*
> 
> When a person is jobless and looking for help they don't have a right to be picky. Its not like the state ran daycare is going to screw your kid up. And when a person is jobless yeah looking for a job is suppose to be your job meaning spending at least 6 hours a day looking for one.


Well first of all, my DH is unemployed (and no, we are not on 'welfare', just so you don't think I'm biased!) and he has TRIED to spend his entire day looking for jobs. It's just not possible. There are only so many jobs out there. Maybe it's just because our state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, or maybe it has nothing to do with that. At most he can spend about 3 hours a day -- and he is incredibly proactive, applying for everything, writing lots of cover letters, calling every company up to follow up, etc. -- unless more jobs become available, there just isn't enough out there to make it possible to spend ALL DAY EVERY DAY looking for a job. The jobs don't exist! So why should a mama have her kids in daycare full-time? That just serves to further isolate already isolated and possibly depressed jobless parents, not to mention any effect it might have on the kids to be thrown in a mandatory daycare that may or may not be a good match for them... So just to follow this logic, taxpayers are paying for kids to be in state-run daycare while their parent sits at home TRYING to look for a job but discovering there isn't much out there so instead spends the day looking at youtube videos and missing her family...

As an unemployed person, my DH really appreciates having DS here. It helps him structure his day. It gives him something to do all day instead of just be depressed about not having a job. I can't even imagine the state he'd be in right now if DS weren't here with him. It does not interfere with his job search (I WAH so it all works out -- though I think having daycare as an OPTION for jobseekers who need it would make sense!!) and if anything makes him more productive -- he's not trying to waste away 8 hours a day searching for non-existent jobs; instead, he gets up early, does several hours of job-seeking, and spends the rest of the day with me & DS, or working on the house/cleaning/etc., and just checking in with his email and answering phone calls as necessary. OK this is getting into the realm of too much personal info I guess, but I just really have such a different perspective on unemployment now that my family is in this position!!


----------



## new2this

I have been jobless and have been assistance. I know its not easy to spend all day looking for a job I have BTDT. And I do get what you are saying. I understand it.It makes sense, however if they are providing the classes or even seminars then its part of the program and needs to be done. Her post just came off as very entitlement. I could have read it wrong. And if that is the case then I am sorry.

I haven't seen one post in here that says the programs are bad to have and that those who need them (dealing with food stamps and cash assistance) that they are scum or anything along those lines. But that the programs need to be revamped. People make choices. Some turn out to be good ones and well some put us in a spot that need help. I'm not sorry to say that if a person is already on welfare be it food stamps, or cash assistance then no they should not be having more kids when they can not provide for the ones they already have without help. Again not talking about those who were doing just fine before and something happened that changed it up like lost job, medical needs, and so on. But I am done with this because any more and my posts are just going to come out heartless when they truly are not. I all about helping people when the help is needed just as I would never say remove these programs but take steps to make then better. The programs themselves are flawed as well.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *new2this*
> 
> When a person is jobless and looking for help they don't have a right to be picky. Its not like the state ran daycare is going to screw your kid up. And when a person is jobless yeah looking for a job is suppose to be your job meaning spending at least 6 hours a day looking for one.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first of all, my DH is unemployed (and no, we are not on 'welfare', just so you don't think I'm biased!) and he has TRIED to spend his entire day looking for jobs. It's just not possible. There are only so many jobs out there. Maybe it's just because our state has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, or maybe it has nothing to do with that. At most he can spend about 3 hours a day -- and he is incredibly proactive, applying for everything, writing lots of cover letters, calling every company up to follow up, etc. -- unless more jobs become available, there just isn't enough out there to make it possible to spend ALL DAY EVERY DAY looking for a job. So why should a mama have her kids in daycare full-time? That just serves to further isolate already isolated and possibly depressed jobless parents, not to mention any effect it might have on the kids to be thrown in a daycare that may or may not be a good match for them... So just to follow this logic, taxpayers are paying for kids to be in state-run daycare while their parent sits at home TRYING to look for a job but discovering there isn't much out there so instead spends the day looking at youtube videos and missing her family...
Click to expand...


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Yeah I don't think many will disagree with you that the programs are indeed flawed & need a major revamp...


----------



## mamazee

People who are poor absolutely and 100% have a right to be picky about the care their children get. If they don't find the state daycare to be adequate, they should not have to put their children in it. I was put in bad daycare when I was a kid. Some day care is wonderful, some is awful, and all parents have a right to avoid the latter.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I agree with someone upthread that the whole taking advantage or scamming the system theory must be a fundamental difference in what exactly that means.

Also, the problem with declaring it's unfair that a welfare mom owns a pair of $100 jeans, is that, where do you draw the line? Is having a TV okay, as long as there is no cable? What about Internet - or is that okay if it's used to find coupons and job hunt? It sounds like she would be judged for having a smart phone, but what about a pre-paid flip cell phone? Can she splurge and buy good cheese at the grocery store, or is government cheese it for her? What about a car, especially when there is no busing system - do the wheels have to be falling off? Are Pampers okay, or can she only use generic diapers? Or what if she owns pocket diapers and not just prefolds? What, exactly, should the rules be to make it seem fair to outsiders??

My point is that it's silly to judge, especially when you don't have the complete picture. Not that it really matters, but that TV could have been passed down or purchased before times were tough, or it could be their main source of entertainment since they are on such a strict budget.

About the supposed huge percentage of people who abuse welfare, here are my thoughts:

Fraud to obtain welfare by means of changing your paystub or claiming a kid that is not yours = bad

Selling food stamps for drug money = bad

Winning a million dollars while playing the lotto and still collecting food stamps = bad

Not fitting a welfare mold as to what is or not acceptable for a person who receives benefits, whether it's having a working vehicle or Nike shoes on your kid's feet = not bad, b/c this is simply a matter of opinion.

If a person works the system to their benefit, they still had to jump through all the same hoops, right? If they are hiding a $70K paid off Escalade as an asset - then yeah, that's cheating the system (assuming a paid off vehicle of that amount is not allowed). It's the reason there are so many rules and paperwork required to receive any benefits. Sorry, but I don't buy that the majority welfare recipients are cheating anyone. For every person you know who are happily receiving government assistance, there are thousands more who want a better life than that.

People do realize that most of the rich (especially the super rich) got that way because they took advantage of what they could along the way to build their wealth, right? Whether it was tax write-offs or making money off other people's hard work or various kinds of handouts they could take. Just as big businesses do - a lot of which is funded by our tax dollars, too.


----------



## 2lilsweetfoxes

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Regarding the $100 pair of jeans, if I'm poor and collect welfare, and my loved one sends me birthday money, or I save $10 a week for 10 weeks, or I actually have $100 leftover after bills for once in my life and need a new pair of pants for work, then I damn sure have the right to buy those jeans. Poor people have the right to a few nice things; it's not like you don't deserve to have anything but the bare necessities ever if you're receiving help...what a ridiculous notion. Poor people should do nothing but be poor, I guess *eyeroll*


Or found the $100 pair of jeans on the clearance rack for 75% off due to a minor scuff or something that no-one would notice unless they pulled out a magnifying glass or a missing, easily replaced button or something, then the price on clearance items slashed another 50% off. But, then, I'm sure, some would say--"what are you doing shopping in a store that sells $100 jeans?". I like to hit the clearance racks--99% of the time I come away with nothing, but occasionally, I do get an awesome find.

Or found them at Goodwill, tags still on, but for $5-$10.

Nine years ago, I realized that living bare-bones, nothing extra, couponing and eating rice and beans, we were about $100 short per month on DH's salary. He had no options for getting a second job due to the military unit he was in, it was just impractical (in the field too much). I looked into TANF. Rejected the idea due to the work requirements. Applied for food stamps. We made $20!!!! a month too much to qualify for anything. So, out of options, I looked for a job. Found one, but at the end of the month, after paying day care, I cleared about $10. Quit after 2 months. Found another job a few months later that actually gave a bit to be spent towards the medical insurance premiums, or if you already had insurance and didn't want theirs, they'd give it into a cafeteria plan. It was just enough to pay for day care for DD. So, I worked there for 18 months before DH and I moved. We got into a better position financially, and when we moved, it allowed me to also collect unemployment. We did not qualify for food stamps, though, due to making "too much" on UE and had to "spend down" our savings account. (Had it not had that cafeteria plan, I would have had to quit after DS was born as I'd be spending more on working expenses--daycare, gas, clothes, etc--than I'd be making.)


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> poorlittlefish - it's not her opinion, but her attitude that makes others think she is heartless or trollish. She attacked another mother for the number of kids she has; she has referred to poor people as cancers of society. She has made other offensive comments; many other posters have expressed similar opinions to hers, WITHOUT such offensive/judgmental comments and without personally attacking other posters... I think that Lynnesg could do the same, if she wanted.


I really am growing weary of explaining myself to you 'people'. The 'cancer on society' remark was regarding people like me, who do not need the assistance, but go after it anyways because its easy to obtain. Again, please show me where I referred to poor people as cancers. You sure have a nack at manipulating my postings. You should go into editing!


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *poorlittlefish*
> 
> Why is it when someone has an opinion that goes against everyone elses, they are a heartless twit? Is it possible to disagree without name calling?


Nah I think twit about sums it up...Oh and it's not her opinions which I find offensive, those opinions are everywhere and are trumpeted on TV by the likes of Glen Beck republican party blah blah blah...

it's her bitchiness toward poor people and her attitude that we are all just drains on the system and sucking the life out of her precious tax dollars (2/3 of which go to military crap anyway) that is what makes her a twit. I was going to use another word in place of twit but didn't want to get completely banned.


----------



## lynnesg

The $100 pair of jeans has been taken so far out of context. My exfriend took her cash assistance, which should have gone to buying her dd new clothes and diapers, and spent them on jeans for herself while her dd wore a disgusting pair of mismatched sandals 2 sizes too small. I guess since I am in the minority here, I am going to have to break down every single thing I write so that you Rachael Maddow fans won't come after me like a bunch of pitbulls.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I really am growing weary of explaining myself to you 'people'. The 'cancer on society' remark was regarding people like me, who do not need the assistance, but go after it anyways because its easy to obtain. Again, please show me where I referred to poor people as cancers. You sure have a nack at manipulating my postings. You should go into editing!


why is people in quotes?? just curious...


----------



## moonfirefaery

You put people in quotations? Are you serious?

I don't need to manipulate your postings for them to be offensive.


----------



## lynnesg

Seriously? Are we serious right now. You ''people'' who are all against me. Go ahead, take this posting out of context too. I am waiting.....


----------



## Drummer's Wife

I don't know who Rachael Maddow is, but the point is that it's really unfair to judge everyone on assistance based on what your ex-friend did. Because, again, for every person who seems to be doing wrong things while on welfare, there are tons more who are just trying to survive and better their life.

I feel like you don't have a balanced view of it all (by that, I guess I mean poverty and welfare). Maybe it's b/c of where you came from. I dunno, I didn't grow up poor, and I don't even know anyone currently IRL who receives TANF, so obviously we are coming from completely different places here. I do have the ability to see the bigger picture, though.

Hey, maybe we could discuss mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients? That would be fun.


----------



## lynnesg

I am *not* a narrow minded person, which I am sure is contrary to what many of you think of me. I am a fiscal conservative because I am thinking about my future and my childrens future, and I am a social liberal. I do not watch Glen Beck or listen to Rush Limbaugh. I am simply a person who has seen so much abuse of the system and worry about the mentality of this generation thinking they are entitled to things because it's easier than working hard. An unbalanced view to me, would be someone saying welfare should be done away with, every man for himself, and I do not at all feel that way. I have a strong opinion on the matter because I came from crap and my parents showed me that working hard instead of holding out your hand was the right thing to do. I am too sorry to see this thread deteriorate but I am tired of defending myself for a different opinion.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I'm not against you; I'm against the offensive generalities you spew and your attitude towards welfare recipients, most of whom are just trying to survive.

I'm glad someone pointed out that "rich people" do accept hand outs; it's just that the hand-outs they accept, which further increase their wealth, are considered "acceptable" whereas hand outs for people *who actually need them* are unacceptable. Rich people take advantage of tax credits, write-offs, and deferments and sometimes bank accounts in countries with high privacy laws, which helps with tax evasion. They get breaks on property taxes and inheritance taxes. Many rich people inherited their money--or came by it by exploiting their workers through low-pay and inadequate benefits. Many corporations maintain profits because they outsource their jobs to areas where people will work for way less than the American minimum wage.

They take advantage of all of these methods of supplementing their already explosive income, but when poor people take advantage of the few and meager methods of supplementing their miniscule income, rich people rail about how their tax dollars are going to the poor people who don't even pay income taxes -- oh the nerve of those poor people, taking that hard-earned money the rich people need *so* much more than them. They can't afford to pay taxes? Well, then they don't deserve any help! But it's okay for me to write off the interest I paid on my house boat; that's an acceptable way of not paying taxes. An acceptable hand-out. They're fine for the rich who don't need them--but not for the poor who do.


----------



## moonfirefaery

You use the example of your friend to rail against welfare recipients and perpetuate the idea of the welfare queen as the normal welfare recipient.

How does that NOT make you narrow-minded?


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> You use the example of your friend to rail against welfare recipients and perpetuate the idea of the welfare queen as the normal welfare recipient.
> 
> How does that NOT make you narrow-minded?


And you use a rich CEO ''fat cat'' and portray him as the typical successful person. How does that not make YOU narrow minded.


----------



## hildare

i think anytime sombody uses the term "you people" there's a problem. it's like when somebody says "i'm not a racist, but..." you know immediately what is to follow is going to be pretty ignorant.


----------



## mamayogibear

Yes I have a problem having to put my kids in a state run daycare! Even though I am at home with my kids now I spend several hours a day looking for a job. Their definition of looking for a job is writing on a piece of paper that each job you apply to takes an hour. The office straight up tells job seekers to lie on their paper work and say that filling out an online application or dropping of a resume takes an hour even if it only takes twenty minuets. I wasn't going to do that. I spend my time looking for a job now and have only an occassional interview.

Plus once I get a job I will have income and not qualify for the $300 a month! If you have income you do not get cash benefits, period the end. But when I get a job (I have a job starting mid September when I move to another town to become an RN I have a CNA job waiting for me) I will need the daycare assistance for when I work. Plus the school daycare is high quality but only allows students kids to be there so when I am in class they are covered.

I apologize for deciding to no longer be a bartender that makes $500-$750 in tips a week to get a career that contributes more to society now that I am a mother. and wish to be a positive role model instead of just get paid. If only I could have held onto my taxes then and saved it for daycare expense now... oh well at least *my* tax dollars went to help mothers who needed it then instead of wherever you wish your taxes to go.

Oh and I love you to sister bear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *new2this*
> 
> So your real problem is having to put your child into a state ran daycare while they provide you with a way to find and hopefully find a job?
> 
> When a person is jobless and looking for help they don't have a right to be picky. Its not like the state ran daycare is going to screw your kid up. And when a person is jobless yeah looking for a job is suppose to be your job meaning spending at least 6 hours a day looking for one.
> 
> Oh but you are willing to abuse the program to get the 300.00 a month once you have a job but when its on your terms not theirs. Yeah this is stuff why people are upset with how the program has turned out. Entitlement all the way.


----------



## mamayogibear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> new2this, I don't see where mamayogibear said anything about abusing the program to get $300 a month; that she would still qualify after obtaining a job doesn't mean she's abusing the system. She has to be poor to qualify; she has to show all aspects of her finances and PROVE that she needs it in order to get it. She hasn't suggested that she would lie in order to obtain it. Why do you think only the jobless need assistance and that mamayogibear wouldn't need it if she had a job? Also, why should she HAVE to put her kid in a daycare for 25 hours a week even on days she doesn't have an interview or have to work? She isn't complaining about access to daycare; she's complaining that it's MANDATORY, at least that's how it seems to me based on her posts. So she chooses NOT to have help until AFTER she has a job... why is that a problem?


That's exactly it. I want to be able to put my kids in daycare when I need to . The work source program doesn't do anything to help me find a job. If I didn't know how to use the internet or write a resume it would be helpfull but those are all things I learned over a decade ago. I am going to be in school and have a job come September so I want to spend as much time as I can with my infant right now instead of making the tax payers pay to have someone else watch him. When I go back on assistance I will not be getting cash just WCCC or working connections child care, the program that pays for daycare. In the month I did spend getting TANF I did meet some moms who were in the program for months and lived with parents or firends and were able to get by without a job, it seemed like they were putting their kids in daycare just to get away from them to spend time hanging out instead of loooking for a job, now that I have a problem with!


----------



## moonfirefaery

Um, I actually didn't say anything about CEOs or "fat cats;" the closest I came was mentioning how corporations exploit employees.

Tax credits, write offs, deferments, and Swedish bank accounts are available and used by all types of rich people, not only CEOs. I was talking about hand-outs for rich people, not portraying any picture of the typical successful person.

Way to try to twist my posts around though!


----------



## mamayogibear

I come off as giving you the impression of entitlement when I say I do not want to participate in the program and get the state money? The only thing I feel entitled to is bonding with my baby.

The seminars they have were of no use to me. I would show the person my old resume or application I did at home and they would tell me 'you can go'. I have a college education with a 3.95 gpa and will be starting nursing school in the fall. For some people their classes might be useful if the person has not been to college or didn't finish high school.

There are very few jobs here and there are school pumping out hundreds of trained employees every four months! There are not enough jobs for the people who are looking for them. That is why I am moving to a more rural area that still has jobs in the near future but I can't do that until my job starts in the fall!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *new2this*
> 
> I have been jobless and have been assistance. I know its not easy to spend all day looking for a job I have BTDT. And I do get what you are saying. I understand it.It makes sense, however if they are providing the classes or even seminars then its part of the program and needs to be done. Her post just came off as very entitlement. I could have read it wrong. And if that is the case then I am sorry.
> 
> I haven't seen one post in here that says the programs are bad to have and that those who need them (dealing with food stamps and cash assistance) that they are scum or anything along those lines. But that the programs need to be revamped. People make choices. Some turn out to be good ones and well some put us in a spot that need help. I'm not sorry to say that if a person is already on welfare be it food stamps, or cash assistance then no they should not be having more kids when they can not provide for the ones they already have without help. Again not talking about those who were doing just fine before and something happened that changed it up like lost job, medical needs, and so on. But I am done with this because any more and my posts are just going to come out heartless when they truly are not. I all about helping people when the help is needed just as I would never say remove these programs but take steps to make then better. The programs themselves are flawed as well.


----------



## hippiemombian

This is very infuriating. GOOD FOR YOU that your husband has the PRIVILEGE to have an awesome job that provides for your family. Do you know what I would give to be in your situation??? You're making the assumption that we CHOOSE to live this life. Some people do, but the majority of people on welfare don't have any other options. My partner and I are both full-time students, she works a full time job that is also taxed, I SAH with my two kids. When I went on welfare the only other option I had was to let my kids starve. When I had my kids I could afford them without assistance. I pray to God that your husband doesn't leave you and leave you flat on your ass with not a single dime to your name. I pray that you don't ever have to know how humiliating it has to feel to go to food banks or to call programs asking for assistance to pay your electric bill. I pray that you never have to live in a hotel eating ramen noodles for weeks because you can't afford vegetables. I would love to afford a mortgage and a nice car and to be able to be on the health insurance of the person I love, and even that I am not granted because I am gay. But again I guess that's another minority box I chose to check right? How dare you for implying that you're a better person than the person pushing carts at wal-mart. Even when people do have jobs and are trying it's not good enough.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I tell you what, I want to have 5 kids too. Of course, we can't afford the added insurance costs or the extra food to feed them, but you ladies have shown me the light! I can be a stay at home mom without having to pay for it! I am so glad I found the easy way to live. I will stop taking my birth control, tell my husband to quit his engineering job working 60+ hours a week and go push carts at Wal Mart because this is the way to go! There goes his high paying, highly taxed job that pumps the neccesary money into the system to pay for your families, but I want to be able to have more kids too! Oh well, I guess if you can't be them, join them? I am so tired of paying my mortgage, I am going to move into the section 8 apts. up the street. Screw the $900/month insurance premium and the $30 co-pays, I can get it for FREE! No more clipping coupons, its foodstamps baby! I guess I realize that my ''hurtful'' ''judgemental'' comments are too mean and that setting an example to children to 'live withing their means' is a ''bad example'' so I am going to become another leach. Sign me up, I want to be another cancer on society!


----------



## lynnesg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hildare*
> 
> i think anytime sombody uses the term "you people" there's a problem. it's like when somebody says "i'm not a racist, but..." you know immediately what is to follow is going to be pretty ignorant.


Oh that's right, how ignorant of me. I didn't realize the ''you people'' was used soley for the purpose of being racist. Again for the second time, ''you people'' was referring to you people on this thread who are ganging up on me. Now I'm narrow minded, racist, a troll and a twit, among others. I am glad to see I am the only ''judgemental'' person here.


----------



## CatsCradle

Guys, please.


----------



## chaoticzenmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> I really am growing weary of explaining myself to you 'people'. The 'cancer on society' remark was regarding people like me, who do not need the assistance, but go after it anyways because its easy to obtain. Again, please show me where I referred to poor people as cancers. You sure have a nack at manipulating my postings. You should go into editing!


Ok, dissing on Maddow is completely out of bounds, she's awesome. Your "cancer on society" comment was in your post where you describe how you'll quit all of your responsibilities and just live off of the system. So, I'm assuming that is what you think that people on welfare do. In 2000, when I had my first child, I realized that I could not afford to have my job, really. I was looking into quitting so I could just afford to live. It's backwards, but it's reality. My husband ended up getting a great job in another state, so we didn't have to go to such an extreme. People prefer independence always. Sometimes people need help and that doesn't make them a "cancer." Nobody quits a high paying job that gives them independence so they can just live off of the system. It may not be ideal for someone who is already struggling to add more financial responsibilities, but that's not my judgment to make, even as a taxpayer who may be helping them financially with my tax money. I don't know all of the details of a family just by looking at them. I've seen people line their kids up with 3 cent pieces of candy so their mom can get money for cigarettes ( I don't think that happens anymore with the debit card system). I know that there are people who abuse the system, but it's not the majority of people who do that. Nobody wants to be in need of assistance. One of my worst fears is being in that situation again where I have to decide if I can afford my job. I think it's hard for many people to imagine that being a reality. Unfortunately, a lot of women who can't imagine it are a divorce or health issue (self, spouse or child) away from that reality.

Assistance is not easy to obtain, btw.


----------



## chaoticzenmom

I would like to ask all posters to refrain from personal attacks. Let's try to remember that we're all coming at this from different angles and may not be at the same place of understanding on this issue. It's more effective to gently discuss an issue and not attack a person who understands the issue in a different way.

Thanks


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> The $100 pair of jeans has been taken so far out of context. My exfriend took her cash assistance, which should have gone to buying her dd new clothes and diapers, and spent them on jeans for herself while her dd wore a disgusting pair of mismatched sandals 2 sizes too small. I guess since I am in the minority here, I am going to have to break down every single thing I write so that you Rachael Maddow fans won't come after me like a bunch of pitbulls.


That is sad. It might be baddish parenting, though, not a welfare or poverty issue.

I have met a few people who have patterns of spending all sorts of money (or time) on what they want without looking after their kids. It is not OK. I do not judge once in a while splurges - they are good for the soul, which probably makes you a better parent (or easier to live with).

Most people I meet of all economic backgrounds spend appropriately on their kids for their income level.


----------



## moonfirefaery

Lynnesg,

As I have already said I don't get food stamps or welfare. Many other posters have already explained to you that they don't get assistance either. Not everyone who defends the system is mooching off of it, as you ignorantly seem to think.


----------



## Ldavis24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lynnesg*
> 
> Seriously? Are we serious right now. You ''people'' who are all against me. Go ahead, take this posting out of context too. I am waiting.....


once again the word people in quotes..I don't understand why you are doing that..It's not even "you people" it's the fact that you are doing just "people"" which is implying we are in fact not people..

I don't think you know how to use the quotation marks unless you are being so super clever/smug I can't figure it out.

I seriously think you need to revisit the correct usage of quotation marks, it is cracking me up though.


----------



## Linda on the move

I don't know what the answer is, but I think it would be best if it started with compassion and the belief that every person is worthy of dignity.

I think the way to start is by seeing the humanity of those who are currently struggling.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> That is sad. It might be baddish parenting, though, not a welfare or poverty issue.
> 
> I have met a few people who have patterns of spending all sorts of money (or time) on what they want without looking after their kids. It is not OK. I do not judge once in a while splurges - they are good for the soul, which probably makes you a better parent (or easier to live with).
> 
> Most people I meet of all economic backgrounds spend appropriately on their kids for their income level.


I agree. I also think jean girl is good example of poor money management (it may not be specific to the jeans matter but it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the example). I don't think this is necessarily a flaw unless you (general you) had the opportunity to learn good money management skills and failed to practice them. Sometimes people who are poor money managers also fail to foresee the consequences of impulse buying. They suddenly run into some cash, buy what they want, and then are left with nothing. I think this is what happened with easy access to credit cards and easy credit. They hope that all will be well in the future despite present actions. So for me, I think it boils down to lack of education (not academics - but lack of knowledge of basic financial and other principles).


----------



## mamazee

I'm an SAHM in a wealthy family - no assistance here either. But I absolutely don't have a problem with people who use it, and would not make it difficult for people who do need it to get it just because someone somewhere bought a $100 pair of jeans.


----------



## elfinmama

Wow to the quote on this! I am a welfare mother who is now a doula and CMT training to be a midwife. I can NOT believe how calous your words are. I placed my sweet son in a government run daycare. In the two months he was there (before I pulled him out and took him to work with me) he would come home injured daily. When I asked what was happening the teacher would have no response or say that the children play rouhg. My son was being harmed and when I finally found out the whys and hows of it no one even thught to apologize. I took him out of there and placed him in a different government run daycare where a teacher forcibly silenced him one day (laid on him with their hand over his mouth because he would not nap) he was 4.5 years old and is still scarared from this! I worked 3 jobs, danced with a company professionally, and was a full time student all while taking care of myu son; whose father was busy philandering and doing drugs. Did anyone point the finger at his father? NO! I was blamed for not realizing he was a closet addict! How far will people go to force their disgusting opinions on the rest of the world?

I was taught to take care of myself as well. I work very hard! However, sometimes in life a person needs help. I am not saying that people don't abuse the system. I am saying that a goodly amount of people who were abusing the system NEVER needed the assistance to begin with. They were trustfund recipients who felt that they were entitled to this as well as what the world had already given them.

Also, in regards to tax dollars funding the system. We all have worked at some point in our lives which means we have paid into the system. In fact I recall working for 5 years before I even knew to file for my refund...I was a foster child and no one had bothered to teach me about such things you know because somehow being a foster kid is the fault of the child (choosing poor parentage and all that). So who do I blame or complain to that I will never see those tax dollars.

Do any of you women who are saying these horrible things even understand what a mother has to go through to get the minimal assistance? Most people who have ever been on aide count the days when they will find the job that allows them to be free of it. Oh yeah, now that there are new restrictions to the assistance system, a mother hoping to better her career options can not even go to school; with the exceptions of becoming an RN or Dental Assistant (work worthy of the lower class who need to use TANF I suppose).

Is there even a modicum of shame when spewing this poison into the ears of your fellow humans? I feel for you ladies from the deepest portion of by soul. I am happy that you have never experienced such need in your lives. Please continue sharing your vile invective so that we can continue to share some truth and spread some light and love. Maybe one day you will have a change of heart or at least the knowledge of when to keep silent!


----------



## elfinmama

I don't think this is a Welfare issue at its most real levels. I believe its a priveledge and rights issue. A class issue. A how dare those poor people dare to breed and then want to stay home with their kids while my spouse works hard to afford me these "rights" issue. I believe that if we had a healthy government set up to assist ALL families rich or not during the early developmental years of our children then things might be different. As it stands this is not the reality. What ever happened to paid leave? If you look up paternity/maternity leave in this country it is a paltry 6 weeks where you barely get enough to make the bills (forget the rent). In other countries leave is anytwhere from 6 months to a year for both mom and dad and can be taken individually so that the child gets nearly 2 years (on the high end) of parent care! Attacking people for seeing a major glich in the system and wanting to change it is unfair and takes away from real issues. We all should be better than that!


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *elfinmama*
> 
> I don't think this is a Welfare issue at its most real levels. I believe its a priveledge and rights issue. A class issue. A how dare those poor people dare to breed and then want to stay home with their kids while my spouse works hard to afford me these "rights" issue. I believe that if we had a healthy government set up to assist ALL families rich or not during the early developmental years of our children then things might be different. As it stands this is not the reality. What ever happened to paid leave? If you look up paternity/maternity leave in this country it is a paltry 6 weeks where you barely get enough to make the bills (forget the rent). In other countries leave is anytwhere from 6 months to a year for both mom and dad and can be taken individually so that the child gets nearly 2 years (on the high end) of parent care! Attacking people for seeing a major glich in the system and wanting to change it is unfair and takes away from real issues. We all should be better than that!


I agree completely. The purpose of a government is to make sure people's needs are met. Ideally the people we elect to represent us would create an economic climate where there were good jobs available so people could financially meet their own needs and the needs of their own families, and education available that didn't put people in ridiculous amounts of debt so people didn't start out their working life deep in a hole. But that doesn't seem to be happening. RIght now, the government seems to be more interested in funneling money uphill to the rich. If the government doesn't meet people's needs in one way, they have to meet them in other ways, like food stamps, WIC, etc. Job hunting for 6 hours a day? That's ridiculous. Especially in some areas. There just aren't 6 hours worth of jobs to hunt for.


----------



## moonfirefaery

I agree with you elfinmama. It's not about welfare for SAHMs. It's about maternity/paternity leave, whcih is lacking in the USA. Six weeks of UNPAID time, compared to six months to a year for both parents in other civilized nations, is inadequate for many families. They don't call it welfare in Switzerland.


----------



## purslaine

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." 
~ Mahatma Ghandi


----------



## chaoticzenmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> I agree with you elfinmama. It's not about welfare for SAHMs. It's about maternity/paternity leave, whcih is lacking in the USA. Six weeks of UNPAID time, compared to six months to a year for both parents in other civilized nations, is inadequate for many families. They don't call it welfare in Switzerland.


True, necessary social costs are not really welfare or entitlements in my opinion. We to put more money into mental and physical health as well, not less. I would gladly pay more taxes to help mentally or physically ill people get help that they need. I get chills just imagining not being able to get that kind of help if I needed it.


----------



## Lisa1970

I do not think that we should have to pay taxes to fund maternity leave. I have a bigger sized family and I know the maternity costs will become more fuel against bigger families. Plus, the more government pays, the more government tries to control what goes on in our homes.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> I do not think that we should have to pay taxes to fund maternity leave. I have a bigger sized family and I know the maternity costs will become more fuel against bigger families. Plus, the more government pays, the more government tries to control what goes on in our homes.


Well, the government didn't pay my maternity leave, my firm did. Why? Because from a business model it makes sense to have pro-family policies. The government didn't force them, they came to the conclusion themselves because they realized that (through data) that family friendly policies may produce better results. The dynamic of the workforce has changed considerably in recent years. Women now make up half of the graduates in my profession. You want to retain quality work/labor? You (business) adjust the way you produce and do business and you might see long term benefits. It has been a long road and we are far from a broad spectrum of good policies in the business world. But I see it changing every day. I'm an older mom and I have found myself in a good situation work-wise, but 20 years ago? I can't imagine.

I should note that the biggest line item in the U.S. budget (which is also the biggest entitlement) is Social Security. I've been paying out for years to support retired people. The alternative is to just let retired people fend for themselves. D-mn them if they didn't have the good sense to save, we (general we) say. Unfortunately the issue is not that simple. There are so many factors that go into the fact that Social Security is on the brink of destruction and I believe that is the subject of a whole other thread. Nonetheless, it is an entitlement, and is based on present generations paying for the "welfare" of the previous generations. It doesn't matter if you paid into the system, the payments that you pay underwrite the well-being of those who have reached retirement age. You're not banking any money for your own retirement. Another entitlement is Medicare, which also a safety net for older people. It is a huge line item in our national budget. It is huge in part because older people suffer more medical problems than younger generations, and health care costs are prohibitive when you're on a limited income (say, if your only income is social security). My point being is that we have come up with programs so that old people aren't out on the streets begging for change. Combine that with ageism and the fact that we are not a society which celebrates the extended family model anymore. We, as a society, have rejected the concept of taking care of our old within the family unit. It is sad.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CatsCradle*
> I should note that the biggest line item in the U.S. budget (which is also the biggest entitlement) is Social Security. ... It doesn't matter if you paid into the system, the payments that you pay underwrite the well-being of those who have reached retirement age.


How much one draws out from SS is directly tied to how much one paid into it. While it is true that our payments in go to provide for those older than us, and we are trusting later generations to pay for us, it DOES matter how much a person paid in each year, and how many years they paid in.

Its a bad example for what you are trying to prove.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> How much one draws out from SS is directly tied to how much one paid into it. While it is true that our payments in go to provide for those older than us, and we are trusting later generations to pay for us, it DOES matter how much a person paid in each year, and how many years they paid in.
> 
> Its a bad example for what you are trying to prove.


The point is that when Social Security came into being, the model was based on a younger generation paying for an older generation. It is a creature created by statute and can be amended or taken away by Congress. It is not a contractual right, as in the case of private insurance. The baby boom has blown the system out of the water. We have a huge retiring population which is relying on a reduced population to pay its way in retirement. It doesn't matter if I pay high social security taxes now, or that I'm entitled to a certain level of income upon retirement. I get my Social Security report every year and it tells me how much I'm entitled to upon retirement. I take it with a grain of salt because my entitlement is based entirely on whether the money is there or not. If the money isn't there when I retire, it isn't there. I have to plan otherwise (I actually think I'll be working into my 80's, but that doesn't bother me). But if social security fails for me, it will not be because a trust was breached, but because a significantly reduced population cannot support my entitlement. Essentially my social security taxes now are paying for a significantly larger population than my own generation. I don't view Social Security any differently than welfare. Both come out of my income and the only reason that people view Social Security differently than welfare is that we have proportioned our income tax in a way that allows us to feel that Social Security is a justified and noble cause. It's a line item on our pay stub. Let's take care of our old people. That makes us feel good about ourselves and our future. Welfare, however, comes out of our general income tax, and there is a stigma attached to welfare which gives us this judgmental attitude that welfare doesn't occupy the place and status of social security. Welfare is for bums and dropouts and losers, we say. Social security is for people who worked hard all their lives and paid into the system, we say. Fact is, we're all paying into the system for both social security and welfare, but social security has become legitimate in our eyes and therefore we don't complain. We get statements every year indicating how much we are entitled to. What if we got welfare statements every year, telling us how much we'd be entitled to if we had job loss or other economic failure? Would that help us feel better about welfare?

Not sure I was trying to prove anything by my previous post. Just saying that we have entitlement based programs in this country and when people start screaming about entitlements and their taxes, they have to realize that we pay significantly into a lot of entitlement based programs. Welfare is the fall guy. Why? Because we don't see young people as feeble and expect them to pick themselves up by the bootstraps, despite the circumstances. We have already decided that certain things are important to a national well being (i.e. social security), why aren't families important also? We really have to let go of the welfare queen image (which was a political construct) and start recognizing that in order to maintain a safe and compassionate society, we have to take care of the weakest among us. We keep focusing on the moms (or parents) here, but the real focus should be on the children. They are the weakest and most vulnerable here. Stop vilifying moms and start thinking about what we can do to change the plight/situations of children. What can we do provide access to education and resources so that they can break the cycle of poverty. So far the conversation has been about moms and dads as losers. Can we shift our focus? (asking America, not MDC).


----------



## sweetpeppers

Wow, I just read through all 12 pages of this thread and now I have a headache (though really I should have stopped after page 4 or 5 because after that it degenerated into a lot of childish back and forth).

I read through the whole thread because this is a topic that is extremely relevant to me. I am a single mother of one child. And I'm also a libertarian. And I believe with all my heart that children deserve the freedom of having a stable caregiver (preferably their mother or father, if those parties want to). All these beliefs come together with tumultuous results.

I come from an upper middle class family, but it was a make-your-own way sort of family. I started working at 16, I worked through college. I got pregnant right as I was graduating from college. I stayed at my job and went full time during the pregnancy. I had every intention of returning to work after having the baby. My son was a clingy baby. He would cry and scream hysterically any time *anyone* else held him. I lived with my parents at the time, so I was very lucky in that regard. I had paid maternity leave for 6 weeks, and I had planned to take four months unpaid family leave. I had planned to put my son in daycare, as I could not afford a nanny. Crunching the numbers, daycare would have taken most of what I made, while leaving me with very little time with my son. I made the decision (while living in the safety of my parents' home) to not go back to work.

Instead I got a paper route, I would take my son with me every morning from 3-6am, longer on weekends. It paid pretty well, though it was extremely stressful, and hard on my car (and body). I paid a small rent to my parents and for food and stuff. Then my parents started pressuring me to move out when my son was about a year old. After a brief stay at my brother's, I got a non-paying job as a live-in nanny (I got paid some to watch a neighbor girl as well), when that ended due to them losing their house, I moved back in with my parents, and looked for nanny jobs. It took me about 6 months to find another one, and around that time I started making toys. Christmas of that year, the toy thing really took off, and as I only had a very part time nanny job then, after Christmas, I decided to have a go at the toy thing, with possible babysitting jobs as well and whatever other ways I could make money. My parents really wanted me out at this point. And I decided to rather than kill myself trying to work however many jobs I needed to survive, I would sell my car, buy a van, and live in it.

LOL, it sounds crazy, but I was determined to do whatever it took to stay with my son. Anyway, we travelled around, sold the toys that I had made, were very, very broke most of the time, worked at an organic farm for a while (not a permanent job though). But the toy selling was picking back up, and I decided I needed a place to live. I headed out to West Virginia, the cheapest place in the country, and eventually I found an old house for $4,000. I borrowed $4,000 from my parents' and another $5,000 from a friend to make the bare minimal repairs and pay moving expenses (and pay off a delinquent credit card). Oh yeah, my van also became too expensive to repair, so after living in a vehicle, we now take the bus (yay for town bus services!).

Many times I have considered getting government assistance, but I haven't due to many beliefs that I hold. I have been fortunate enough, however, to receive support from my parents, mostly in terms of a place to live and also in the money borrowed for the house and other small monetary ways (like money for bus tickets to visit and occasional phone cards, etc.), and to receive support from my friend also by the loan. I am fortunate to be well-educated and well-loved.

I'm not telling my story to say that if I can do it, anyone can, because I don't believe that. I told my story, because it shows how mothers could be helped: by loans, by unconventional jobs, by living with family. But we have to demand these things! We also have to give generously. If you believe in helping mothers stay home with their children, how are you supporting this?

I have never applied for government money, because so much of it is just a trap. It keeps you down. How many heart-wrenching stories do we have to hear about mothers who are working and working and paying for daycare and having nothing to show for their hard work or their sacrifice?! My solution was just to opt out. I'm a hard worker. I never wanted to not work, but I had no interest in working myself to the bone with nothing to show for it. Plus it wasn't fair to my son, just because I got myself knocked up that he should have to live most of his childhood in an institutional setting.

The whole system just bothers me too much to take part in it. Read through some of these absurd stories on here! Fundamentally the system doesn't make sense. I know this an old argument, but if the state/federal will pay someone else to take care of my child while I work, why won't they pay me? There is an entire convoluted system set up that makes no sense. Our government wants people to have "jobs." If they create "jobs," then they are stimulating the economy. So we have jobs for all the government workers and everyone pays their salaries. Then we try to get Mother into a job, which then creates another job for someone else to watch her kid. I can't even bring myself to file for child support from my son's father, because the amount of money I MIGHT get from him would probably be less than the amount of money the government would spend to force him to give that money. (I know I'm going to get flack for that one.)

This is way too long, and I need to end it, even though I could go on all day. But I just want to end with the statement that I DO think we should be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children. But by we, I mean WE, not the government. The government always does things in the most wasteful, convoluted way possible. However, as this is the system we have at the moment, if a mother can collect welfare that will enable her to stay home with her kids (if that's even possible--since the whole point of welfare is to get you out of your home), I have no problem with her doing it.

I just wanted to repeat what I said earlier: *If you believe in helping mothers stay home with their children, how are you supporting this?*


----------



## CourtneyM-L

I can not believe this thread is still going strong. I also can't believe that some people that are posting are so angry. Does anyone here truly think that I like being on welfare ? I have twin boys that are now 16 months old. I once had a government employee tell me she wasn't going to reward me for getting pregnant with twins. She said it with so much disgust that I almost cried (I was postpartum). It wasn't like I was taking fertility drugs - the twins were a surprise - but also a great blessing. Some days I really hate my life. I am dealing with a horrible divorce and custody battle with a man that I once loved that decided he could sit at home, not work and drink all day. When I complained about his drinking and lack of providing for his family one too many times, he hit me. He broke the front door off the hinges. I chose to leave him and live in a DV shelter for 9 weeks because I felt it was the best choice for my children. I am welfare because right now it is the best choice for my children. Daycare for twins in my area is just under $300 a week. Minimum wage for a full time job would pay $300 a week before taxes were taken out. Income of $1200 a month would cost me my welfare benefits. So I would be paying a stranger (or company) to watch my twins for 50+ hours a week (full time work plus travel time on the bus) - not making a dime - and losing my benefits !!!!

What should I do instead ?

I have tried to find an at-home business. I have offered to babysit for other moms. I walk to the store and buy groceries 2 bags at a time since that is all I can fit on the back of my used double umbrella stroller. We take the bus if we have to go more than a mile or so. They don't allow the stroller on the bus - so I have to take the twins out of the stroller, fold it up, and then carry the twins, the stroller, diaper bag and anything else we needed that day onto the bus. Then do it all again to transfer. It can take an hour to get across my small town because of the bus schedule.

I am sitting here tonight full of anxiety because I have to let my EX have the boys next week for two visits of 48 hours straight (overnights included) in another town. My boys will be 2 hours away. They have never been without me. They won't have their cribs, music, things, routine. I don't know what to do with myself when somebody offers to hold one of them when we are at church - what will I do for 48 hours ? I really think that there are bigger issues to worry about !!!!! (Like my neighbor that gets unemployment, doesn't pay her rent, gets new tattoos and smoke pot in the house !) I would work if I could find work that paid enough to cover daycare in a suitable establishment. Work would give me a break from the stress of divorce/custody/raising children on my own.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> Plus, the more government pays, the more government tries to control what goes on in our homes.


This is one of the realities that makes me of two minds when I hear some people talking about how family-friendly Europe is. As I've already mentioned, we do draw food stamps, our girls' health care is covered by Medicaid, and dh and I get 100 % discounts for any medical care we need. This has not, so far, resulted in the government trying to exert any control over how we are raising our family.

However, in many countries in Europe, it is very difficult and sometimes even illegal to homeschool. I think unschooling would be very difficult or impossible there.

Our freedoms are very important to us. On the one hand, I think it would be absolutely lovely to be paid to stay home with my children for the first three years of their lives. On the other hand, both of mine are well past three now, and I strongly feel that it's best for them to have the freeedom to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. I love it that we're free to decide what's best for our children, irregardless of whether the majority of the population agrees with us. I'd hate to be in a place without these freedoms.


----------



## mammal_mama

Also, I think we are all different in terms of what level of neediness we feel justifies getting some help. I am not a single mother, and yet dh and I don't have a problem with availing ourselves of some assistance because it makes life so much less stressful for us.

Without the medical discount, dh might very well be dead now, because there have been many times where he's needed his insulin dose readjusted. This actually seems to be what his two TIA's were red flags for. It's hard enough sometimes, getting him to go in when he's having a problem, even now with the ER and doctor visits and tests, and even hospital stays, all covered. If he knew he'd be running up another bill that we couldn't pay, he'd probably quit even telling me when there was something weird going on in his body.

Without the girls' medicaid, we'd be in serious debt right now because they've both needed some dental care, one more than the other, and I simply wouldn't have been willing to let their teeth be ruined.

Without the food stamps, I'm sure we could live but we wouldn't have nearly as varied a diet or nearly as many fresh fruits and vegetables as we do now.

I don't think people need to be at the point of starvation or death to feel okay about getting whatever help they may qualify for.


----------



## purslaine

Not all countries that have more social spending programs outlaw HSing - at all. Canada is very easy to HS in. I know HSing is not illegal in numerous countries that have decent mat leave etc, the UK comes to mind.

I do think welfare and HSing might not be allowed, depending on the type of welfare program you are on. On normal welfare programs you are supposed to be looking for work - how is this going to happen if you are HSing? If your mom is HSing while you look for work you might be able to swing it.....This only applies to kids who are school age, of course.

In most provinces single parents of young children were exempt from looking for work due to there being young children - this does not extend into school years.


----------



## mammal_mama

kathymuggle, I did not mean that hs is illegal in all of the countries with good, family-friendly legislation. But I am pretty sure, from what I have read, that it's illegal or very difficult in Germany and Sweden. I've also read that it's highly regulated and difficult in some other European countries. I'm glad that this isn't the case in Great Britain or Canada -- so maybe I have nothing to worry about!

As far as qualifying for assistance when children are school-aged, I'm not sure how th is will work for us. Our youngest just turned six in March, so I've been wondering if, in the fall, dh might be required to report for job training or something. Or, maybe we'll lose our food stamps and medical coverage. It will be really rough if we lose medical.

And yet, even back when we were both working opposite schedules for a few months, we still qualified for the medical coverage, though of course our food stamps were lower. So I'm not sure what it will mean for us. We'll see.


----------



## mammal_mama

I also wanted to add that I wasn't specifically talking about the government paying a parent to stay home and unschool. In the U.S., there is definitely a requirement, once there are no children in the home under school age, that any parents who are capable of working be doing so, or be going to school or looking for work in order to continue to qualify for food stamps. For all I know, this may also be the case for children's Medicaid and adult hospital discounts.

We really don't expect special government concessions just because we homeschool. We could work opposite schedules if working were not so hard on dh with all his issues. He has looked into applying for disability, but the doctor at the hospital where he gets his care has explained that they are not allowed to fill out the paperwork for disability. I guess there's a requirement that people come up with the money out of their own pockets to see a doctor and get whatever tests are done in order to verify that there's a disability.

We should have enough money to do this when we get our income tax return this coming February, but it's unlikely that we'll have it before then. So dh is waiting until then to try to start the process, since he doesn't want to get started and then get dropped, and possibly have a long waiting period before he can apply again, because we couldn't come up with the money to do our part in a timely manner. In the meantime, I suppose he could report for job training or job searches or whatever he needs to do, if this is what's required for us to keep our medical coverage. Since I work from home, I can keep an eye on the girls while he's gone.

So, in a nutshell, my concern is NOT that I want special concessions for homeschooling. My concern is actually that I wouldn't want a situation where it became harder for everyone, on welfare or not, to homeschool. Since this isn't happening in Canada, though, maybe I shouldn't worry that it could happen here.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> Not all countries that have more social spending programs outlaw HSing - at all. Canada is very easy to HS in. I know HSing is not illegal in numerous countries that have decent mat leave etc, the UK comes to mind.


Homeschooling laws in Canada are set at the provencial level, not the national level. Some provinces, such as Quebec, are difficult to homeschool in. Quebec also has stronger socialism programs than most other provinces.

I believe In the UK, they are set at lower levels, too, with England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland all having the right to set their own laws about homeschooling. Last time I checked, homeschooling was illegal in N. Ireland.

Generally, there is direct link between how much the government gives people and how much like to control lives.

We can live in the US, Canada, or Europe, but chose the US. We like the lower taxes and less interference.


----------



## chaoticzenmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> Homeschooling laws in Canada are set at the provencial level, not the national level. Some provinces, such as Quebec, are difficult to homeschool in. Quebec also has stronger socialism programs than most other provinces.
> 
> I believe In the UK, they are set at lower levels, too, with England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland all having the right to set their own laws about homeschooling. Last time I checked, homeschooling was illegal in N. Ireland.
> 
> Generally, there is direct link between how much the government gives people and how much like to control lives.
> 
> We can live in the US, Canada, or Europe, but chose the US. We like the lower taxes and less interference.


We lived in France for awhile and moved back here (despite getting an automatic check for renting and having 3 children) every month while we were there. I like government helping people who need it, but not at the expense of small employers being able to be in business. It was really hard to get hired there, especially if you're a woman of childbearing age due to all of the benefits that people get (especially women). That kind of defeats the purpose of having laws to protect women if they can't get hired because of the laws. I love that here, we can be whoever we want to be, change jobs whenever we want, work however many hours we want, etc. We may give corporations too much freedom, but we also don't handicap the small employer. We really need a good, strong safety net for people that I don't think we have yet.


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chaoticzenmom*
> 
> We lived in France for awhile and moved back here (despite getting an automatic check for renting and having 3 children) every month while we were there. I like government helping people who need it, but not at the expense of small employers being able to be in business. It was really hard to get hired there, especially if you're a woman of childbearing age due to all of the benefits that people get (especially women). That kind of defeats the purpose of having laws to protect women if they can't get hired because of the laws. I love that here, we can be whoever we want to be, change jobs whenever we want, work however many hours we want, etc. We may give corporations too much freedom, but we also don't handicap the small employer. We really need a good, strong safety net for people that I don't think we have yet.


It is also my understanding (quite possibly mistaken) that in countries like Sweden that have generous maternity benefits women, on average, work lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs than men...


----------



## chaoticzenmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azgirl*
> 
> It is also my understanding (quite possibly mistaken) that in countries like Sweden that have generous maternity benefits women, on average, work lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs than men...


I don't know about that since I never worked there. It seems that once you get your foot in the door, you're pretty well protected legally, no matter your sex.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> Homeschooling laws in Canada are set at the provencial level, not the national level. Some provinces, such as Quebec, are difficult to homeschool in. Quebec also has stronger socialism programs than most other provinces.
> 
> I believe In the UK, they are set at lower levels, too, with England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland all having the right to set their own laws about homeschooling. Last time I checked, homeschooling was illegal in N. Ireland.
> 
> *Generally, there is direct link between how much the government gives people and how much like to control lives.*


According to this site, it is legal to HS in N. Ireland:

http://www.hedni.org/legal-information/

In any event, I think much of what you wrote is true. I agree the bolded is somewhat true.

I am also fairly sure you are a reasonably wealthy woman. You might not care so much about government intervention if you were poor and it meant more dollars in your pocket. I have often felt the USA was a country of extremes in most ways. Economically, it is a great place to live for the rich, and probably not so great for the poor. I might be wrong, though, I am not American. Governments should put systems in place that help all socio-economic groups though.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azgirl*
> 
> It is also my understanding (quite possibly mistaken) that in countries like Sweden that have generous maternity benefits *women, on average, work lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs than men...*


This is true in the US, too.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

I am poking my head in to remind folks that name calling is still not allowed. Please, I understand that emotions run high on this subject, but please edit to remove name calling.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> This is true in the US, too.


Canada, too. Women earn around 70% of what men do, for the same number of hours of work. I do not think it comes down to mat leave or any other financial programs for families - but due to the fact that:

a) women work in more service positions that do not pay as well

b) women work part time, and part time work is valued less.

Changing this dynamic will help women and families as much (more) as discussing welfare issues.


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drummer's Wife*
> 
> This is true in the US, too.


Yes, I should have specified that my understanding is that the wage gap between men and women in Sweden is bigger than ours. I just don't have a source or reference and haven't been able to find one easily. I think I may have to look for one...


----------



## Dandelionkid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CatsCradle*
> 
> We keep focusing on the moms (or parents) here, but the real focus should be on the children. They are the weakest and most vulnerable here. Stop vilifying moms and start thinking about what we can do to change the plight/situations of children. What can we do provide access to education and resources so that they can break the cycle of poverty. So far the conversation has been about moms and dads as losers. Can we shift our focus? (asking America, not MDC).


Excellent point. Shifting perspective from parents to kids would hopefully make welfare much less prevalent in the future.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I am also fairly sure you are a reasonably wealthy woman. You might not care so much about government intervention if you were poor and it meant more dollars in your pocket.










In the US, we are very solidly middle class. My DH is an engineer who worked his way up.

In Canada, we really struggled because taxes were so much higher and Canada dollars buy less then US dollars. We lived in both Quebec and Ontario, and I was a SAHM and we homeschooled both places.

I couldn't have afforded to stay home with my children for as long as I have if we had stayed in Canada. We would have continued to struggle until I got a job. The same is true in the UK -- I would have to work for us to get buy. The SAHM and homeschooling issues would have ended the minute our kids passed the magic age that the government decided it wasn't important for me to be home.

I've had more time with our kids because taxes are lower here.

Honestly, in Canada, we were broke.


----------



## Dandelionkid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> Homeschooling laws in Canada are set at the provencial level, not the national level. Some provinces, such as Quebec, are difficult to homeschool in. Quebec also has stronger socialism programs than most other provinces.
> 
> I believe In the UK, they are set at lower levels, too, with England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland all having the right to set their own laws about homeschooling. Last time I checked, homeschooling was illegal in N. Ireland.
> 
> Generally, there is direct link between how much the government gives people and how much like to control lives.
> 
> We can live in the US, Canada, or Europe, but chose the US. We like the lower taxes and less interference.


A bit of a generalization. I'm sure some States are much harder to homeschool in also. Where I am from in Canada we have very little restriction in homeschooling despite being given several hundred a year for supplies etc.

Also regarding lower taxes, there seems to be very little difference between the two countries http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes.htm. The difference is that the American system allows for a much greater disparity between the very rich and very poor. If the States government truly has less interference in the lives of it's people it comes at quite a cost to a large portion of its people.


----------



## SuburbanHippie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azgirl*
> 
> It is also my understanding (quite possibly mistaken) that in countries like Sweden that have generous maternity benefits women, on average, work lower-paying, lower-skilled jobs than men...


You would be hard pressed to find ANY country that doesn't have this problem. Women in Sweden earn about 15% less than what men earn. Women in the US earn less than that.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dandelionkid*
> 
> Also regarding lower taxes, there seems to be very little difference between the two countries http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/taxes.htm. The difference is that the American system allows for a much greater disparity between the very rich and very poor. If the States government truly has less interference in the lives of it's people it comes at quite a cost to a large portion of its people.


Another poster said my views must be based on being wealthy, and I explained that they are based on having lived (and paid taxes) in both countries. Statistics from Canada aren't going to convince me that my real life experiences were different than they were!

I only skimmed your article, but it seemed to focus on federal income tax. The Provencial income tax in Quebec was the VERY highest taxes we've paved anywhere. It was equal to what we paid in Canadian federal tax. I've heard it is the highest in Canada. Additionally, we paid 15% sales tax, which also came as a huge shock.

Taxes vary in different parts of Canada, just as they do in different parts of the US. The cost of living varies widely as well within each country.

None the less, the higher taxes and less purchasing power of the dollars that were left was the difference between me being able to comfortable stay home with my kids, and me not being able to.

There are pros and cons to each system. There were some things I like about living in Canada, but the economic impact on my family wasn't one of them.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I am also fairly sure you are a reasonably wealthy woman. You might not care so much about government intervention if you were poor and it meant more dollars in your pocket.


Hmm. I know this comment wasn't addressed to me...but now I'm wondering if the fact that I still value my freedom means that I'm "reasonably wealthy" and just somehow magically qualify for food stamps and medical assistance.

Oh, well, at least I don't have any $100 jeans. It does, however, cost me A LOT to buy bras and swimsuits that fit properly, mainly because I weigh about 300 lbs and wear an F or a G-cup. But maybe it'll give jealous folks some comfort to know that I wear those bras 'til the underwires break and start jabbing me, then I pull out the wires and keep on wearing 'em, like, forever...


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Hmm. I know this comment wasn't addressed to me...but now I'm wondering if the fact that I still value my freedom means that I'm "reasonably wealthy" and just somehow magically qualify for food stamps and medical assistance.


And what do you value more? Your freedom (whatever the heck that means) or your food stamps? (fwiw, I wish freedom and social programs did not go hand and hand (and they do not always).

We would need to define freedom to discuss this properly. Freedom to do what, exactly?


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, we are very solidly middle class. My DH is an engineer who worked his way up.
> 
> In Canada, we really struggled because taxes were so much higher and Canada dollars buy less then US dollars. We lived in both Quebec and Ontario, and I was a SAHM and we homeschooled both places.
> 
> I couldn't have afforded to stay home with my children for as long as I have if we had stayed in Canada. We would have continued to struggle until I got a job. The same is true in the UK -- I would have to work for us to get buy. The SAHM and homeschooling issues would have ended the minute our kids passed the magic age that the government decided it wasn't important for me to be home.
> 
> I've had more time with our kids because taxes are lower here.
> 
> Honestly, in Canada, we were broke.


That is not the impression I have gotten from you (over many posts) but I could be wrong. We may define wealthy and middle class differently. I reread my post earlier - it seemed a little snarky/personal. Apologies.


----------



## Alenushka

Honestly, no, I am not interested in paying someone welfare because it is their lifestyle choice to stay home. But again...no one asks me. My taxes pay for things far, far worse like 2 billion a week for the war and billions for Goldman Sucks bail out.

I do find it appalling how many 'by choice welfare moms because I do not want my kid in day care" make condescending remarks about moms who work outside home.

You know, someone has to pay for all of it. I found a way to work from home with babies, my husband change his career and then my kids went to preshool. So, I worked and I work and I pay taxes. Most of my taxes pay for thing I disagree with....but that's OK. That is part of living in US, I guess.


----------



## CatsCradle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> This is one of the realities that makes me of two minds when I hear some people talking about how family-friendly Europe is. As I've already mentioned, we do draw food stamps, our girls' health care is covered by Medicaid, and dh and I get 100 % discounts for any medical care we need. This has not, so far, resulted in the government trying to exert any control over how we are raising our family.
> 
> However, in many countries in Europe, it is very difficult and sometimes even illegal to homeschool. I think unschooling would be very difficult or impossible there.
> 
> Our freedoms are very important to us. On the one hand, I think it would be absolutely lovely to be paid to stay home with my children for the first three years of their lives. On the other hand, both of mine are well past three now, and I strongly feel that it's best for them to have the freeedom to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. I love it that we're free to decide what's best for our children, irregardless of whether the majority of the population agrees with us. I'd hate to be in a place without these freedoms.


I think it is unfair to compare the European (and specifically German) policies on homeschooling with the American system of freedoms or even the social welfare system here in the U.S.. Both countries (US and Germany) are coming from very different positions. I believe that Germany's main goal (as far as education goes) is retroactive. Given its recent history, Germany seeks to be inclusive as far as minorities and viewpoints, and they seek to enforce this by requiring that children be educated outside the home. I'm not saying that I agree with their methods in principle, but I don't think that we occupy the same positions historically to make a fair comparison. Germany is super sensitive about not repeating its past. Freedom of speech as we know it is also limited in Germany. I can understand how this squeamishness came about, and while I think that the German people are quite capable of handling their issues on their own now without governmental interference, they are at a place in their history where they have not quite reached a point where they feel safe. Not speaking for Germans, but I do understand, in theory, why they operate this way and it is not tied to governmental assistance, per se. Limitation of freedoms there (certain freedoms as we know them) are directly or indirectly related to correcting the past. It is not about high taxes and the government in your house as result of.


----------



## Lisa1970

I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.


Are you OK with taxes going to schools and such?


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> That is not the impression I have gotten from you (over many posts) but I could be wrong. We may define wealthy and middle class differently. I reread my post earlier - it seemed a little snarky/personal. Apologies.


It is possible that we use the words differently. My kids go to private school, but my car has 130,000 miles on it and it isn't getting replaced any time soon! I live in a lovely home, but it isn't huge and I clean it myself. We have to set our priorities with our money, but we have more than many people and feel very blessed. We aren't rich.

On this thread other posters have said that I must be on assistance to hold my views, so in a way it's funny that you said I must be wealthy.

Apology accepted. Lets go back to being buddies.


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lisa1970*
> 
> I pay my own children's bills or my dh does anyway. It is not right to make people who don't have children pay for the welfare of those who have children. It is just not right. I would have/could have profited a lot off of laws like these. But, I would not want to. It is wrong and I should not have to pay in to such a program either.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> Are you OK with taxes going to schools and such?


I think it's all just a difference in where we each draw that line. On the radio this week, they talked about the need to watch speed limits in school zones because kids are walking back and forth to eat. Our city has a lot of kids on free and reduced lunch and breakfast program, and those kids are still provided meals through the schools even when school is out of session. I've never heard ANYONE in the US complain about this program.

But I'm with Lisa, I don't want to pay money to just give to families. I'd rather pay a little money to be used to make sure the weakest members of our society are OK, but keep most of my money to make my own life, or give to charities, or whatever.

yet, I don't think we are really that far apart in what we think. It's just where we draw that line.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> It is possible that we use the words differently. My kids go to private school, but my car has 130,000 miles on it and it isn't getting replaced any time soon! I live in a lovely home, but it isn't huge and I clean it myself. We have to set our priorities with our money, but we have more than many people and feel very blessed. We aren't rich.
> 
> On this thread other posters have said that I must be on assistance to hold my views, so in a way it's funny that you said I must be wealthy.
> 
> Apology accepted. Lets go back to being buddies.


OT a little but I think a lot of assumptions are made in general where money is concerned.

I travel regularly. It is where we spend our money (I am middle class). DS has friends who call him rich because we travel a lot. I know their parents make as much money as we do. Money and perceptions are interesting things.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> And what do you value more? Your freedom (whatever the heck that means) or your food stamps? (fwiw, I wish freedom and social programs did not go hand and hand (and they do not always).
> 
> We would need to define freedom to discuss this properly. Freedom to do what, exactly?


I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.

CatsCradle, I do understand that the German government probably does look at everything from a different vangage point -- but, then, I've heard that homeschooling is also illegal or, at the least, very difficult, in Sweden and some other parts of Europe. True, every country has its own unique history so maybe it's not fair to compare.

And yet -- people do compare the helps that are available to many European families with the welfare system in the U.S., Given our different histories, maybe those kinds of comparisons are unfair, too.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.


There are several programs that help families with less money in Canada. Child tax, mat leave, universal child allowance and any provincial money does not relate at all to HSing. You get them if you qualify, they are based on age of kids or income or both and that is that. Really, it is a check that comes in the mail. They determine if I get in based on my tax form.

I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work. There may be loopholes and exceptions. I doubt this is different in the USA. As noted upthread - USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work. There may be loopholes and exceptions. I doubt this is different in the USA. As noted upthread - USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.


I think what you are saying is that in families who don't have any children under six (or whatever age is considered "school aged" in the state or region in question), both parents need to be working, looking for work, or getting some sort of training or education in order to qualify for government assistance. Yes, this is true in the U.S., too. At least, I'm pretty sure that it's true for the food stamps program, but I'm not sure whether it applies to things like children's Medicaid or adult medical discounts.

Of course, if both parents are working regular day shifts, Monday through Friday, this would most likely mean that the children need to go to school. However, I can tell you that back when dh and I were both working (before his health worsened), we worked opposite hours so that one of us could always be with our girls. So we kept homeschooling, and, even with two incomes, we still qualified for food stamps (though we naturally got less than we do now), Medicaid for the girls, and 100% hospital discounts for dh and me.

I'm not sure if, by welfare, you mean only TANF and not food or medical assistance. If that's your definition, then maybe you don't even see the help that my family is getting as welfare. I think the rules are a lot stricter with TANF, but, then again, TANF is only a short-term thing whereas, at least in the U.S., you can get food and medical assistance for however long you qualify based on each program's criteria.

That said, when I spoke of the freedom to home school, I was talking about straight-across-the-board freedom for everyone in that country. It's my understanding that, in some of the countries that are touted as being the most family-friendly, homeschooling is either illegal or very difficult -- not just for poor families, but for all families residing in those countries. Of course, I do get what the other poster said about every government growing into its own way of looking at things based on its own unique history.

So maybe there's no real way to compare or to accurately predict what might happen here if we were to start having three years of paid maternity leave, and so on. Maybe this would have absolutely no affect on our freedom to let our children direct their own educations if they so choose. Or maybe it would. Who really knows?


----------



## mamayogibear

Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> I do find it appalling how many 'by choice welfare moms because I do not want my kid in day care" make condescending remarks about moms who work outside home.


----------



## mammal_mama

mamayogibear, I think the poster you quoted was talking about one-income families, such as my own, where one parent is working and the family receives things like food stamps and Medicaid for the children. In these cases, as long as you have one child under school age (in our case in Missouri I think the cutoff is age 6), it's permissible to receive these non-cash benifits even if one parent is not earning any money. I think that once all the children are old enough to be in school all day, both parents are expected to be working, studying, or looking for work for the family to keep getting food stamps. This may also be the case for the chidlren's Medicaid.

Welfare includes more than just cash assistance.


----------



## joensally

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Linda on the move*
> 
> Another poster said my views must be based on being wealthy, and I explained that they are based on having lived (and paid taxes) in both countries. Statistics from Canada aren't going to convince me that my real life experiences were different than they were!
> 
> I only skimmed your article, but it seemed to focus on federal income tax. The Provencial income tax in Quebec was the VERY highest taxes we've paved anywhere. It was equal to what we paid in Canadian federal tax. I've heard it is the highest in Canada. Additionally, we paid 15% sales tax, which also came as a huge shock.
> 
> Taxes vary in different parts of Canada, just as they do in different parts of the US. The cost of living varies widely as well within each country.
> 
> None the less, the higher taxes and less purchasing power of the dollars that were left was the difference between me being able to comfortable stay home with my kids, and me not being able to.
> 
> There are pros and cons to each system. There were some things I like about living in Canada, but the economic impact on my family wasn't one of them.


That makes sense. I think it really does depend on where one sits economically.

I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control. Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada? Those can off-set some of the tax burden.

Looking at OECD numbers, the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada by a long shot, at the government level and at the individual/employer level. Yet, the life expectancy and child mortality rates are worse than in Canada. I think it would likely be better to be poor in Canada than the US (ie no employer sponsored healthcare). I don't have the energy to look up a bunch of numbers but it's when you look at the total tax burden + user fees + benefits in totality that one can conclude that for their circumstances one jurisdiction is better than another.

I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.

In principle, I would love to see more kids have a parent at home longer. Tolerance for the stretching of the public purse that far would never happen though.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joensally*
> 
> I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.


As I keep saying, in Missouri, you can receive non-cash benefits and have one parent who's not working or going to school as long as there is a child in the home under school age.

About the lower mortality rates in Canada, I think this may be at least partially due to Canada's lower obesity rates. Are Canadians less likely to consume the standard American diet? I'm not saying that obesity accounts for the whole difference, since it looks like there's not any or much difference in childhood obesity, but I can't help wondering if there may be some other differences, such as in diet or lifestyle that impact health. Or, do you (whoever has an opinion) think mortality rates are pretty closely linked to medical care?

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/united-states-vs-canada-which-has-the-lower-obesity-rate/


----------



## Lillitu

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


----------



## SuburbanHippie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lillitu*
> 
> Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Just flag her posts.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

She's gone, anyway - asked to have her account removed, so I doubt she'll be back.

Plenty of people take issue with welfare; there is, however, a way to argue your point respectfully.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## azgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lillitu*
> 
> Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Can you define classist for me? I found the posts slightly offensive due to the aggressive style, but I didn't find them bigoted or classist. I'm not being argumentative or snarky, I want to understand your point of view. Could you point me to specific words or phrases that you feel where bigoted or classist?


----------



## Linda on the move

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joensally*
> I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control. Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada? Those can off-set some of the tax burden.
> 
> yes, it is. It's one of the reasons it annoys me when people say "Canada does X" because so many things are at the provincial level. There isn't a "Canadian Health Care System," there's one system in Ontario, and one in Quebec, and one in Manitoba, etc. And they really differ in quality. Americans tend to be very ignorant about Canada -- half of them don't know the capitol and couldn't tell you which provinces border the US, but they think they understand the health care system.
> 
> Canadians, though, are often ignorant about key aspects of what social supports to exist in the US, such as charity hospitals, clinics with sliding scales, etc. Some of the things people said to me when I was up there were pretty out there. We really aren't as barbaric as many Canadians have been led to believe.
> 
> However, Quebec is an excellence example of more social support, higher taxes, and more social control.
> 
> When we were living Quebec, the leading cause of death for adults under 45 was suicide. I don't know if that's related, but there seems to be a belief in the US that "if only the government did x, everyone could be happy," and that's clearly not the case. Quebec does everything, and a lot of people there are miserable.
> 
> We HATED living in Quebec. We ended up moving to Ontario and my DH commuted to his job in Quebec, which really screwed us up because we didn't qualify for anything from either province, and we paid Quebec taxes.
> 
> I would far rather the government let me keep my money and decide how to spend, than to take it away and then decide whether or not I can have it back. I like a capitalist system with floor. No one should go hungry. Everyone should receive basic medical care.
> 
> I am OK with the two tire system. The health care system in Quebec is similar to what poor people in the states get. I went to Canada a fan of universal health care, and came up thinking it meant "equally crappy care for all." (Ontario's was better, but not in line with what we get in the US. Our providers in Ontario -- doctors and dentists -- were EXCELLENT. But the system isn't adequate for the number of people it serves. It just isn't.
> 
> We've lived in the UK as well as Canada, and we prefer living in the US.


----------



## purslaine

Quebec is different in many way than other provinces (I lived there for many years). I do not like Quebec - much of what Linda said is very true. I think the suicide rate is multi factorial.

I have seen people on welfare in Quebec - and it is not pretty. The government is so worried about fraud and people getting it when they do not need it that they are a total pain in the ass. Lots of paperwork and rules. People end up fighting with the government constantly. Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption if you are on welfare that you are not very capable. (My positive experience with welfare was in BC. I have heard it is a little less positive now, but still. Yeah, B.C !.) The resources welfare offers are often borderline insulting - how to cook, how to budget, literacy. I do know some people do not know these things - but there was no real retraining or anything similar for those that needed help finding a job, but actually know the food groups, thank you very much. I also think it is common for governments to give people enough to survive (just) but hardly thrive. Sadly I doubt this attitude is unique to Quebec.

For individuals, I think it is a better to be off welfare. It is not a great way of life and people who are not on welfare seem happier than those I have seen on welfare (although does welfare cause this, or are the issues that cause people to need welfare at the root? Both, I think)

However, individual needs are not the same as provincial or state policy. We need to feed and shelter people while they figure out how to get off welfare. We need programs that support people in getting off welfare. We need to figure out ways to break the poverty cycle/generational poverty. To a degree we need to accept that poverty is always going to be with us. We should not punish children for their parents being on welfare (no matter how they ended up on welfare).

OT - I have also had great medical care across the board in Ontario. There can be long wait times, but I have never had trouble getting timely care in an emergency. Quebec can be good or bad - but it is much less consistent in its care. Whenever we visit Quebec we joke that if anyone gets sick we are driving to the nearest town over the Ontario border.

And lastly, I think much of Canadians and Americans ignorance of each is thanks to the media, and extremists on issues, who paint the other country and their ideas as demonic.


----------



## mammal_mama

Yesterday I had a great time reading John Stuart MIll's essay "On Liberty." (You can read it online here http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm if you want).

It really got me thinking about the different views we all have about the role of government in the life of the inidividual. I realize Mill would probably be appalled that there are now families, such as my own, receiving government assistance with things like food and medical care.

I think we are all really different in terms of where we draw the line on these things. For example, I've developed a personal code wherein, if I decide to help someone, I just help them and I no longer attach myself to what that person does with my help or whether that person is living as I think he or she should be living. It's so much less stressful that way, and I feel so much freer now that i realize I really do have a choice about whether to do things for people.

Of course, in the case of welfare, I realize the individual taxpayers don't have that moment by moment choice about where their money goes. If I were in a higher tax bracket, maybe I'd be better to understand the angst that some people feel about their hard-earned taxes going to help families like mine. As it is, I've paid relatively little in taxes and, well, dh and I are usually in a big hurry to file our returns because of the huge chunk we currently get back every year...

So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.

But, about Mill, the thing that really impressed me was what he had to say about determining the extent to which the opinion of the majority should be allowed to constrain the individual. He felt that this should just be limited to cases of self-defense or defense of people who are being harmed and can't defend themselves.

And, of course, we all draw the line differently when it comes to defining harm and determining who we think is being harmed. For example, some in my family think that dh and I are harming our girls by unschooling them. Thankfully, the government in our area does not currently have much jurisdiction over homeschooling families, save for those cases in which social workers feel that there are signs of possble abuse or neglect. But then, I imagine social workers are individuals, too, and though they have some guidelines, there probably are some cases where one social worker might see a need to get involved with a family but another social worker wouldn't.

I just hope that all social workers have read Mill.


----------



## shantimama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lillitu*
> 
> Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post.


----------



## chaoticzenmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shantimama*
> 
> The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post.


In this case, I've handled the situation. I felt like the earlier offensive comments added too much to the conversation to pull it easily, so I left it. If I had seen in in the first few minutes, I would have pulled it, but since many people put thoughtful posts afterwards, it didn't seem fair to remove it all. A lot of it has actually been removed.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.


Yes. I have felt a lack of empathy for whining (judging perhaps, but it is how I felt) from wealthy folk on taxation, welfare, etc. I have mellowed a bit as I age, but I still have no issues with any of my tax dollars going to social spending. Sometimes I wish the money was spent differently within certain social spending programs, but I have no issues with it in general.

Someone up tread mentioned classism and I wonder if this plays into it? Painting in very broad strokes - but different classes complaining about the other classes and how the government spends on it does look like classism.

I think it is the governments job to try and meet the needs of its people - of all classes. I do tend to think that because a) rich people have more power and influence and b) most government officials come from wealthy-ish backgrounds, that policy might sway slightly in favour of the rich. Add in that some policy that helps the wealthy helps everybody (example - low taxes attracting businesses) and it is a whole big ball of wax.


----------



## Alenushka

I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.


----------



## purslaine

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.


You can whine if you want to







Indeed, me whining about wealthy whining is still whining.

I think mammal mama hit it on the head that empathy is what is needed.

I agree the middle class (particularly the lower middle class) has it rougher financially than many others.


----------



## aparent

I feel that as the other children of the world will

be my children's friends, countrymen, coworkers

and world citizens then my parenting should embody

a concern for all the world's children and if any parent

has a situation that allows them more time with

their children or less financial stress which lets

them parent more effectively than that's great.

I hope that efforts would be made so that more

and more parents are freed to focus on the next

generation as we all focus not on the gross national

product (GNP) but more and more on great national

parenting.


----------



## Alenushka

If someone lacks skills or opportunities in their region to get a job that pays a wage that will cove living expenses and day care, I am happy to cover welfare costs for them so they can stay home and not starve.

However,ifis someones has skills, education and job available that will cover their living expenses and day care.... I am not interested in paying for their lifestyle while I am working, paying day care and then doing all that mother do at home. I my eyes it is a fraud.

If you do not feel like working, but actually could, then stay home on your own dime. It is not my job to subsidize you lifestyle.


----------



## mammal_mama

Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.

Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.

I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.

It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.


----------



## littlest birds

I don't mind. There is not enough welfare available for it to be "milking the system" or anything. It's a very uncomfortable lifestyle, and welfare will not truly pay your way enough for a mom to just stay home. If it's a couple and one is working, I am glad to help the other stay home because I think that they are doing enough if the child(ren) are young and one parent is fully employed--the investment is usually worth it--worth it often enough for me to gamble on it anyhow.

And having children with moms when young is valuable to society. I hop they are being nurturing moms, anyway. But it's not my business to judge. I just think that taking good care of young children benefits society. Being a mom is very important work, and I hate poverty to take away from a young vulnerable mom her feelings of connection with a young baby when it is maybe the only thing of value in her life t that time.

I was once a single mom and worked as a nanny five days a week part time to pay rent, my young (1yo) daughter was with me, and I also received welfare at that time without which I could not have made it work or been with my daughter. It would have destroyed me to be forced out of that situation that preserved our relationship. I would have been stretched near or beyond my breaking point and become a much worse parent without that temporary safety net. It has been years since I received any public assistance, and for much of that period we've still qualified with our low income.

I make it a habit not to judge people who receive public assistance. I have no idea how long they have received or will receive it, what their options are, and how well they would manage or how their children would do under the pressure of a different situation where that assistance weren't available.

I fully value a mother's work in caring for her own children. That means I find it heartbreaking that so many mothers struggle with poverty and the shame of receiving public assistance in order to do what they know is right. Money is only one ingredient of family stability. Time and attention are essential and I know that I fall apart with a 40-hrs schedule plus parenting responsibilities--during the time I have I end up a terrible mom just trying to recover from that exhaustion. I really don't mind contributing to the livelihoods of families in tenuous situations. A stay at home mom brings a great deal of stability to a family on the edge of survival, and that means a better future for everyone.

Her labor is NOT more valuable to society as an employee than with her children. Employment is an acceptable choice as well. Her choice. There is no incentive money-wise really to stay on welfare for most people. That means she is doing it as a compromise, and it is not easy to choose it either.

And to the PP who said that she doesn't think nonparents should have to contribute I think that is tragic. When we are elderly we will be cared for by other people's children who have become doctors and farmers and service providers of all sorts. If you haven't faced the work (UNPAID WORK) of contributing to the childrearing burden thus doing your part in raising future citizens, maybe you even owe those who are doing it a little bit more.  Because our children will take care of you.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hannah32*
> 
> I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help."
> 
> I refuse to play that game. I support paid parental leave for all and a better social safety net for all, including single-payer health care.


I agree. I'm to the point where when I hear someone middle-class complaining about how people getting assistance are so "lucky" or "lazy" and "why can't *everyone* get help?" I want to say, "Okay, let's do it this way. The $100/month that I am/was *so* lucky/lazy to get, that is limited to 24 months in a lifetime, go ahead and use it. You can have it, right now. But when you lose your $32/hour job, and you are too "lazy" to be able to make your bills or whatever, *sorry* you wanted your help right then. Used it up. Never, in my entire *working* adult life, even with DF and I both working, have we even come *close* to $32/hour, even combined.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> If having your tax dollars go to welfare bothers you then don't worry. My tax dollars are going to welfare. Yours are just going to roads and schools. I'd prefer mine to go to welfare anyway. Who, knows, I might need it someday. Better to pay in now so I don't feel guilty later. Problem solved.












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azgirl*
> 
> Just night after night of people buying booze and cigarettes along with food with their food stamp card. People with fresh tattoos using food stamps. I am pretty shocked at people that think it's okay for people to get any assistance and also buy 100 dollar jeans. It's shocking. If you don't think that is abusing the system, then I guess I see why you don't think most people abuse the system...
> 
> So what you're saying is, if you get assistance, you don't deserve anything nice, and every bit of money you *do* have should *only* go to necessities? Now don't get me wrong, I think that $100 for a pair of jeans is frivolous, and I would never do it, but I don't think it's fair that if you are needing assistance, you should only have the bare minimum, and never anything nice. When you are having hard times, that is *especially* the time when I think you should do a little bit of something nice for yourself/your family. It keeps you from falling apart.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to call people who are angry about this issue "trolls" it is hard to remain respectful sometimes if you work tooth and nail for what you have while others have better stuff on your dime. Isn't it perfectly reasonable to be upset by that???? Explain how you address the inequity inherent in a working person deciding not to have more kids than they can pay for while someone receiving assistance chooses to continue having children? *Or how it must feel to be working at 1 am at Walmart while yet another person with a brand-new iPhone uses food stamps (or card as it were) to buy groceries?* It does explain the perplexing, to some, fact that so many struggling, working-class people are politically conservative.
> 
> How do you know the iPhone wasn't a gift? How do you know it wasn't acquired before whatever happened that they needed the assistance?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamayogibear*
> 
> The TANF program really pisses me off. You have to sign up when you dont' have a job or you have an income that disqualifies you. So you have to be jobless to get in the program. But while jobless you have to send your kids to a government funded daycare for at least 25 hours a week. No matter how much job searching you are not going to be in interviews for 25 hours a week! You can't be a stay at home mom and on TANF they make you leave your kid at a state run daycare for at least 25 hours a week and tried to make me leave my baby for 32 hours!!!
> 
> I did TANF for one month in April because I was looking for a job as a CNA and couldn't find one. I had two interviews a week about an hours each. So while my kids had to be in daycare all day everyday I had intereviews for two of the twenty-five hours! The rest of the time I was job searching online, calling places emailing my resume etc...
> 
> The worksource program seems like a sham to me, you have to go to their office every day when you could be doing something useful instead and you have to leave your kid in a state run daycare all day everyday. It seems like the only jobs that the TANF program helps create are ones in the over croweded state run daycares. I've had an interview since I dropped out of the program and had my one friend watch the kids. It sure seemed better than being away from them for 25 hours a week just to go to an interview!
> 
> Needless to say I've dropped out of their program, they can keep their three hundred dollars a month. I'd rather have no money and time with my baby! Aside from a few bills we don't have any expenses, we cloth diaper and use hand me downs for clothes and toys... I've found a work at home job but I'm not sure if it's a scam or not but hey I'd rather work online for ten hours a week and not get paid than be away from my kids all day and not get paid!
> 
> Maybe once I find a job but haven't started working I'll sign up for TANF again so I can afford to send my kids to daycare while I work (I doubt my income will be over the price of two kids in daycare though).
> 
> End of vent about how much TANF pisses me off. Thanks for listening!


It must be different in different states, mamayogibear. I didn't have to send my kids to daycare, they stayed home with my mom. I didn't have to go to worksource program every day, I just had to go in every week and turn in my paper from filling out applications. I agree, though, that worksource didn't do anything for me with regards to finding a job. Their "assistance" at least from my experience, was directing me to indianacareerconnect.com and me, by myself, going through and filling out applications, which was the exact. same. thing. I was doing at home, from the exact. same. website...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
> 
> Regarding the $100 pair of jeans, if I'm poor and collect welfare, and my loved one sends me birthday money, or I save $10 a week for 10 weeks, or I actually have $100 leftover after bills for once in my life and need a new pair of pants for work, then I damn sure have the right to buy those jeans. Poor people have the right to a few nice things; it's not like you don't deserve to have anything but the bare necessities ever if you're receiving help...what a ridiculous notion. Poor people should do nothing but be poor, I guess *eyeroll*


This is a *very* common attitude I have come across. To the extent of, "You shouldn't be able to buy certain foods with food stamps! If you want that, get off your arse and get a job, just like I did!"

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamayogibear*
> 
> Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...


I don't know what state you are in, mamayogibear, but in Indiana, I did not have to put my children in daycare at all when I looked for work. I just had to spend 20 hours/week filling out applications, and either print out the "congratulations, you've completed the application" page if it was online, or copy the application (if it was paper copy), and turn that in with a paper that said what day I looked for work, from when to when did I work on what application, etc.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. *And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.*
> 
> Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.
> 
> I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.
> 
> It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.


The limits here (Indiana) for TANF were for 24 months in a lifetime. It wasn't/isn't just for women. I'm not sure what the requirements/regulations are, but we were DH, DD, DS, and I.

We have used assistance before, and while I didn't feel guilty when we started using it (We were homeless, DH, DD, and I, after DH and I both lost our jobs), between the case workers "And how long has your husband been laz- I mean, unemployed for?" and the looks and comments we got from people at the grocery store... sometimes I felt like the scum of the earth. We are receiving food stamps now, and the kids and I get medicaid, but that wasn't how we wanted/planned for it to be. I was working a *very* nice job, albeit very physically demanding, and was planning to work until at least middle or end of February before going on leave for pregnancy, but I was being harassed at work, and when I went to Human Resources to get it resolved, they pretty much told me I should have expected it, and that it was my fault, and I would "get used to it in time." When I realized it was affecting not only my mental health (I was having anxiety attacks almost every day while getting ready and driving to work), but also my physical health (my blood pressure was reading around 160/110 the entire time I was dealing with the harassment), I realized I couldn't work there anymore. I have been looking for part-time work, something short-term, that would supplement what DF makes until April, but no such luck thus far, and we're struggling. While he is making more than he ever has in his life, I was the primary income, making almost twice as much as he does, so now, we're down to less than half of what our income was. I don't feel quite as guilty getting the assistance now, but I still do. I'm really only doing it for the kids. After the baby is born, I am going to go back to school, to get my CNA certification, then when the baby is old enough to not need me all the time, I'm going to look for work doing in-home care. I don't intend to be on assistance forever. I didn't even want to be now.

This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.


----------



## mammal_mama

bmcneal, worrying over other people's opinions is so totally not worth it! Please do yourself and your little ones a favor and quit fretting over what people who obviously have too much time on their hands are saying about things they really know nothing about!


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmcneal*
> 
> This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.












Some people live very fortunate lives. How lucky for them, how wonderful, that they will never need to know what it's like to make the choices you've had to make. I don't wish anything bad on anyone but I know it's really hard to read some of the posts here & just look past the ignorance & assumptions. And sometimes I wish I could live in that same bubble they do. But we are stronger, more understanding, more compassionate people because we've had to make these tough choices, because we've had to humble ourselves & let go of our pride, because we've had to ask for help. This thread makes me so sad too, and I actually just typed up a lot of my (sad) story but then erased it, because mammal_mama is right, other people's opinions are not worth it, why open myself up to more criticism here? You did what you knew you needed to do for your health, your family, and the baby you are carrying. You deserve better than the hand you've been dealt, and I hope you can let go of any guilt or shame because it's not your fault. If your family is surviving, and you are all doing the best that you can given your circumstances, then you made the right choice.


----------



## mammal_mama

You know, I've just realized that the initial theme of this thread was whether WE (meaning collective society) should be doing more to support mothers so that they can stay home (I know the original title didn't say "more;" however, in the U.S. at least, there really isn't enough support available to provide for a stay at home mom and her kids, so for it to be that kind of support, we'd have to be doing something "more" than we are now)...

Anyhow the theme is what WE (collective society) should be doing to help those less fortunate who are raising families, but we have somehow managed to turn it into a thread of judgment, for or against, people in poverty.

None of us is really in a position to judge another human being. We can only look at our own actions (as an individual and as a society) and determine whether we can and should be doing more for others. it's not about whether other people are living as we think they should. It's about whether WE are living and behaving towards others as our hearts tell us we should.

And crunchy_momm -- great post!


----------



## mamamoo

The support on this thread is beautiful. I agree with mammal_mama and crunchy_mommy. bmcneal, be glad that you are not so prideful as to reject help that is needed for your family to make life a little easier. I think it's a sign of strength and courage to accept help despite the backlash received when you get assistance. You are choosing what is best for your family, that is what is important. Thank you for speaking up. I left this thread a long time ago after basically being told it was my own fault I was in the situation I am in because the poster looked at my signature and decided I had too many kids. I know what people think, and I have finally gotten to the point where I don't care because they don't know me. They don't know my situation, or what the details of my life were before I got divorced. I think thier judgement of me only reflects thier own ignorance and intolerance. Good luck mama!


----------



## Alenushka

I had jobs I did not like but they paid the bills and medical insurance and I stuck with them. Yes, I feel good about doing that, and being a role model for my kids and not taking money for taxpayers that can be sued for someone who has not job available. So, I stand my my words. I support welfare when it is a necessity but not when it is lifestyle choice.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> I had jobs I did not like but they paid the bills and medical insurance and I stuck with them. Yes, I feel good about doing that, and being a role model for my kids and not taking money for taxpayers that can be sued for someone who has not job available. So, I stand my my words. I support welfare when it is a necessity but not when it is lifestyle choice.


If you are responding to my post about quitting an otherwise good job, it wasn't because I didn't *like* the job. It was because I was being harassed on a daily basis by someone, and Human Resources wouldn't do anything about it but blame me. I was getting threatened, and from what I knew of the person, and from what others told me about the person, he was very likely to act on his threats. It was affecting my health. It wasn't because I didn't like it, I *loved* the job. I planned on going back to the job after the baby was born. But when I was being threatened on a daily basis, with a *very* high risk that it would become an action, and no longer a threat, to me, my fiance, and my children, it wasn't worth it. I guess were we all dead, it would have been okay, because I would have been paying my way all along, and then murdered, and not needed assistance, but I chose not to take that path. Was I wrong? I don't think so. But maybe I was. If I was, I'm sure Karma, the universe, God, or whatever higher power is in charge will make sure that it "gets the job done" or whatever, in some other way, and I hope and pray it would not be with me worrying every day I'm going to wake up to someone having broken into my house and murdered us. Just sayin'.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmcneal*
> 
> If you are responding to my post about quitting an otherwise good job, it wasn't because I didn't *like* the job. It was because I was being harassed on a daily basis by someone, and Human Resources wouldn't do anything about it but blame me. I was getting threatened, and from what I knew of the person, and from what others told me about the person, he was very likely to act on his threats. It was affecting my health. It wasn't because I didn't like it, I *loved* the job. I planned on going back to the job after the baby was born. But when I was being threatened on a daily basis, with a *very* high risk that it would become an action, and no longer a threat, to me, my fiance, and my children, it wasn't worth it. I guess were we all dead, it would have been okay, because I would have been paying my way all along, and then murdered, and not needed assistance, but I chose not to take that path. Was I wrong? I don't think so. But maybe I was. If I was, I'm sure Karma, the universe, God, or whatever higher power is in charge will make sure that it "gets the job done" or whatever, in some other way, and I hope and pray it would not be with me worrying every day I'm going to wake up to someone having broken into my house and murdered us. Just sayin'.


I hope you're in a better place, emotionally, now. I remember your story from another thread.


----------



## pek64

Each person has a different story, and we shouldn't judge each other.

Would I stay in a job that was adversely affecting my health? No.
Would I work where I didn't feel safe? No.
Would I stay in a marriage where I felt I or my children were in danger? No.

Welfare is needed so people have the ability to protect themselves.

Still, I do make choices that someone else might not make. My choices are based on my priorities, which are unique to me. It's too easy to take a cursory look at a situation and jump to conclusions.

Should we support welfare? I think we should. I also think there should be some changes to the system. I know people who take advantage of the system and others who need assistance and don't qualify unless they quit working. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to legislate a perfect system. So I guess we have to work with the one we've got.


----------



## littlest birds

I stand by not judging people too. Who defines the difference between a "necessity" and a "lifestyle choice" ? I don't really care to hear the differences because judging this is really mean and people always think they can judge the poor and people on welfare. You lose your privacy and the assumption that you have the right to choose when you get public assistance--at least in the eyes of many.

Welfare is not generous enough for it to matter one bit to me why another person is making the compromises they've chosen because if your employment choices are keeping you that poor those choices were not made lightly or for "non-necessity" reasons. Or at least I would not assume that they were. I would assume they were choices made with care and mostly none of my business.

I do not believe my tax dollars give me the right to invade others business in ways I otherwise would not think I had any right to do.


----------



## mammal_mama

Well said, littlest birds!


----------



## 95191

I do judge people because we are all being judged.

I personally have a real problem with mothers on assistance and feel there should be major changes.

I don't feel they deserve to be with their children any more than a mother who is not getting assistance- all children should be equal and both should be able to be with their mothers. Until *all are equal* I will continue to have this issue. Until this country pays all mothers I feel none should be receive assistance to be with their children. I did not qualify for any assistance and got nothing (and this was prior to when you could and they did fire you for not returning to work right away) to help because at the time I made a little less than $50.00 a week over the max for assistance. There still are many mothers that get no paid time off, no help at all with WIC or anything and must return quickly to work so that others do not- I see it as unequal.


----------



## meemee

how is that unequal. they had a cutoff. if you made less than that then you get support.

so because you didnt get support, others shouldnt?!!! is that your reasoning?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> how is that unequal. they had a cutoff. if you made less than that then you get support.
> 
> so because you didnt get support, others shouldnt?!!! is that your reasoning?


children are not worth the same nor are the mothers

you are no more deserving to be with your child vs another mother are you? Other countries do not value a mother based on poverty-they let all be paid for the worth of the child, not here

we don't do it when children are born we don't do it as they age

right now my child is not equal to another's - in my state we don't even value education they same - we don't allot X dollars for each child we pick and choose=unequal


----------



## contactmaya

Should mothers be supported by welfare to escape dire poverty? Or should mothers be supported so they can be with their children because that is in the best interests of the child? Two different questions.

Most industrialized countries in the world place the working childless adult individual at the center and the economy and political system revolve around them. Children are not at the center. Some countries do a better job than others and finding a balance between conflicting interests (dare i mention Sweden), in the US, the welfare system actively separates mother and child. (or primary caregiver and child).


----------



## crunchy_mommy

This thread is absolutely crazy.

In the U.S., moms on welfare do NOT get assistance to stay home with their kids. They get assistance because they don't have enough income to make ends meet.

Do you know how expensive it can be to be a working parent?!

In my state, daycare for ONE kid is over $800/month. Someone working a full-time minimum-wage job makes about $1300/month. Once you deduct taxes, childcare, transportation, uniforms, and other work-related costs, there is virtually nothing left. If she has 2+ kids, she'd be spending more on childcare than she makes in a month.

Add in the fact that (at least where I live) you cannot buy private health insurance if you are eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, and the issues magnify. Employee-sponsored insurance for a family costs an employee up to $800 a month, plus copays/coinsurance/deductibles. This is not possible if you are only making $10/hr. You'd be in the negative and unable to survive. Quitting that job would save childcare costs, make this person eligible for medicaid, cut out transportation & other work-related expenses... and they'd still be living in poverty, still barely able to make ends meet, but at least they'd have a fighting chance.


----------



## 95191

sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math -

Quote:


> In my state, daycare for ONE kid is over $800/month. Someone working a full-time minimum-wage job makes about $1300/month. Once you deduct taxes, childcare, transportation, uniforms, and other work-related costs, there is virtually nothing left. If she has 2+ kids, she'd be spending more on childcare than she makes in a month.
> 
> Add in the fact that (at least where I live) you cannot buy private health insurance if you are eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, and the issues magnify. Employee-sponsored insurance for a family costs an employee up to $800 a month, plus copays/coinsurance/deductibles. This is not possible if you are only making $10/hr. You'd be in the negative and unable to survive. *Quitting that job would save childcare costs, make this person eligible for medicaid, cut out transportation & other work-related expenses... and they'd still be living in poverty, still barely able to make ends meet, but at least they'd have a fighting chance.*


they find it better to not work and have to pay

actually $800.00 in my area is very cheap- if you could even find it

I know for our income if we had more kids we would qualify for things- depends on family size around here.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math -
> 
> *they find it better to not work and have to pay*
> 
> actually $800.00 in my area is very cheap- if you could even find it
> 
> I know for our income if we had more kids we would qualify for things- depends on family size around here.


It's not just that they find it to be better or preferable to not work, the sad reality is that some parents find that they absolutely cannot SURVIVE while working a minimum-wage (or even slightly above that) job.

This thread is really interesting, and one that hits home for me. My first child was a surprise and at first I thought it was such bad timing that I actually considered abortion because I wasn't sure we could afford her. How terrible and tragic is that? Looking back now I can't believe I ever entertained the idea, but that was my reality.

My husband is a Chilean immigrant and had just arrived in the US when I unexpectedly became pregnant (immediately!) He was not legally authorized to work, and I was just finishing up my last semester at UCLA and was working lunch shifts as a waitress. We were sharing a 2 bedroom apartment with an alcoholic relative of mine (certainly did not plan to bring a child into THAT living situation--we'd only intended to live there for a year until DH could find a job.) The first few months of my prenatal care were covered by my university insurance, but after I graduated (with $25k in student loans and another 25k in credit card debt!!) I was dropped from that insurance plan. Luckily the nurse-midwives over at UCLA accept Medi-Cal and urged me to apply. Since we were only living on my income, which was definitely less than 30k/year, I qualified for pregnancy-related Medi-Cal and WIC.

DH got a job through my workplace, but he was making minimum wage and wasn't given full-time hours. With no work history in the US that was the best he could get. I continued to waitress through my entire pregnancy. After the baby was born DH was able to find a much better job making $10/hr with a full-time schedule and I went back to waitressing. We knew we had to find our own place, but also knew that we would probably not be able to afford anything near our jobs, and we didn't own a car. Then one day I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment. Around that time my DH heard about a non-profit organization in our area that offered affordable housing to moderate- and low-income people, so we applied.

I found a part-time job at an elementary school, but I only make $14/hour and I get less than 20 hours a week. I still receive partial unemployment, but won't for much longer as my claim runs out in March. It certainly isn't an ideal situation, but It works for us because I am able to be at home with my DD for most of the day. DH has also received a promotion and a small raise at his job. We still get WIC and still live in the subsidized housing. We both got insurance from DH's job, but DD is on Healthy Families. Earlier this year we decided to have another baby, and I am currently 18.5 weeks along. This one was totally planned, and we knew that doing so would mean continuing WIC. Sometimes I feel guilty for planning a pregnancy when we live in subsidized housing, but the truth is that this is a temporary lifestyle choice that we have made in order to parent/raise our children OURSELVES. Before we ever got married we talked about wanting two children, so the thought of just having one because of our current financial situation is not something we are willing to do. I do not see us staying in this tax-bracket forever, and I know that if we chose not to have another because of money, I would undoubtedly regret that decision down the road.

The way I see it, I want to have my kids close in age so that I can continue to work part-time while they are little. We make sacrifices so that is possible. We have no car. I cut DD and Dh's hair (and my own, sometimes!) We live in a tiny 1-bedroom apartment and plan to stay here until we are absolutely bursting at the seams. We don't take vacations (unless family members invite/pay for us to come visit.) We maintain a very tight budget and live frugally. Even so, we have managed to entirely pay off the credit card debt and a lot of the student loans, and now have thousands in savings. Once both of our kids are in school, I plan to increase my hours and eventually start teaching full-time, and when that happens our financial situation will change significantly and I'm sure we will no longer qualify for WIC or the affordable housing that we currently have.


----------



## kitteh

Also--as others in this thread have said--I don't think that parents should HAVE to accept this sort of welfare to stay home with their kids. I think that we need to re-think our maternity and paternity leave laws and adopt legislation that allows for a year of paid leave for each parent. At the very least, mothers should get 6 months to be at home with baby without having to worry that they will be replaced in the workforce.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math -
> 
> they find it better to not work and have to pay


That's exactly my point though! People work to make money. What person in their right mind will pay money to work?!?!?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> At the very least, mothers should get 6 months to be at home with baby without having to worry that they will be replaced in the workforce.


I don't see us (US) moving towards this and time soon!

In my state we can't even fund education equally- it would save a ton of money if we did and there is NO desire to even do this.

Until mothers are treated equally, children will not be.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I do judge people because we are all being judged.
> 
> I personally have a real problem with mothers on assistance and feel there should be major changes.
> 
> I don't feel they deserve to be with their children any more than a mother who is not getting assistance- all children should be equal and both should be able to be with their mothers. Until *all are equal* I will continue to have this issue. Until this country pays all mothers I feel none should be receive assistance to be with their children. I did not qualify for any assistance and got nothing (and this was prior to when you could and they did fire you for not returning to work right away) to help because at the time I made a little less than $50.00 a week over the max for assistance. There still are many mothers that get no paid time off, no help at all with WIC or anything and must return quickly to work so that others do not- I see it as unequal.


serenbat, while I see your point that our government should be more supportive of policies that enable ALL parents to spend more time with their children, it seems really unfair for you to direct your judgment towards those families that need help and are availing themselves of whatever help is available. Struggling parents can't really be expected to say, "Well, until the system is perfectly fair for everyone, I won't get any help for my kids and me!"

I can also understand that the people who are most resentful of families like mine -- where one parent is bringing in an income but they still qualify for and receive assistance with food and medical care -- tend to be the people in a slightly higher income bracket that just barely disqualifies them from getting as much help as families like mine are getting. If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too. A while back, I had an increase in income that basically cut our food stamp payment in half. The increase in income wasn't enough to totally make up for the cut in food stamps, so it's been tough.

But this doesn't mean I should become resentful of families in even more dire circumstances than ours -- such as those headed by single mothers with little education who have to work minimum wage jobs. Those mothers need and should get a lot more help than my family is getting.

In response to the other poster who talked about her children getting a good example by seeing her work so hard. I agree that she is a good example to her children -- but I want to point out that families that get some assistance are also working very hard and taking pride in a job well done. Everything we do to help ourselves, our families, and our communities is worthwhile work that we and our kids should take pride in. Getting assistance doesn't prevent any parent from being a good example to her or his children.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I can also understand that the people who are most resentful of families like mine -- where one parent is bringing in an income but they still qualify for and receive assistance with food and medical care -- tend to be the people in a slightly higher income bracket that just barely disqualifies them from getting as much help as families like mine are getting. *If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too.* A while back, I had an increase in income that basically cut our food stamp payment in half. The increase in income wasn't enough to totally make up for the cut in food stamps, so it's been tough.


you don't come off as grateful to the families *that are struggling to pay so that you don't*

I have to pay a co-pay, and deductible and YES it comes out of our food too. I get ONE well visit a year- every sick I pay plus the cost of meds- we need to eat too and pay taxes.....this seems to get forgotten by most.


----------



## pek64

In the US you should be able to get free insurance through CHIP. I don't know if there are co-pays, though. And it leaves parents uninsured, which is stupid.

I agree there are problems, but that doesn't mean we should be against all welfare. My family didn't qualify when my husband was working only part time, and struggled. We are still struggling. But until you've been in someone else's situation, you can't judge fairly.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too.
> In response to the other poster who talked about her children getting a *good example by seeing her work so hard.* I agree that she is a good example to her children -- but I want to point out that families that get some assistance are also working very hard and taking pride in a job well done. Everything we do to help ourselves, our families, and our communities is worthwhile work that we and our kids should take pride in. Getting assistance doesn't prevent any parent from being a good example to her or his children.


and in your case - do you teach that is it good not to do that extra work so you can get more food stamps and that's if OK to do this and it's just fine that others pay for it?

and I should be understanding that I have to cut back and you don't do the extra because it cost you and some how it free for me!

I feel the way I do when I read things like this.

You don't walk in my shoes.

ETA - there are lots that struggle so that other's don't- I know a family with 3 kid (that $75.00 just to walk into the Dr- upfront) not to mention the med cost and the weekly deduction from the paycheck------it does add up


----------



## mamazee

The average tax payer pays 10 cents a day for the existence of the whole food stamp program.


----------



## mammal_mama

serenbat, I am grateful for my very existence and the very air that I breathe, and for all the diverse and beautiful people and other life forms that I am so blessed to share this planet with! We should all be grateful!

I'm sorry that my attempt to show empathy for struggling families who make just a little more than me, and are therefore cut off from some helpful resources, has somehow offended you and given you the impression that I'm sitting here calculating just how many hours of availability for work I can schedule and still keep all my benefits at their current levels, because I can assure you I'm not. I make myself as available as I can be while still meeting the needs of myself and my family.

I take pride in doing a terrific job, and I love my work, and I was thrilled lately when I learned that I got an .85c raise starting in January. I don't know if it will affect our benefits like my previous increase did, but I wouldn't want to undo it even if it did. I'm much more interested in improving my skills and my earning capacity than I am in hanging onto benefits that I think are likely to vanish, anyhow, if our economy goes completely over the cliff as it may. I don't know what will even happen with my job in that case -- I'm just saying I love learning and doing everything I can to be in the very best possible position to meet the needs of my family and give my best to society, too.

As I've already said, I was just trying to express empathy to all those who are struggling but making just a tad too much to get any help. No offense or impression of being ungrateful was ever intended.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> The average tax payer pays 10 cents a day for the existence of the whole food stamp program.


sounds so nice by itself but doesn't come close to the reality of ALL the other things the average tax payer pays for, that's not just 10 cents


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> sounds so nice by itself but doesn't come close to the reality of ALL the other things the average tax payer pays for, that's not just 10 cents


What would you like to pay for with your taxes? What do you think the country with the highest GDP in the world should do about food insecurity?

Are you not satisfied that our life expectancies are dropping and our infant mortality rate is behind every other industrialized country? Do you also need to punish poor people by preventing them from having a way to pay for food?

What do you think taxes are FOR? Should they only go for things that benefit you, personally and directly?


----------



## kitteh

How are all of the other things that tax payers pay for relevant in a discussion specifically about mothers/families on welfare (ie foodstamps)?


----------



## mamaofthree

serenbat: you sound very upset and resentful. i am always taken aback by people who are so angry at others who ask for and receive help when they need it. i am not sure it is a great awesome thing to struggle needlessly just to prove you are a good enough person. i happily pay taxes and would LOVE for ever single cent we paid in taxes to be sent to families who are struggling. i would much rather pay for that then a war. or pay for that then paying for a huge tax loop hole for a big arse company.

we seem to have this issue with people who we perceive as "lazy". poor people, overweight people come popping into my mind right off. we have no issue with shaming them, making fun of them, dissing them, taking nasty about them. i think it is a complete shame.


----------



## iowaorganic

I am going to jump in a little late- but Captain Optimism- our taxes are SUPPOSED to go to what we can't do for ourselves- defense. That is the vision of the Founding Fathers. Charity is supposed to be helping your neighbor willingly- not the government forcefully taking what you have earned and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it.


----------



## Alenushka

The main word "Can't" IF one can work and make enougth money to pay rent, day care, food and healthcare, then why should I support one?


----------



## 95191

first, not everyone is JUST on food stamps and not getting other assistance

Quote:


> What would you like to pay for with your taxes? What do you think the country with the highest GDP in the world should do about food insecurity?
> 
> Are you not satisfied that our life expectancies are dropping and our infant mortality rate is behind every other industrialized country? Do you also need to punish poor people by preventing them from having a way to pay for food?
> 
> What do you think taxes are FOR? Should they only go for things that benefit you, personally and directly?


for SHORT, very short need and for real means testing and not for those who might have to (gasp) pay for a copay for Medicaid -

If I choose not opt into the company medical I can not qualify in my state for ANY medical assistance, it's not allowed, the only way we would get food stamps is not have income- we have no fall back when we pay hundreds each month to be in a medical plan, plus a deductible and copay and prescription and have to find a way to pay for food

other people are paying and when you read someone stating how if they worked more they might loose a benefit, knowing how hard other do have it and get NOTHING in the way of assistance you tend to not feel sorry for that person- I certainly don't

taxes are for paying for SHORT term help, not years of assistance at the expense of deficit to others, clearly there seems to be less to give out and many IRL also demanding a stop to this- my state just added more restrictions


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> serenbat, I am grateful for my very existence and the very air that I breathe, and for all the diverse and beautiful people and other life forms that I am so blessed to share this planet with! We should all be grateful!
> 
> I'm sorry that my attempt to show empathy for struggling families who make just a little more than me, and are therefore cut off from some helpful resources, has somehow offended you and given you the impression that I'm sitting here calculating just how many hours of availability for work I can schedule and still keep all my benefits at their current levels, because I can assure you I'm not. I make myself as available as I can be while still meeting the needs of myself and my family.
> 
> I take pride in doing a terrific job, and I love my work, and I was thrilled lately when I learned that I got an .85c raise starting in January. I don't know if it will affect our benefits like my previous increase did, but I wouldn't want to undo it even if it did. I'm much more interested in improving my skills and my earning capacity than I am in hanging onto benefits that I think are likely to vanish, anyhow, if our economy goes completely over the cliff as it may. I don't know what will even happen with my job in that case -- I'm just saying I love learning and doing everything I can to be in the very best possible position to meet the needs of my family and give my best to society, too.
> 
> As I've already said, I was just trying to express empathy to all those who are struggling but making just a tad too much to get any help. No offense or impression of being ungrateful was ever intended.


I also do not see that you are grateful that others pay for you- I just don't see it.

Other pays so you can get assistance and maybe one day you will join them and look back at your PP and see how it makes you feel.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iowaorganic*
> 
> I am going to jump in a little late- but Captain Optimism- our taxes are SUPPOSED to go to what we can't do for ourselves- defense. That is the vision of the Founding Fathers. Charity is supposed to be helping your neighbor willingly- not the government forcefully taking what you have earned and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it.


Well, the founding fathers didn't believe in a standing military at all, and they were perfectly OK with slavery and people starving if it came to that. Our country's views about what it is in our best interest to pay for, and what is acceptable to allow, have changed a great deal since then.


----------



## iowaorganic

Our founding fathers believed in a state militia of which ever reasonable person was expected to be a part of. this is not defense?


----------



## mammal_mama

I look forward to being able to put more back into society than I am currently able to do. It's also been a real joy to have the opportunity to help serve a meal once a month in one of our local homeless shelters. My 12yo dd has recently started helping, and it's awesome to see how industrious she is, and how eager she is to learn new skills and help others who are in even more difficult situations than we are.

I actually think I was more naive back before I started experiencing these difficult times, waaay back when I actually thought Rush Limbaugh made great sense.


----------



## mammal_mama

My youngest is 7, so I'm actually looking at not being able to get any more food stamps or medicaid for my girls in the not too distant future. We'll manage as best we can -- and now that my employer has instituted a new system with regular opportunities to increase our skill levels and salaries, I'm hoping to work my way into a much better position within the next few years -- and I'll do my best to help each girl with whatever higher education she wants to pursue, in order to get a good start in her adult life...

And I'm 48 right now and happy about the prospects of being a very productive worker 'til at least age 70 or longer if I'm able. I'm happy that I'll have the opportunity to pay more back into the system to help other families that need it.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Alenushka*
> 
> The main word "Can't" IF one can work and make enougth money to pay rent, day care, food and healthcare, then why should I support one?


Most people on welfare can't work & make enough to pay rent, day care, food, & healthcare. There will always be a few who take advantage of the system, just like there are people who steal and kill and all sorts of things. But for the most part you are NOT supporting people to stay home when they can just as easily go out & work & still make ends meet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> for SHORT, very short need and for real means testing and not for those who might have to (gasp) _pay for a copay for Medicaid -_
> 
> If I choose not opt into the company medical I can not qualify in my state for ANY medical assistance, it's not allowed, the only way we would get food stamps is not have income- we have no fall back when we pay hundreds each month to be in a medical plan, plus a deductible and copay and prescription and have to find a way to pay for food
> 
> other people are paying and when you read someone stating how if they worked more they might loose a benefit, knowing how hard other do have it and get NOTHING in the way of assistance you tend to not feel sorry for that person- I certainly don't


Look, you have a choice. You can keep working and pay your bills -- no matter how hard it is -- or you can stop working & rely on public aid.

Others are not fortunate enough to have this choice. That's the part that you don't seem to understand. Others literally cannot pay their bills no matter how hard they work. Others cannot pay that Medicaid copay that you sarcastically "gasp" at.

It's easy to look down on others when there's somewhere to look down to. When you hit rock bottom, you do what you can to survive. I'm happy for you that you don't have to use welfare, but not everyone gets to make that choice.

And I can't imagine in what world it is harder to work and struggle to make ends meet, than to not know where your next meal will come from. Poverty isn't easy, even with welfare. I am incredulous that you would tell someone on welfare that they don't know how hard others have it... others who CAN pay their bills and DO have a choice in the matter.

(And, for the record, I am not on welfare myself. So it's not just me defending myself here.)


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iowaorganic*
> 
> Our founding fathers believed in a state militia of which ever reasonable person was expected to be a part of. this is not defense?


It is defense, but not a standing military. It's closer to the national guard - civilians who can be called up at a moment's notice if needed.

However this is off topic (and I apologize for that.)

We don't spend a great deal on welfare and other assistance when compared to our budget as a whole. There will always be poor people in our country and they will always need help. I can't see how a civilized government can stand by and watch people starve to death, so there will always be some form of assistance for the poor. The question in this thread is whether a mother should stay home and collect welfare. I personally don't have a problem with it because it is not a lot of money, and her other options are often really very bad options - bad choices for child care for example. I trust people to know what is the best choice in their particular circumstances. There are so many requirements that if you qualify, IMO you must need it.


----------



## rightkindofme

I am in a very high tax bracket because my husband has the good fortune to be in a booming industry. When I was a child we were on welfare of one kind or another for most of the time I was a minor. My family was in the freak percentage of welfare recipients who out and out commit fraud. My family lied and had more kids to extend benefits and all kinds of uncool behavior. As a result of my personal experiences I have some strong knee jerk feelings about welfare.

As a rational adult I have gone through and found that my family is highly unusual (ok, I kind of knew that) and the actual percentage of people gaming the system is vanishingly small. It is hard for me to believe this data but I've seen it from a lot of sources so I have to get over my confirmation bias. I wish our welfare system worked differently because I wish there were time limits and I wish there were work requirements (that moms with kids could actually do) because I think these kinds of structures would encourage people to be actively learning marketable skills while getting welfare. But that would require a lot of specific help on the part of social workers and they currently don't do this. So people can't just be dumped into that system either.

Which is to say: I think that society as a whole benefits from people not starving to death or living in dire poverty. That has been so clearly demonstrated over and over throughout history. Countries that do not take care of their poor people do badly. That's just a fact. The reason that it is better to have the money "taken" by the government instead of just coming through individual private donation is because of economy of scale. The government can take $.10 from each person and that is just not possible through private individual means. There has to be a distribution center and a long number of other benefits.

Given the benefits to society for a child being with its mom... yeah. I'm happy to contribute to welfare. It's just better for everyone. Yes there are cut offs and it sucks for people who are in the 1% above benefits. It does. Yes. But life can't be that everyone gets everything. There has to just be a line. Even though it's hard.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Others are not fortunate enough to have this choice. That's the part that you don't seem to understand. Others literally cannot pay their bills no matter how hard they work. Others cannot pay that Medicaid copay that you sarcastically "gasp" at.


sorry you don't understand

there is a big difference - IMO between real need and greed - I see this as sheer greed - *If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay* for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too.

Other do struggle to pay for this attitude. I feel parents should pay toward their children's care. If you can work you can take some responsibility for you child's needs, not thinking about how to get more out of the system towards your advantage. That's insulting to those paying for this.

I am not for letting people starve but I not for a never end pay, pay, pay at the expensive of others.

Quote:


> And I can't imagine in what world it is harder to work and struggle to make ends meet, than to not know where your next meal will come from. Poverty isn't easy, even with welfare. I am incredulous that you would tell someone on welfare that they don't know how hard others have it... others who CAN pay their bills and DO have a choice in the matter.


how naive of you to think only people on welfare struggle to pay bills- try medical bills when you are forced to have to take hundreds of dollars out of each pay and have no other choice! Or I guess the "choice" you feel we have is to just quit working and have others take care of us!


----------



## mamaofthree

why are you so angry? i seriously do not get it. if it makes you feel better imagine your tax dollars going to things like roads or libraries or if that doesn't work for you then defense or the farm bill or something else.

i can't stand that my tax money goes to war, so i just pretend it doesn't. i help poor families with my tax dollars and pay for the library.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> how naive of you to think only people on welfare struggle to pay bills- try medical bills when you are forced to have to take hundreds of dollars out of each pay and have no other choice! Or I guess the "choice" you feel we have is to just quit working and have others take care of us!


Of *course* there are people besides people on welfare who struggle to pay bills. It especially sucks when you pay hundreds of dollars out of your check for insurance, and *still* have to pay a substantial amount for treatment. That's one of the reasons I'm not real thrilled at the way the government is right now, and probably a bunch of other people, too. Medical care is damn expensive (maybe it needs to be, maybe not, I don't know.), and it's ridiculous! No one should have to choose between paying to see doctor or get medical care and eat! There should be equal access to equal care for *everyone*, and everyone should have to pay a certain amount of their income. Of course, there is no way for it to be an exact equal amount; there is no way in heck someone flipping burgers at McDonald's could afford the same dollar amount as the CEO of a big-arse company, but they both deserve access to the same care.

That being said, I have no idea how to make that happen, or even if the "powers that be" would want that...


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> there is a big difference - IMO between real need and greed - I see this as sheer greed -_ *If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay* for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too.
> _


It's not greed, it's reality, it's the numbers. Say she got a raise of $0.30/hour (average raise for someone making $10/hour) and that put her over the Medicaid limit. That's an extra $52/month. That's not enough to pay copays unless you only go to the doctor/specialist only once or twice a month. We pay about $250/month in copays for routine stuff (and this is after severely cutting back on even the most necessary appointments... it would be a good $400+ if we didn't skip appointments, or had an ER visit, accident, etc.) At that $250 in copays, the raise would need to be $1.45/hour just to break even. $0.30/hour raise would leave her $200/month short. Where is that $200 supposed to come from?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> how naive of you to think only people on welfare struggle to pay bills- try medical bills when you are forced to have to take hundreds of dollars out of each pay and have no other choice! Or I guess the "choice" you feel we have is to just quit working and have others take care of us!


I didn't say only people on welfare struggle to pay bills. I said that it's easier to struggle to make ends meet, than to not make ends meet at all. If you can put in lots of effort, extra work, creative budgeting, and extreme frugality, it's not easy by any stretch. But you're still better off than the person that can't make ends meet no matter how much they struggle.

I know how hard it is to pay bills. I have worked 3 jobs (while in school full-time) just to pay basic living expenses. I have never had cable, or a flat-screen TV, or an iPod or iPad or smartphone, and most of the things we own came from the side of the road or hand-me-downs. I've never gotten my nails or hair done (not even for my wedding) or gone on a nice vacation and we virtually never eat out, go to the movies, etc. In fact, due to finances, we make our own toothpaste, dilute our dish & laundry soap to 99% water, do our own repairs even though we suck at it and things just fall apart... And even with all those "sacrifices," I lay awake at night trying to figure out how we can afford our medical bills, our home, transportation, etc. because we just don't have enough money. So believe me, I know it's hard to struggle to pay bills. But I am grateful that somehow, for today at least, we have a roof overhead and food in the cupboard.

You seem to have a very negative bias toward those on welfare so I'm not sure there's much point in hashing this out any more. I do not agree that most people on welfare are greedy or selfish or taking advantage of the system. I'm happy to pay taxes to ensure others have food & shelter & medical care. I guess we just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Where is that $200 supposed to come from?


where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?

how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it

You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so other don't

Quote:


> That being said, I have no idea how to make that happen, or even if the "powers that be" would want that...


the tide is turning and many are starting to want it changed-my state is starting, only wish more was done


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?
> how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it


I don't really understand the second half of what you wrote, typos or something? But as to the first part, people can't just "do without" food and basic medical care. That's why we have welfare. So that people who have "done without" every other thing can still survive.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so _other don't _


I get that it's hard when you see others getting $100/mo toward food while you're struggling to pay for your own groceries but if you are in that position then chances are you aren't actually paying much (if anything) in taxes.

And yes, sometimes we have to all pitch in to make sure everyone is fed, even if it means we end up eating a little less ourselves.


----------



## mammal_mama

I never meant to give anyone the impression that I am holding myself back from advancing in my career because of some desire to hold onto all the public assistance I can, and I didn't literally mean that if I made just a tiny bit more each pay period, I'd be in an entirely different income bracket and not qualify for any assistance. It's seriously not like I'm saying, "Oh, I better take a little time off this week or I'll make too much and -- gasp -- have to pay a copay."

I guess I can see how my statements might have been misunderstood, but I was honestly trying to show understanding for both sides -- the side I am obviously living right now and the side I haven't lived on for quite a while but can still understand.

I'm honestly not "gasping" in horror at the wonderful reality that as my income increases, my family will need, and therefore qualify for, less and less public assistance. It's exciting to see us gradually coming out of the tunnel. But, as I mentioned earlier, it is kind of an adjustment when the reduction in food or medical assistance is greater than the increase in income. But adjusting is just part of life.

Eventually we will be that family that still has it really tight but doesn't qualify for anything and has to pay tons of copays. As long as I know I'm doing the best I can for my family, I can live with the added stress of having to figure out how much to pay of each bill and how to work it all out. I've actually never been one to stress much over finances as long as I know I'm doing my best with what I have.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?
> 
> how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it


I think what other people are trying to say, is that, at some point, there *isn't* any more room to wiggle. At some point, you're saying, "Okay, I have... $1000 this month (for example). I have to pay $600/month for rent, so that leaves us with $400. Gasoline, another $200, now we're at $200. Gas/electric/water (let's say they're combined. again, just example) is $200, now, we have no money. And that's counting only some of what most people (at least I) consider necessities. I guess you could try and forfeit paying your rent/mortgage, or your utilities, but you're liable to get eviction notice, and your utilities cut off. I guess one could say, "Well, go find a better job." or "Find a cheaper house." but a lot of times, that's not a feasible thing to do. And that's not counting things that a lot of people consider necessities, like some kind of phone service, either cell phone or house phone. We have one cell phone, that if one of us leaves the house, they take it with them. I hate having 2 kids, and no way to contact anyone and stay near my kids if there was an emergency. But that is something that, at least for now, has to be done. Thank God, Buddha, higher power of your choice that we live right next door to my mom, so if something happened, I could at least run over there to get help, or send DD or DS, but that is not preferable.

I did not mean to insult you, serenbat, if I have. If that is your situation, as well, I'm very sorry. It's a horrible, demeaning, embarrassing place to be (at least for me), and I would never wish it on another, ever.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I think what other people are trying to say, is that, at some point, there *isn't* any more room to wiggle.


exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end

I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end
> 
> I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.


If I'm not mistaken, at least on most welfare, there isn't extended long term assistance. I know, at least in Indiana, and I think Tennessee it's the same (but no firsthand experience there, so not 100% sure), the longest you can get TANF is 24 months, and that's in a lifetime. To me, 2 years doesn't seem like extended long-term, but it might be objective. With WIC, it's pregnancy + 5 years for child(ren), but from what I understand (from what they said), majority of people qualify for WIC. (That might not be everywhere, maybe just majority of people in my area, I don't know.) That seems a bit extended, to me, but if what the woman at the WIC office said is correct, and most people do/would qualify... maybe it's not so bad? I don't know. I am not terribly familiar with food stamps, or SNAP, so I don't know what, if any, kind of regulations there are on that.

I do agree that there should be more strict limits, but at the same time, I think that equal effort should be put into making sure that when the limits are reached, that they aren't just left hanging. If someone doesn't have job skills, teach them, provide them opportunities to learn. I know when I first got divorced, I had never been in work force. Out of high school, I went to college, and when I left college, I was a house wife, then SAHM for 4 years. It was *immensely* difficult for me to find work. I was lucky enough to know someone who knew some people who ran temporary agency, who convinced them I was worth taking chance on. So if there were ways for people to either get jobs if they didn't/don't have them now, or to improve their skills/training to a level where they would be making enough to actually survive, that is necessary, as well, IMO.

Really, a lot of things, in a lot of different areas, need to change for this to be an equal place for everyone. Granted, I don't necessarily believe that someone who goes through extensive continuing education should make the same as someone who wasn't able to go to college (which does happen. It isn't always as easy as "If you want to go to college, get loans/grants/you'll find a way), but I also don't think that someone who busts their ass doing hard physical/manual labor deserves to make minimum wage, either. A lot of jobs are equally demanding/exhausting/difficult, albeit not in the same manner.

TL;DR Life sucks for a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons, and we're all created equally, and thus should all be entitled to at least the basics of survival, without having to justify ourselves.


----------



## iowaorganic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> Which is to say: I think that society as a whole benefits from people not starving to death or living in dire poverty. That has been so clearly demonstrated over and over throughout history. Countries that do not take care of their poor people do badly. That's just a fact. The reason that it is better to have the money "taken" by the government instead of just coming through individual private donation is because of economy of scale. The government can take $.10 from each person and that is just not possible through private individual means. There has to be a distribution center and a long number of other benefits.


Why does this have to be? I would gladly give to those less fortunate to me. In fact I do. It is just a very hard thing to rationalize since it is TAKEN from me in the form of taxes and I am not given the opportunity to give freely.

I agree that we should not have people starving to death or living in dire poverty. It is NOT the job of the government to take care of people though! A community issue- but not one for the government. Neighbors and families helping each other- not a take from peter and pay paul.

I absolutely don't believe the dime from each taxpayer is what pays for welfare. That is completely not true. Perhaps to the end recipient but it cost money for my money to be taken and run through 73 different agencies to get to the end welfare recipient.

So... to the original question. Should welfare be given to moms to SAH? No. My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children. He shouldn't have to work to support others. If I didn't have him would I feel differently? No. It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children. Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iowaorganic*
> 
> I am going to jump in a little late- but Captain Optimism- our taxes are SUPPOSED to go to what we can't do for ourselves- defense. That is the vision of the Founding Fathers. Charity is supposed to be helping your neighbor willingly- not the government forcefully taking what you have earned and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it.


I don't think that's an accurate description of the constitution, whose preamble says both "provide for the common defense" AND "support the general welfare."

I also don't think it's accurate to say that government forcefully takes what I have earned and gives it to someone who hasn't earned it. I willingly pay taxes as a patriotic citizen of a democracy. (A flawed democracy, but one in which the majority rules and I have the right to vote and be elected.) So the government isn't forcefully taking from me. Also, as a voter, I vote for people who will support the general welfare of the country. To say that a small child hasn't EARNED aid to his or her family--that's terrible. We are one country and I don't want any children growing up homeless or hungry in my country.

And furthermore, I reject the premise that we should conduct our business based solely on the vision of the founders. We should conduct our business as a nation to the benefit of our contemporaries. The founding fathers are dead.


----------



## meemee

here's my question.

for the ills of society why do the poor always have to pay. why is the anger all taken out to the poor.

why not the 1%? those who hide taxes and cheat the system?

first of all what do we mean by welfare? i think there's a time limit to cash assistance, but is there one for food stamps? that would be a sad day if that has time limits too. insurance ages out and so does WIC. but it sure is a cold day in hell if states like indiana and tennessee limit food stamps too. it seems always the poor suffer. the south still remains poor and it starts in a poor southern state (not indiana). i hope that is not true.

this is typical in almost every society. its always the poor who bear the brunt and the poor who suffer.

to me - i am happy any mom who can play the system and be able to be home for their kids. most of the people who are on the programs really need it. not everyone plays the system. even if that means that i suffer. for the sake of equality i would totally be willing to part 50% of my income in taxes for universal healthcare, maternity leave and universal childcare. THAT would be tough too depending on the size of your income.

but i cant steal money from another kids mouth to fill my kids tummy. at least that's how i look at it. where would the southern states be without welfare. history has done nothing to improve their bunch. sadly welfare keeps them where they are for generations - not because they want to stay there, but because welfare does not give them the opportunity to rise above it.

yes i agree there needs to be a better system. i have no idea what that system would be - esp. in a country full of corporations and a capitalistic society whose philosophy is profit first.


----------



## pek64

Is the problem really the fact that some get assistance, or is it really who's paying for it? Is it those in the upper income brackets paying, or do they have enough deductions to avoid paying for it. The problem is those who make just enough to not qualify for benefits are also being forced to pay for others to get the benefits, because they don't have deductions on their taxes (except for children). It is an unfair situation, and therefore breeds anger and resentment. Understandably so!!!

There are people who declare others on their taxes to get deductions, and to qualify for assistance, while those people are working and getting paid under the table, so the government doesn't know about it. Also unfair.

But if I spend my time focusing on what is unfair, I can't see how to make *my* life better. I admit I sometimes get caught up in the not fair whirlpool, but my son tells me to get out and move on. Pretty good advice.

I think we should stop criticizing someone with different feelings. We should commiserate instead. She's in a tough spot. And maybe if she doesn't feel like she needs to defend her feelings, she'll be better able to keep on going instead of staying stuck on this point.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?
> 
> how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it
> 
> *You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so other don't *
> 
> the tide is turning and many are starting to want it changed-my state is starting, only wish more was done


The bolded part doesn't make sense to me. As someone else pointed out, if your family truly has no wiggle room after paying for basic necessities then you most likely aren't paying much in taxes anyhow. I don't see how families that are struggling but are barely above income range that would qualify for assistance would magically NOT be struggling if the less fortunate families were starving instead of accepting welfare. And even if that were the case, the families receiving assistance are still struggling. So it's not accurate to say that your family is suffering so that others don't have to struggle. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your family and (others who make more money and pay more in taxes) struggle so that others don't STARVE.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iowaorganic*
> 
> Why does this have to be? I would gladly give to those less fortunate to me. In fact I do. It is just a very hard thing to rationalize since it is TAKEN from me in the form of taxes and I am not given the opportunity to give freely.
> 
> I agree that we should not have people starving to death or living in dire poverty. It is NOT the job of the government to take care of people though! A community issue- but not one for the government. Neighbors and families helping each other- not a take from peter and pay paul.
> 
> I absolutely don't believe the dime from each taxpayer is what pays for welfare. That is completely not true. Perhaps to the end recipient but it cost money for my money to be taken and run through 73 different agencies to get to the end welfare recipient.
> 
> *So... to the original question. Should welfare be given to moms to SAH? No. My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children. He shouldn't have to work to support others. If I didn't have him would I feel differently? No. It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children. Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?*


How do you feel about a program like California's Paid Family Leave, which I get if and only if I have worked enough during the previous year (and paid into CA SDI) to qualify? It currently only covers 6 weeks after the birth and up to 4 weeks before. But I think a similar program that covers 6 months to a year after birth should be implemented. That wouldn't be welfare, but it would be a social program, similar to unemployment, that would afford mothers the ability to stay home with their infants during the crucial first year.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end
> 
> I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.


We HAVE those limits and that means testing. We had welfare reform in 1996 that limits the amount of time people can receive TANF. TANF requires moms of relatively young children to work in order to get benefits. Go look this stuff up so that you have some kind of clue about how the policy actually works. The reason it's called TANF is that it stands for TEMPORARY aid for needy families. There was an earlier version of the program, AFDC, aid for families with dependent children, that was started during the Depression to keep people from putting their children into orphanages when they couldn't support them. That program had no limit AND IT ENDED IN 1996. The welfare reform of 1996 tightened everything.

As far as the greater means testing--each state has eligibility based on income and assets. This is based on the cost of living in each state. The federal government has income and asset eligibility for SNAP based on the federal poverty level. Only families with minor children can get TANF; any family can get food stamps. There is no time limit on food stamps.

The federal poverty level was first set in 1963. It was a calculation of how much it cost to feed a family of a particular size. Each state has a different cost of living so each state sets the income eligibility for families receiving TANF. You can find out how much a family in your state can make before they are eligible for benefits.

All this information is available on the internet and findable using Google.

No one on this board should disagree with your assertion that new mothers should have more reliable paid maternity leave.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> The bolded part doesn't make sense to me. As someone else pointed out, if your family truly has no wiggle room after paying for basic necessities then you most likely aren't paying much in taxes anyhow. I don't see how families that are struggling but are barely above income range that would qualify for assistance would magically NOT be struggling if the less fortunate families were starving instead of accepting welfare. And even if that were the case, the families receiving assistance _are still struggling._ So it's not accurate to say that your family is suffering so that others don't have to struggle. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your family and (others who make more money and pay more in taxes) struggle so that others don't STARVE.


I have paid taxes at various levels throughout my adulthood. Sometimes at the higher end, sometimes at the bottom end, and sometimes at that infuriating spot where one doesn't qualify for *any* assistance, but half the pay, or just about, goes to taxes!! So don't assume you *know- what someone else pays in taxes. Show the compassion you claim to have to the person who is upset by the unfair system, instead.


----------



## philomom

I don't mind that I wasn't paid for 16 years while raising my set of kids. My hubby has made a great salary for twenty years. We don't have a lot of extras but neither have we had any real suffering because of money.

What I do mind is that my Social Security benefits will be so small because of this time. Thank goodness there are still rules in place that I can draw half of my hubby's SS should I need to.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> I think we should stop criticizing someone with different feelings. We should commiserate instead. She's in a tough spot. And maybe if she doesn't feel like she needs to defend her feelings, she'll be better able to keep on going instead of staying stuck on this point.


I think our feelings are just our feelings and don't need any defense at all. The problem comes in when someone doesn't know how to process those feelings in a healthy way and just starts striking out at other people. Those other people have feelings, too.


----------



## mammal_mama

All the divisions in our society between those who are struggling the most seem very similar to all the divisions between the kids in the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy in, say, a junior high school. The kids who are awkward and don't have their looks all together yet are actually much greater in number than the so-called beautiful people -- but they often want to distance themselves from their fellow-strugglers because to hang out with a bunch of "dorks" is to come to term with the reality that in this particular "world," they are also a "dork." The bullies really capitalize on the fact that they can single these "dorks" out one at a time and sometimes get other "dorks" to join in with the bullying.

I think that's what the "we are the 99%" slogan is all about --- shaking up that paradigm.


----------



## Anca

I can tell you how things are in my country so you can have a different perspective, if you're interested.

The *minimum base salary* Romania is around *$230/month *

Only the women who have been working for 12 months prior to the birth are entitled to receive money and stay at home and they can choose between:

1. *SAH for 1 year* receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than *$180/month or more than * *$1030/month* (mothers who have earned more are not intitled to receive their 85% if it goes by that limit). If they chose this option, they have to go back to work one day (or more) before the child is 1 year old so they can some more money added to their initial salary -about *$152/monthly/for an year*

*2. SAH for 2 years* receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than *$180/month or more than **$360/month *and they don't get anything extra if going back to work after 2 years.

I must add public daycare is awful. And homeschooling is illegal.

Oh and the children after 2 yrs old are entitled to receive around *$13/month* *-*it sounds like a joke but it's not. So here with this money you can buy two books or three pizza.

Unfortunately, women with low education and low income are encouraged to have babies while women with higher education and higher income and especially middle class are discouraged to have more than 1 child. Families with 3 children are rare, especially in the educated and good income homes.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> So... to the original question. Should welfare be given to moms to SAH? No. My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children. He shouldn't have to work to support others. If I didn't have him would I feel differently? No. It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children. Perhaps the better question would be *why don't people take responsibility for themselves? and their children?*


many seem to miss this part!

When you don't get any assistance, you choose to have children and take responsibility for them because you don't get assistance and have to do it on your own.

Quote:


> As far as the greater means testing--each state has eligibility based on income and assets. This is based on the cost of living in each state. The federal government has income and asset eligibility for SNAP based on the federal poverty level. Only families with minor children can get TANF; any family can get food stamps. There is no time limit on food stamps.


this isn't only it - we have state programs that continue to aid in housing, plus county food/housing assistance, WIC, CHIP and school lunch aid

Quote:


> The problem is those who make just enough to not qualify for benefits *are also being forced to pay for others to get the benefits,* because they don't have deductions on their taxes (except for children). It is an unfair situation, and therefore breeds anger and resentment. Understandably so!!!


Quote:



> So don't assume you *know- what someone else pays in taxes. Show the compassion you claim to have to the person who is *upset by the unfair system*, instead.


some do get it and others never will

Quote:


> 1. *SAH for 1 year* receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than *$180/month or more than * *$1030/month* (mothers who have earned more are not intitled to receive their 85% if it goes by that limit). If they chose this option, they have to go back to work one day (or more) before the child is 1 year old so they can some more money added to their initial salary -about *$152/monthly/for an year*
> 
> *2. SAH for 2 years* receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than *$180/month or more than **$360/month *and they don't get anything extra if going back to work after 2 years.


vs "0" for the working US mom


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iowaorganic*
> 
> So... to the original question. Should welfare be given to moms to SAH? No. My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children. He shouldn't have to work to support others. If I didn't have him would I feel differently? No. It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children. Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?


I think this is a reasonable response, though I disagree with it. The critical issue isn't your beliefs on this subject, or even your feelings, but whether you understand that our current welfare policy is not designed to allow women to stay at home with their children. The previous program, AFDC, was explicitly for that purpose, but TANF is not.

In this country, I can see a few problems that create a constant need for monies to offset problems of poverty.

First, *real wages have stayed stagnant since the 1970s*. From the late 1970s until the present, we've had a slow, healthy rate of inflation--except that real wages haven't kept pace. This means anyone working for a wage without inherited wealth has earned less money and had less of an opportunity to amass wealth, which has *increased the gap between rich and poor.* If these folks succeeded in buying houses during the housing bubble, their main wealth asset lost its value.

We are also in the middle of another *economic recession, with very high unemployment*. These two economic factors have driven down *the rate of marriage to a new low*. We also have an insanely *high rate of incarceration*--we have more people in prison here than in any other country. I don't know how that affects marriage--I'm assuming badly--but it also affects whether people can make a living.

Our welfare policy since the 1990s has been predicated on the idea that promoting marriage would be a good idea (I'm not sure about that) that dads should pay child support, whether they're married or not, and that moms who are low-income enough to need aid also need to be forced to work so that they won't be permanently impoverished. The problem is that educational opportunities that would lift people out of poverty are only sometimes included in work requirements, since states have a lot of control over how the federal money is distributed and they need to do a lot with it.

Nearly all our programs that deal with hunger--food stamps, school lunch and breakfast, WIC--are driven by a desire to subsidize big agriculture. That's probably good news, because we are a country of ogres who don't care whether children go hungry. What has dismayed me has been the growing need for backpack weekend food charities. These are privately funded (which is good if you like everything to be privately funded, I guess) to make up for how many school-aged kids don't have food at home. In my city, in the summer, food trucks come around to the parks and playgrounds to hand out free lunches to children, in case their parents in this mixed-income area don't have enough money from their work or benefits programs to feed their children.

The principal at my son's school keeps a box of meal bars for children who don't get to school in time for the free breakfast but can't concentrate in class because they are too hungry.

Frankly, I do not care whether the money to keep children from going hungry comes from public or private sources. I prefer public because I think we as a whole society have an obligation to make sure children have what they need. If private funders would reliably make up the difference, though, I could suck it up and deal with that. I'm just crushed when I think that little kids have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

I really do not care one iota about forcing parents to be responsible. Kids have one childhood and these are the children in our country and we have an obligation to make sure they grow up healthy, smart and productive.

would I like welfare to also allow women to stay home with children? Sure, maybe, yeah, whatever. I think the policy should actually be to promote education, but frankly I think it's too much of a crisis to be picky.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Serenbat, I was actually laying awake last night thinking about this thread & I think perhaps I understand where you're coming from. I don't really get the combativeness etc. but maybe I get what you're trying to say?

I used to be solidly middle-class. We had enough money for a cheap apartment, we never had to worry about groceries, we could buy what we needed when we needed it, and we were able to save up a ton of money. We lived frugally, but more by choice than absolute necessity.

Now, we are lower-middle-class, teetering on the edge of lower-class (I hate that term BTW but I'm not sure what else to use). We don't make enough to cover our basic bills, but we make too much to qualify for assistance... and I think last time I checked, it was literally less than $50/month too much. It's a horrible place to be. Yes, in the end, someone on welfare may have a better financial picture than I do. Someone on welfare isn't having almost half their income go to medical costs.

So I don't know if the position you're in is similar to mine. If it is, I can understand a bit why you might feel angry & resentful. I don't feel this way, but I can understand why others might. I think there really is a hugely under-recognized issue with those in the lower-middle-class income bracket. There is support for the those who make much less money, and those who make much more money have a lot of wiggle room. Somewhere in the middle there are those still struggling to survive. I think it's especially apparent in HCOL areas, especially when many programs are based on federal standards. $1K/mo in TX will go a lot farther than $1K/mo in NY but there are only slight adjustments (if any) to the state's income guidelines.

So... am I on target at all?


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> All the divisions in our society between those who are struggling the most seem very similar to all the divisions between the kids in the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy in, say, a junior high school. The kids who are awkward and don't have their looks all together yet are actually much greater in number than the so-called beautiful people -- but they often want to distance themselves from their fellow-strugglers because to hang out with a bunch of "dorks" is to come to term with the reality that in this particular "world," they are also a "dork." The bullies really capitalize on the fact that they can single these "dorks" out one at a time and sometimes get other "dorks" to join in with the bullying.
> 
> I think that's what the "we are the 99%" slogan is all about --- shaking up that paradigm.


This is about money, and having a decent life, not looks or old high school feelings.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:
Originally Posted by *serenbat* 

many seem to miss this part!

When you don't get any assistance, you choose to have children and take responsibility for them because you don't get assistance and have to do it on your own.

The problem is that you're thinking of this as money that goes to parents. I think of it as money that goes to children to keep them in their families. Children don't choose to be born, they can't be expected to "take responsibility," and they have urgent needs. If we don't provide well for them, we get bad results. (And in fact, we don't provide very well for them and we do get relatively bad results, compared to other wealthy countries.)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> this isn't only it - we have state programs that continue to aid in housing, plus county food/housing assistance, WIC, CHIP and school lunch aid


Yes, true. All are means-tested programs to keep low-income children from being homeless and hungry and from dying of preventable diseases.

It's not that I don't get it. In fact, knowing what things were like before we had these programs, for example in the Great Depression, I think they are critical to our ability to grow as a society. Right now, our income level here determines our life expectancy. I do get it. I'm just repelled by this ideology of "I've got mine, Jack," and regarding children as belonging to other people. There is a good reason to do this through the government, and that is, it's been shown to work in every country where the government does it.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I think our feelings are just our feelings and don't need any defense at all. The problem comes in when someone doesn't know how to process those feelings in a healthy way and just starts striking out at other people. Those other people have feelings, too.


People strike out when their feelings are criticized.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anca*
> 
> 1. *SAH for 1 year* receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than *$180/month or more than * *$1030/month* (mothers who have earned more are not intitled to receive their 85% if it goes by that limit)....
> 
> ...Oh and the children after 2 yrs old are entitled to receive around *$13/month* *-*it sounds like a joke but it's not. So here with this money you can buy two books or three pizza.
> 
> Unfortunately, women with low education and low income are encouraged to have babies while women with higher education and higher income and especially middle class are discouraged to have more than 1 child. Families with 3 children are rare, especially in the educated and good income homes.


From what you're saying, it sounds like the women with higher education and higher income are making well in excess of $1030 a month and therefore don't want to take that much of a cut in pay for very long. Presumably, they can also afford better child care options than the public day care that most poor mothers would be forced to rely on.

Since the poor stay-at-home mother would lose her monthly stipend after the first child turned 2, and wouldn't get it for any subsequent children unless she worked for 12 months prior to their births, it really sounds like it's the suboptimum day care -- and not the monthly stipend for that first baby -- that makes many of these women decide that it's preferable to just stay home and let those $13 payments gradually add up. Since each child has to turn 2 before they get another $13, it sounds like this must still a real struggle for most families.

I realize the extreme conservative view would be that all that help should just be taken away -- but it honestly makes more sense to improve the day care system and provide poor women with more education and training so they can earn better incomes. After all, the reason that most middle class women don't think it's "the bees knees" to keep having baby after baby is that they are used to bringing in more than 4x the poor women's salary and don't want to give up that lifestyle. What is the poor woman really giving up if she decides not to go back to work? It seems like she is actually gaining a tremendous sense of comfort in knowing that her children are well cared for.

The answer isn't to make life even more miserable for poor women, so that they'll feel like they really have no option but to leave their children in care they're uncomfortable with. The answer is to give them more tools to work with so they can actually start envisioning and working toward a better life.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> This is about money, and having a decent life, not looks or old high school feelings.


Social status in middle school or high school is a lot like money in adult life, in that those with more of these things have more power to create a decent life for themselves in either situation. In both situations, most of the people at the top find it beneficial to band together and make their existences even more beautiful by working together and manipulating the social rules together.

In contrast, those at the bottom naturally don't like being at the bottom, and in many cases, they prefer to distance themselves from others in similar situations because they don't really want to admit, even to themselves, that this is where they are at in the hierarchy right now, and maybe forever (for a teenager, spending all your teen years at the bottom of the social ladder feels kind of like forever).

So while many in the lower rungs are looking for ways to prove to themselves and others that at least they're better than so-and-so, many at the top are enjoying one another's company and enjoying the perks of being in good with some the other powers that be.

I really do see a parallel between these two situations, because in both cases, many at the bottom experience a real sense of isolation due to the fact that so many in similar situations are just looking for someone else that they can feel superior to.


----------



## pek64

It seems that a lot of what's being said comes from knowing the problem in theory only. When you have lived in that zone where you don't qualify, yet skip meals so your child can eat with the heat on in the winter, and you see those with more money piling up deductions to avoid taxes, and others not working while receiving the assistance you can't have, THEN we can talk about this.

Some programs may be designed to be temporary, but people find ways to abuse them. It's a fact. I know someone who only works 2 days a week. Her child is in school. I don't know why she doesn't work 5 days, but I feel it is none of my business. She does get aid, including WIC. Should she?? Maybe. Maybe not.

The system is abused by some, though it is difficult to know for certain *who* is needy and who is abusing the system. The rules for who gets aid and who doesn't are not working! This is frustrating to some. If you are not frustrated, fine. But maybe you can try to understand the person who *is* frustrated, instead of telling her there's nothing to be frustrated about.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Social status in middle school or high school is a lot like money in adult life, in that those with more of these things have more power to create a decent life for themselves in either situation. In both situations, most of the people at the top find it beneficial to band together and make their existences even more beautiful by working together and manipulating the social rules together.
> 
> In contrast, those at the bottom naturally don't like being at the bottom, and in many cases, they prefer to distance themselves from others in similar situations because they don't really want to admit, even to themselves, that this is where they are at in the hierarchy right now, and maybe forever (for a teenager, spending all your teen years at the bottom of the social ladder feels kind of like forever).
> 
> So while many in the lower rungs are looking for ways to prove to themselves and others that at least they're better than so-and-so, many at the top are enjoying one another's company and enjoying the perks of being in good with some the other powers that be.
> 
> I really do see a parallel between these two situations, because in both cases, many at the bottom experience a real sense of isolation due to the fact that so many in similar situations are just looking for someone else that they can feel superior to.


And maybe you're feeling superior, yourself.

This is about struggling to make ends meet! Not feelings of being on the bottom rung!


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I really do not care one iota about forcing parents to be responsible.


Quote:


> Children don't choose to be born, they can't be expected to "take responsibility," and they have urgent needs.


IMO- since I have seen this - when parents don't take responsibility they also don't teach it - and YES I do know of children having children and they too are not taking responsibility

Quote:


> The system is abused by some, though it is difficult to know for certain *who* is needy and who is abusing the system. The rules for who gets aid and who doesn't are not working! This is frustrating to some. If you are not frustrated, fine. But maybe you can try to understand the person who *is* frustrated, instead of telling her there's nothing to be frustrated about.


yes and I too have seen personal accounts of people greatly abusing the system for year and years- I do know this is not rare as some may think it to be- it's very real


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> It seems that a lot of what's being said comes from knowing the problem in theory only. When you have lived in that zone where you don't qualify, yet skip meals so your child can eat with the heat on in the winter, and you see those with more money piling up deductions to avoid taxes, and others not working while receiving the assistance you can't have, THEN we can talk about this.


I think we can, and are, talking about it right now. To say that people can't come together and talk about things until they've all been in the exact same situations is just very isolating, because we're never all going to have the exact same lives.

Theories by themselves are certainly not enough, but theories are also humanity's way of organizing what we've learned about how to view and how to solve a particular problem, or a particular kind of problem. Being able to see common threads running through two different situations -- such as the social hierarchy in middle school and the socio-economic hierarchy in the larger society, can sometimes help us recognize a similar underlying dynamic in both situations.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> And maybe you're feeling superior, yourself.


I'm not claiming that I'm perfect and that I never succumb to the temptation to look down on someone else. I just hope I'm getting better at recognizing when I'm starting to veer in that "smug" direction.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> This is about struggling to make ends meet! Not feelings of being on the bottom rung!


Now I'm going to have to fight against my tendency to feel smug because I can see the parallel between "struggling to make ends meet" and "feelings of being on the bottom rung."


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I'm not claiming that I'm perfect and that I never succumb to the temptation to look down on someone else. I just hope I'm getting better at recognizing when I'm starting to veer in that "smug" direction.


This shows the lack of understanding. It is not "smug" to feel taken advantage of. It is not "smug" to feel frustrated.

Think about what you are reading. Please. Before responding. You are missing the point.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Now I'm going to have to fight against my tendency to feel smug because I can see the parallel between "struggling to make ends meet" and "feelings of being on the bottom rung."


Please fight, very hard.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I think we can, and are, talking about it right now. To say that people can't come together and talk about things until they've all been in the exact same situations is just very isolating, because we're never all going to have the exact same lives.
> 
> Theories by themselves are certainly not enough, but theories are also humanity's way of organizing what we've learned about how to view and how to solve a particular problem, or a particular kind of problem. Being able to see common threads running through two different situations -- such as the social hierarchy in middle school and the socio-economic hierarchy in the larger society, can sometimes help us recognize a similar underlying dynamic in both situations.


We are *not* talking about this. You are preaching, without listening. There's a difference. The only "correct" response is to tell you that you are right. Why not agree to disagree and move on?


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> We are *not* talking about this. You are preaching, without listening. There's a difference. The only "correct" response is to tell you that you are right. Why not agree to disagree and move on?


are you saying her above response that you quoted is preaching?

because if you are i have to say i completely disagree with you.

mm brings up a very valid point. i mean the people who make the policies about this do not speak through experience. hopefully through research and probably through theories.

it seems to me that those who oppose welfare are saying really that system should be abolished because the working poor cant get welfare because there is no equality in the system. THAT blows my mind. no one talks about reducing our defence budget or other measures. its about lets take it out on the poor just coz its easy to do.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> are you saying her above response that you quoted is preaching?
> 
> because if you are i have to say i completely disagree with you.
> 
> mm brings up a very valid point. i mean the people who make the policies about this do not speak through experience. hopefully through research and probably through theories.
> 
> it seems to me that those who oppose welfare are saying really that system should be abolished because the working poor cant get welfare because there is no equality in the system. THAT blows my mind. no one talks about reducing our defence budget or other measures. its about lets take it out on the poor just coz its easy to do.


Why do you assume that those who oppose an unfair system are wanting to throw children out in the street to be hungry, cold, and fending for themselves?

There is no way to discuss the problems if one side is insisting that everything is peachy! And that's what seems to be going on. Talking about middle school crap, and smugly telling us how not smug they are, is *not* a discussion.

To everyone who has criticized serenbat, I ask you this -- is the system perfect the way it is right now?

If your answer is "no", then you are in a position to understand the frustration some feel when they are denied assistance and see others abusing the system. It is this frustration that is being discussed! NOT should children be cast into the street.

And theory only gets you so far with understanding. Before I experienced the nausea of pregnancy, I knew about it in theory. Having experienced it, I can say with certainty -- I was clueless!!

Please think about what I just said before you respond.


----------



## mammal_mama

I read a really good article a while back -- but I'm not sure I can link to it here, because it has a spiritual bent and this is not the spirituality forum. It talks about learning the difference between capitalism and truly free enterprise.

What I say below is mostly my own opinoins based on what I've learned from the article.

With capitalism, success depends on continuing to have a lower class that is willing to work for low wages. The success of some depends on not having everyone be successful, so those who've succeeded in the capitalist system have a strong interest in keeping the benefits they have by using their power to inhibit real free enterprise.

For example, we are now learning that it's really healthier to eat fresh, locally grown foods than to eat foods that need chemicals to keep them preserved while they're transported to us. If our economy were truly free enterprise, the healthiest option would also be the most economical. I mean, chemicals cost money, transport costs money, so why is it often cheaper to buy tomatoes or strawberries from Mexico than it is to buy them from a local farmer? It's because we don't have free enterprise -- we have a capitalist system that's been engineered to keep the capital in the hands of big industry.

It should come as no surprise that many of the corporate powers feel threatened by the free exchange of information, ideas, and various kinds of products and services on the Internet. People can now easily learn about the real human and environmental costs of many of those cheap products, and many people are also finding ways to use their skills and knowledge to create a good income for themselves with little to no startup money.

I really believe the Internet will be key in helping us move from the confines of capitalism to a real land of free enterprise and opportunity for everyone. It won't happen overnight, but as it does, it will gradually change everyone's paradigm. Right now, it really goes against the grain for many of us to move out of the competitive mindset, because we're so used to a world of winners and losers, where we measure our success in terms of comparing ourselves to everyone else.

So I don't want to be devoid of compassion for that person who's looking to me as their point of comparison -- as that person who can enable them to say, "Well, at least I'm a better person and a better example to my kids than *she* is." Of course no one ever likes being scapegoated, but I know I've also done my own share of scapegoating throughout my life. This is where we're at now, but I think someday we'll all be able to like and respect each other, and not see anyone else as a barrier to our own success.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> We are *not* talking about this. You are preaching, without listening. There's a difference. The only "correct" response is to tell you that you are right. Why not agree to disagree and move on?


Why are you saying I'm not listening -- is it because I still don't agree with you and serenbat? Is the only "correct" response for me to tell you *you're* right?

As far as what you've said in at least one other post about the importance of experience, I think everyone on this thread has lots of experience with living their real lives. And actually, according to your line of reasoning, the only people "qualified" to criticize welfare recipients would be those who've actually been welfare recipients themselves.

And yeah, there's nothing wrong with two or more people agreeing to disagree on something, but that doesn't mean one party needs to shut up and "move on" while the other/s keep talking.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Why are you saying I'm not listening -- is it because I still don't agree with you and serenbat? Is the only "correct" response for me to tell you *you're* right?
> 
> As far as what you've said in at least one other post about the importance of experience, I think everyone on this thread has lots of experience with living their real lives. And actually, according to your line of reasoning, the only people "qualified" to criticize welfare recipients would be those who've actually been welfare recipients themselves.
> 
> And yeah, there's nothing wrong with two or more people agreeing to disagree on something, but that doesn't mean one party needs to shut up and "move on" while the other/s keep talking.


Agreeing to disagree means you don't take one more shot at the other person.

I urge you to reread what I've already written, as I must go now. Please think about it. I don't know when I can get back to this, but I'd like to hear that you understand what I've said, even if you disagree with it. Right now, it seems that you are not understanding.

I wish a pleasant day to all!


----------



## mammal_mama

So you're asking me to summarize your point of view? Will you also be wiling to summarize mine?

As I understand it, you are asking us to have more sympathy for the working poor who make just slightly too much to qualify for any kind of assistance. I'd like to remind you that my attempts to sympathize kind of backfired with at least one other person. I tried to explain that I am mentally preparing myself for the difficult transitions that I have been, and will be, going through as my income increases and I gradually qualify for less and less assistance. I've explained that sometimes, an increase in income is not quite enough to make up for the reduction in a benefit.

My statements were misinterpreted as me saying that I'm trying my best not to work too much so as to be able to hang on to my current level of assistance. I realized that I may not have worded things in the best way, so I came back to explain what I'd really meant to say -- that I see an increase in income as, overall, a very wonderful thing. My comments about losing some of our food stamps when my income increased a while back, and about me knowing that I will eventually need to pay a co-pay's for my girls' medicaid, were seriously not me gasping, "Oh my god! I'm about to lost my free ride!" They were really about my attempts to empathize with serenbat; even though I know that I have never been in her exact same shoes, I think I can understand how hard it is to have to scramble to figure out how we're going to get by.

I also understand that you're asking us to have more sympathy for her need to sometimes lash out because she is hurting so bad. I think you have a really valid point here, but I think there's also room for those she's lashing out against to share their own points of view.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I also understand that you're asking us to have more sympathy for her need to sometimes lash out because she is hurting so bad.


I certainly do not want nor need your sympathy.

You do not know the whole reasoning behind how and why I feel the way I do, nor do you need all the details and given what others have posted I highly doubt much would change in your thinking regarding it. I see it very pointless to even explain farther as I feel nothing will appease you, and I do not care frankly. My state is making changes where they can for "assistance" and I (like others) do know abuse is real and many do share my point of view IRL.

Quote:


> I realized that I may not have worded things in the best way


I completely agree, you don't.

ETA- not like this will matter or that others even get it - but I do know a person that right now can not walk because she has huge upfront costs (that's what happens when people have insurance and not getting it for free) and has to WAIt to get surgery, and I know someone who is getting aid and get's her nails done weekly- I see walking as a need and nails as greed!


----------



## mamaofthree

mammal mama: i wanted to say that i loved your post about capitalism. very right on the money actually and i would love to read that article if you have the time to send me a PM link. 

serenbat: ((hug)) you are hurting alot for whatever reason. you don't have to share but your anger is very up front and in people face. i wish you could have what ever it is you need to heal so you could move on and not be so angry.

personally, i have know one family that "used" the system. everyone else who needed it really needed it. and most just barely scrapped by. it was not fun for them, it wasn't a party of free money that they joyously sat around laughing at all the saps who went to work and didn't just milk the system like a big bunch of losers. i can't imagine trying to feed my family on what food stamps would give. i think it is easy to blame the poor on the worlds troubles. it is easy because they have no one to stick up for them. especailly here where we love money and status and things more than people. if we truly cared for people we would all be ok in making sure everyone had what they needed to bare bones live. but instead we seem to only care about what is good for ourselves. very sad indeed.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> i think it is easy to blame the poor on the worlds troubles. it is easy because they have no one to stick up for them. especailly here where we love money and status and things more than people.


you really just don't get any of what I am saying

it would be nice if people really did need assistance vs what is going on for so many others

Quote:


> i can't imagine trying to feed my family on what food stamps would give.


since you can't imagine that, can you imagine what it is like when you don't get food stamps and can't do it?


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I certainly do not want nor need your sympathy.


I realize that you've never asked me for sympathy. If I'm remembering right, the main thing you've asked me is whether I'm teaching my children that it's good to try to make less money in order to get more public assistance. I don't know if you've paid much attention to my responses -- I realize you did pick out the part where I realized that I may not have worded things in the best way, and you expressed your agreement with that -- but I kind of feel like you're just skimming through my posts and picking out any little tidbits you can pounce on and use as evidence to support whatever sort of beef you seem to have with me, or with whatever kind of person you seem to think I am.

My post about sympathy was in response to another poster who asked if I could demonstrate any understanding of what she had been saying. Good little student that I am, I decided to take a moment to demonstrate that I did understand that she was asking us all to have more sympathy for the working poor who don't qualify for any benefits, and that she was also asking us to understand that you are lashing out because you are hurting.

Whether you've asked for anyone's sympathy or not, you can't dictate our feelings on the matter anymore than I can force you to stop feeling that all of your hardships are caused by people like me who make less than you and therefore *do* currently qualify for, and receive, some assistance. Here's to hoping, with mamaofthree, that you are soon able to find a way to heal.

And mamaofthree, thanks so much for your kind words! I'll get that link to you ASAP.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> There is no way to discuss the problems if one side is insisting that everything is peachy! And that's what seems to be going on. Talking about middle school crap, and smugly telling us how not smug they are, is *not* a discussion.


You've completely misunderstand what she meant with the "middle school crap" and yet PROVE exactly what she is saying by what you've posted.

You dont qualify for aid and are struggling, and therefore are mad at people who DO qualify and in your opinion dont struggle as much as you do? Why are you mad at THEM? Why not be "mad at" the system/govt/whomever who thinks its ok to set the limits so low that those who dont qualify really struggle? If the chick getting her nails done while getting welfare stops getting her nails done it wont do ONE THING to help YOU get "your share" or help you not struggle. But it lets the "real enemy" (for lack of a better word) off the hook while you're casting negative looks in another poor person's direction. The whole point about the "99 percent" movement is that middle and poor income people shouldnt be fighting each other...we're all in this together.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> you really just don't get any of what I am saying
> 
> it would be nice if people really did need assistance vs what is going on for so many others


it seems neither are you coz you are writing off a whole system because "if people REALLY did need assistance". seriously.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> ETA- not like this will matter or that others even get it - but I do know a person that right now can not walk because she has huge upfront costs (that's what happens when people have insurance and not getting it for free) and has to WAIt to get surgery, and I know someone who is getting aid and get's her nails done weekly- I see walking as a need and nails as greed!


So if person B stops getting her nails done, will Person A get her surgery? How does that work exactly? If one thing has nothing to do with the other, whats the point in mentioning it? Except to blame the poor (oh you know those welfare queens, gettin' their nails done and buying lobster with food stamps.







)

Do you know how LOW one's income has to be to qualify for medicaid in my state? ALL of my kids get medicaid due to our income being below poverty level and yet *I* cannot get medicaid. Its a little mind boggling to me but there ya go. Its just crazy to me that instead of being mad at a system that allows someone to go without needed surgery you are expending so much emotional energy getting pissed at someone getting their nails done. I have just never understood that attitude at all. I read a poster once who said she "never forgot" (after a dozen years) a man buying a lobster with food stamps, but SHE, the cashier trying to make ends meet, could never afford lobster...to me that is so out of touch...be mad you dont make a living wage for your job, be mad lobsters so expensive, be mad that you dont qualify for help but dont be mad at the guy who may very well have eaten beans and rice every day for two weeks to afford a special meal. I've seen people begrudging a mother for buying a birthday cake for her child ("*I* could never afford store bought cake, she should have BAKED it!") or commenting on what people are wearing while using food stamps ("*I* could never afford those boots!!! why does SHE get to have them AND get food stamps??" ) and i even read one person walking out to see what kind of vehicle someone gets in ("Omg they got into a brand new car!!! bilking the system!!!" ) Its crazy to me. And really offensive.


----------



## mamaofthree

that is so true. because you never know how that person got the things they got. those super nice jeans/shoes/coat may have been bought off season or at the thrift store (we have gotten some nice stuff from friends FOR FREE, and i mean nice stuff), maybe that car belongs to a family member, and yeah, maybe that lobster was a birthday meal. when i was growing up we were on food stamps for a year or so and my mom still remembers epopel giving her grief for daring to buy a roast with her food stamps while they had all sorts of crap food in their own cart. like being poor means you must eat bad food. and YES we ate LOADS of beans and rice and government cheese, but once a month my mom would get a nice cut of meat or whole chicken or something.

and getting your nails done, or going out and getting a pizza or whatever... just because you are poor doesn't mean you must suffer every minute. if you pinch pennies and want to once a month treat yourself to nails, why the heck not. it only cost $15 or so. i try and remember that when i am feeling all judgy of others. what silly stuff have i spent money on? who i am to say what someone can or can't spend their wee bit of money on.

i just refuse to be hateful and pissed off at other families for a life i know nothing about. and i am always glad when someone gets the help they need to feed their children and themselves. i am too busy counting my own blessing to be angry at others for what they have.


----------



## mammal_mama

queenjane and mamaofthree -- thank you for bringing out those points. I am now thinking that the angry judgmentalism is not about the fact that there is welfare -- it's about the fact that some people feel if you're poor enough to qualify for any assistance at all, you owe it to society to be miserable, too, or at least not any happier than the people who don't qualify.

Because actually, anyone who's taken the steps and found out they don't qualify, obviously was willing to take whatever assistance they could get if they *had* qualified.

I don't know how to explain that some of us, no matter what situation we're in, simply *can't* stay depressed for long. For some of us, it's just second nature to find things we enjoy in every situation. To tell the truth, my midwife didn't make it in time for the birth of dd2 because, as she told me on the phone, she just didn't think I seemed miserable or uncomfortable enough to be about to have the baby. And I believed her, because dd1's labor had been totally induced in the hospital, so I wasn't even sure if the mild contractions that felt just slightly stronger than Braxton-Hicks were really labor, LOL.

And for anyone who can't see a parallel between thinking someone's not miserable enough to be in labor, and thinking they're not miserable enough to really need any public assistance for their family -- I'm sad for you that you can't see it. Because for me, being able to see parallels and connecting threads between seemingly totally different situations is helping me see a whole lot of things more clearly.


----------



## 95191

Yes there is no fraud, no gaming of the system and all those who need assistance are getting it! and my state (and around the country as well) is not prosecuting any one for it........it's a perfect system









dream on thinking there are no mother's that need food that aren't getting the aid they need

Quote:


> I don't know if you've paid much attention to my responses


I think it's quite clear and I'm sure I'm not the only one that can see your posts and needs.


----------



## mammal_mama

I haven't seen anyone here say that the system is perfect, or that no human being ever commits any kind of fraud (including welfare fraud), or that everything in life, or in the welfare system, is fair. No one thinks it's just peachy that you haven't been able to obtain any public assistance -- some of us just don't understand your raging need to bash other poor people because of the unfairness you see. Honestly, I'm not a vain person, and if never getting my nails done could ensure that everyone got surgery when they needed it, I'd be all for it. But that's just not how it works.


----------



## kitteh

No one is saying that the system is perfect, serenbat! I think every single person in this thread agrees that there need to be reforms, and that those who truly DO try to game the system by selling food stamps, or working under the table while receiving assistance, or somehow managing to otherwise lie on their application forms ought to be prosecuted. No one here would deny that. But that doesn't mean that the whole system ought to be done away with, and it still does not explain your sweeping bitterness towards all welfare recipients. I'm sorry that you and your family are struggling. I dont think it is fair that you want everyone else who needs assistance to struggle and/or starve too, because if you don't qualify then no one should?


----------



## mamazee

The stereotype of someone getting her nails done while on welfare is the new "welfare Cadillac queen" stereotype, but updated for this generation. It's still a stereotype. People on welfare can't afford expensive trips for their nails. If it is happening at all, which I frankly question, it is very rare. If their nails look nice, most likely a friend is doing it, or they work at a salon themselves and are able to get done by co-workers when the shop isn't busy, or something else. You can't assume that someone with nice nails is spending a lot of money on it. Poor people like to look nice too, and can find ways to keep themselves up on the cheap.

There's this feeling that poor people have to make sure they look poor. If they see jeans at the thrift store that would cost $100 if they'd bought them new, they'd better pass them by because people will assume they are spending their welfare check on $100 jeans. If they have a friend who can do hair nicely, they'd better make sure their hair looks bad and not get any help. If they know how to do nails well (and there are tons of how-to guides on a wide variety of fancy nail painting methods on Pinterest, and I imagine elsewehre) they'd better keep their nails looking as bad as possible, or people will say they don't really need any help.

But at the same time, they are required to keep looking for work, and unless they keep themselves looking nice, they have almost no chance of getting a job. They're in a pretty bad spot between all the expectations for htem.


----------



## kitteh

Also, we have been talking a lot about those who qualify for TANF and foodstamps, but what about the other programs with higher income guidelines? Are those just inherently evil because they don't require that recipients be scraping by or living hand to mouth in order to qualify?

My daughter is on Healthy Families, which is a government-subsidized program for children whose families make slightly too much to qualify for Medi-Cal. However, medi-cal has a special program for pregnancy coverage, and those income guidelines are higher so my pregnancy with DD was totally covered, and this one mostly is too. We also qualify for WIC, whose upper limit for a family of 4 (or family of 3 including a pregnant woman) is over $42,500/year. We budget wisely and make sacrifices in some areas--like not paying to get our hair cut, or not owning a car--but we certainly are not scraping pennies together at the end of the month trying to cover rent. Does that mean we are immoral for accepting the assistance that we are (completely legally!) recieving? Does WIC need to be abolished completely because they don't require that a family be near starvation to qualify for checks?


----------



## mammal_mama

I'm trying to figure out why some find it so offensive to see a welfare recipient who has nice clothes, or nails, or is just clearly finding ways to enjoy her life in spite of her difficulties. How does it help society for anyone to stop smiling and laughing, and join the ranks of the miserable?

Is it that some equate happiness with an attitude that everything is perfect? If I had to wait for my life, or the world, to be perfect before I could start enjoying it, I'd be waiting a very long time. I think it's okay to see the unfairnesses and imperfections, and get busy finding ways to work on them, and still have fun right now.


----------



## 95191

I'm calling it what it is, in the case I DO know- the person is committing fraud and yes I have a real problem with it- I see another mother that needs help and can't get and one that has a standing appointment each week for her nails and brags about it- it is what it is. This mother is only one of three that I personally know about. She is not an upstanding non-queen setting a fine example.

and this is just not some little isolated problem we are having in this country, far from it, it is happening all over--those abusing it will cause those who do need to have cut

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/breaking-news/food-stamp-fraud-costing-floridians-millions/nT6FS/

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2013-01-25/business/sfl-food-stamp-20130124_1_erin-gillespie-food-stamps-ebt-cards

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/millions-commit-food-stamp-fraud-every-year


----------



## mamazee

If you know someone committing fraud, then call the police. But a few people (few enough that it makes news when it happens) breaking the law doesn't mean that the vast majority of people don't honestly need and rely upon that money.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If you know someone committing fraud, then call the police.


you don't call the police!

each state has a reporting agency that conducts it and prosecutes and YES it's very easy to report- I know

if you want to think it is so small go ahead, states don't seem to share this view http://www.cms.gov/Medicare-Medicaid-Coordination/Fraud-Prevention/FraudAbuseforConsumers/downloads/smafraudcontacts.pdf

states have for other assistance programs as well


----------



## kitteh

Those articles cited a 7.5% fraud rate, which is definitely too high, but still leaves over 90% of recipients in the needy-and-honest category. The articles also stated that fraud could be greatly reduced if the agencies simply had better, computerized means of cross-checking income and family size. This 7.5% aren't all working under the table and making unreported income. They are just lying about how much they make, and I think the agencies absolutely have to do a better job of verifying applicants' claims.


----------



## mammal_mama

So serenbat, am I understanding you correctly when I say that it seems that you are not opposed to welfare being available for those who need it, and you are also not opposed to people applying for benefits if they are not earning enough to pay for everything their families need on their own -- so long as, of course, those people giving honest information on their applications, and are not intentionally cutting back their hours in order to stay in a lower income bracket and get more assistance?

If so, then I think you are actually in total agreement with most or all of us on this thread. I feel sure that nobody here is in favor of welfare fraud or any other kind of fraud, for that matter.

Now I'm really puzzled as to why you've seemed so pissed toward me throughout this thread.

I can understand being angry about fraud, but it sounds like reporting it is a fairly easy thing for you to do. Since you're obviously working so hard to make the system better and fairer for everyone, here's to hoping you won't keep feeling such a need to lash out at people. Is it that you'd like to be in a position to directly punish the fraudsters yourself, and just reporting it and letting the authorities deal with it feels kind of hollow and unsatisfying? So you're still looking for anyone you can find to vent your anger on?

I guess the world is full of people who get pissed off at one person or group and take it out on a completely different person or group, but I hope you'll start to realize that doing one good deed, like reporting fraud, doesn't just cancel out a decision to verbally attack other people.


----------



## pek64

Wow! Much has been written since yesterday!

Mammal mamma -- Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Your summarization of my point was beautifully written, and showed you did think about my words! I am grateful that you did, and sorry I did not return the favor!

In addition, mammal mamma, your latest post shows we agree on much! I appreciate the effort you made to move to compromise.

In general, sometimes people are quick to jump to conclusions and react emotionally. I have done this in the past, myself. I had replies in mind for some other posts, but I think it is better if I leave it with the positive note.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Those articles cited a 7.5% fraud rate, which is definitely too high, but still leaves over 90% of recipients in the needy-and-honest category.


are you under the impression that there is only fraud in food assistance area? it's not just one area of assistance and certain states have a larger problem


----------



## kitteh

Not at all, but I am of the belief that the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water! Fraud should be dealt with, and harshly, so that those who truly need and qualify for this assistance can receive it.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

I have to admit that when I see that 7.5% fraud rate, I wonder how many of those people don't need it & are truly trying to steal money from the gov't., and how many do need it but just happen to be slightly above the cut-off & fudge their numbers a bit to make themselves appear eligible. Obviously neither is legal or acceptable, but I have a lot more compassion for someone who truly needs it but just didn't quite make the cut-off without lying.

My gut tells me that the majority of people aren't scamming the system when they have tons of income or money in the bank. People who scam just for the sake of it could much more easily just find ways to steal money or food directly, without going through all that paperwork & identifying information. I'd venture to guess that the majority do need it but don't qualify for whatever reason, and they think it's OK to lie a bit since they are so badly in need. I'm not condoning it, but I understand it, and it feels very different to me than someone with $70K in income just leaving that off their application. Though even then, you don't always know the whole story... maybe the BF with the $70K income was abusive and wouldn't allow her to touch any of that money or something.


----------



## mammal_mama

pek64, thank you for your thoughtful response. It sounds like everyone is basically agreed that a) people who need assistance should be able to receive it with no shaming or disrespectful treatment from others and b) all kinds of fraud are bad.

I think the reason that some of us seem so opposed to each other may be rooted in the reality that some of us prefer to assume positive intent in situations where it's at all possible to do so, and some people prefer to assume negative intent if they can latch onto any words or behaviors that could possibly be construed as an indication of wrongdoing.

Now, obviously, if someone's bragging about how she's given false information so now she has tons of extra money and can get her nails done every week, that's definitely not a situation where any reasonably intelligent person could assume positive intent. The speaker herself doesn't even want you to; she's trying to impress you with her devious ability to put one over on the authorities and get whatever she wants.

And if you currently have three people in your life who are bragging about how deceitful and slick they are, I can see how that could kind of throw you into a new "normal," one in which you can't help but perceive anyone who gets assistance in this negative light.

I think the answer is to surround yourself with new people, if this is at all possible, because your intense obsession with b (from the top paragraph) is causing you to forget about a -- treating people respectfully.


----------



## kitteh

double post


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> 
> I have to admit that when I see that 7.5% fraud rate, I wonder how many of those people don't need it & are truly trying to steal money from the gov't., and how many do need it but just happen to be slightly above the cut-off & fudge their numbers a bit to make themselves appear eligible. Obviously neither is legal or acceptable, but I have a lot more compassion for someone who truly needs it but just didn't quite make the cut-off without lying.
> 
> My gut tells me that the majority of people aren't scamming the system when they have tons of income or money in the bank. People who scam just for the sake of it could much more easily just find ways to steal money or food directly, without going through all that paperwork & identifying information. *I'd venture to guess that the majority do need it but don't qualify for whatever reason, and they think it's OK to lie a bit since they are so badly in need. I'm not condoning it, but I understand it, and it feels very different to me than someone with $70K in income just leaving that off their application. Though even then, you don't always know the whole story... maybe the BF with the $70K income was abusive and wouldn't allow her to touch any of that money or something.*


Also, that $70k in income was the total amount that the boyfriend earned over 3 years! I don't know if they have kids, but 23k a year is not a lot--but is obviously still too much for them to have qualified for food stamps. They could have gotten WIC legally though!


----------



## meemee

imho - all fraud does not mean the same thing. i am absolutely for those trying to beat the system when the system does not work for them.

kinda unrelated i know many people on SSI who make one dollar more on what they are allowed and they are kicked out of getting medicaid (or is it medi-cal). anyways i know more people who work at SS and they tell me so many people dont get on who should but they have no idea how to get help with paperwork.

i would assume the same is true with welfare. the case is 'easier' when you have kids, but when you dont, the system is so so so much harder. esp. if you are homeless.

so while there is fraud, there are also many people who qualify, who should be on welfare - but are not.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> People who scam just for the sake of it could much more easily just find ways to steal money or food directly, without going through all that paperwork & identifying information.


actually in most states it's the opposite- the punishment for embezzlement is much greater and it is easier to forge "paper work" vs retail theft of food, again, depending on other factors the punishment is also less for these types of crimes- and much harder to prove and takes far longer thus allowing more in return- small business are also involved with food assistance fraud- that happens to be a factor as well- really it's quiet easy and takes much longer than you would think to be caught even when there is a tip you are committing the fraud

my state, you must now only own one car and show more income because we have such a problem with fraud


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> imho - all fraud does not mean the same thing. i am absolutely for those trying to beat the system when the system does not work for them.


this really sums up why I feel the way I do


----------



## kitteh

I don't understand why it is so difficult for the agencies involved to cross-check the applicant's reported income with the individual's income as reported to the IRS or the Department of Economic Opportunity. I feel like that would at least help with the 70% of fraud cases that are due to under-reporting of income.


----------



## contactmaya

That last article cited talked about people using food stamps to buy beer. Ok, so that particular store wasnt set up properly and someone was using their food stamps for beer. That only means that their food stamps would run out faster and they would later have to pay cash for food. The net result is the same. That doesnt mean that the person buying the beer, doesnt need food stamps.

Seriously, there is always someone who goes on about welfare recipients, like there arent bigger problems out there. The poor are bad full stop, and there will always the poor, and how they are treated is an important matter of public policy.

I think the original question of this thread "welfare-moms-should-we-be-supporting-moms-so-they-can-stay-at-home-with-their-children", is a very interesting one, that only one or two people on this thread have actually tried to address. Not that some of the discussion hasnt been interesting (minus the predictable welfare bashing stuff...sorry serenbat)

I want to say that it is in the interests of children to be with a primary care giver, usually their mother, and that a civilized society helps make that happen.

Is there a way to do this fairly? Is there a way to do this without also restricting opportunities for women outside of the motherhood role? I dont know. But im interested in a society that promotes the wellbeing of its young and vulnerable.


----------



## pek64

For those who want to keep debating the fraud issue, I've started another thread. http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1373192/public-assistance-debate


----------



## contactmaya

ps i agree that fraud in any area, as well as in the area of welfare, is a bad thing. Its against the law, as well it should be.


----------



## pek64

I'd like to see the following in public assistance programs.

1. Work from home options, for those whose children are in school, or able to work on their own some, if homeschooled. This way they wouldn't be working just to pay for childcare. And it gives those with young children a chance to be the caregiver.

2. Raise the amount you can make before benefits start disappearing. As well as the amount you can earn and still qualify in the first place. This one applies to social security, as well. My father was retired, and got a job working for a small business. He quit after one year, because he discovered he had to pay for the privilege of working. He had to pay so much in taxes, it took away all he had earned, *and* some of his pension money. That's excessive, in my opinion.

3. Fund the programs by taxing the $100,000+ earners more, and the $40,000- earners less. In other words, shift the burden. It would mean taking away some tax shelters.

4. Actually visit the recipients, and confirm need, on an annual basis. This *hopefully* would reduce fraud. (Edited to say that this has already been declared a bad idea. Please read the other posts before repeating the flaws.)

5. Provide unsecured loans for those who want to start a business, which would make them an income other than public assistance. We need to boost the economy. Let's help those who want to work for themselves.

Pet food cannot be purchased with food stamps. I heard that fresh produce was not covered years ago, but thankfully that changed. Are there other changes needed?


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> are you under the impression that there is only fraud in food assistance area? it's not just one area of assistance and certain states have a larger problem


Food Assistance fraud is higher I believe because it is the easiest to get and the most quickly provided. The intention being not to have too much red tape and wait time for the most critical immediate area of need.

I am personally among the poorest of the working poor and would theoretically qualify for assistance but do not choose to receive it. I still have zero resentment for those who do. Even if they get to be at home with their children while I am working overtime that's fine with me. They are still accepting a difficult situation if they make that choice to be home with kids for a while. They are still poor and it is hard enough without people making harsh judgments! Back when I received assistance, I hated hated hated discussing our lifestyle over and over and over with workers, feeling like I had to defend myself all of the time, having to go to so many lecturing informational sessions.

I felt I had no privacy. Applying for welfare of any kind is pretty uncomfortable. Most people feel very conscious of the fact that they are not paying their own way. I feel hurt on their behalf by a debate like this.

My husband and I run a business and make significantly below minimum wage for our time. We are doing worse financially than if we were working at the bottom of the wage bracket but we do have some freedoms and are doing work we care about.

We sacrificed a lot in income potential to be at home with our children. We once did receive public assistance in food stamps and health care for a few years while I was at home with young children and I did not feel it was wrong. Those benefits didn't raise us out of poverty but took just a bit of the desperation out of our lives. For me to have been employed during that time would have been a far worse picture for everyone involved. We would have still been struggling except my children would not have had that one blessing--the continuity of care and my own stability. My child care would have been subsidized and cost the state MORE than it cost to have me at home with them in benefits. If I had been working in anything available, I would have made less than the cost of childcare. That is usually the case. I also think it is okay to use welfare to help provide greater stability for children in poorer families, and having moms home for a while usually does exactly that. The emotional struggles and anxiety create some major risks, and those children just might need moms at home the most, and may be the ones most likely to otherwise end up in substandard child care situations as well. Some families may be able to provide adequate internal stability while still managing 2 lower-income jobs as well, but some may not handle that adequately and those children can be really vulnerable.

Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system. We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that. Our actual income was well below $25,000 this year for our family of five at home. The maximum ever for our family (then of six) has been around $35,000 a few years ago. So- still no welfare and I'm still not upset with anyone else receiving it. No matter how hard our life has sometimes been-- and it's sometimes been extremely hard-- I do not mind people getting assistance and who maybe have it easier than me in some ways. It's okay for those people to have it easier and I don't need to fret about the idea that they may be taking something from me. I just don't see my relationships with other people through that lens.

Welfare takes the edge off of poverty and that is all. There are a lot of limits on what is available and for how long already. I am glad for any mama who manages to be at home with children and gets some welfare, because surviving even then is hard but I think there is so much benefit to young children. Other moms will choose not to and that is fine.

I agree with the PP that if you working and barely not qualifying for benefits and have children in the home you should be in a tax bracket that gets an EITC and because of that pay minimal taxes. So I don't think "your" struggle is significantly paying others' way. You could argue that in way I am not paying others' way enough because in theory I could send my kids to school and work something better than my barely-surviving business and then I'd be contributing more. Whatever. Moms should not be made to feel bad for using what is available to make their children's lives better. Perhaps as a society we should create better benefits for all moms but as long as these are the ones we have those who can live slightly better because they can get access should feel free to do so.

I also don't think fraud is a factor in whether we think moms should legitimately receive any benefits while choosing to be at home with children. Nor is wishing benefits could be broader a plausible reason for saying those currently with access shouldn't have that access. They are legitimate concerns but they don't seem applicable to this particular subject to me. The question is just whether moms should stay at home with children by choice and get benefits by choice on the taxpayers' dime.

I also noticed a shift at some point in which the distinction was made about this only applying to moms who are choosing not to take actual middle class job opportunities--and not applying to those with minimum wage job opportunities that wouldn't actually pay the bills. I think a mom has to be either a professional or quite established in a working class/semiprofessional career to have the "covering expenses" type of job. Maybe with one child but with 2, 3, or more kids needing either day care or even just after school care then it seems to me it takes a much higher-skill income to make ends meet by working. And I don't think that many women with those kinds of opportunities are choosing welfare. Many of them may choose part-time work because their skills are valuable enough to find a way to do that, but the "working class" women are often expendable enough that employers don't have a vested interest in being at all flexible enough for a mom of young children.

Among the women I have met who made that choice, the most common comment from them is that they have paid their share in taxes for years and expect to contribute further in the future, and that their contribution makes it quite fair that they would be on the receiving end of such benefits for a year or a few years while parenting young children. I tend to agree.


----------



## pek64

If you are separated or divorced, I believe the father of the children is asked to pay for the assistance. Now, if he doesn't work, taxpayers have to pay.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:
Originally Posted by *pek64* 

I'd like to see the following in public assistance programs.

1. Work from home options, for those whose children are in school, or able to work on their own some, if homeschooled. This way they wouldn't be working just to pay for childcare. And it gives those with young children a chance to be the caregiver. *Do you mean publicly-provided opportunities? Work from home opportunities already do exist but only in businesses in which there is some profit in doing so, so there is nothing stopping a mom from working this way. The ability to care for children at the same time can be severely limited if you need to provide sustained attention and focus to the work in order to actually be a productive worker, and supervision can be a problem depending on the work. Businesses are already doing what they can to provide this due to demand from employees but I do think there are some major practical hindrances in many fields. Most people I know who work at home have done so only after establishing a solid relationship with an employer, do it only for a portion of their work time, and still need child care help if they have young children.*

2. Raise the amount you can make before benefits start disappearing. As well as the amount you can earn and still qualify in the first place. This one applies to social security, as well. My father was retired, and got a job working for a small business. He quit after one year, because he discovered he had to pay for the privilege of working. He had to pay so much in taxes, it took away all he had earned, *and* some of his pension money. That's excessive, in my opinion. *So more people should be able to receive benefits? Increase welfare overall? Do you mean food stamps?*

3. Fund the programs by taxing the $100,000+ earners more, and the $40,000- earners less. In other words, shift the burden. It would mean taking away some tax shelters. *Isn't this already true as far as tax brackets? Even standard deductions make a bigger percentage difference the lower your income is. * *Currently a married couple with three children making 40,000 per year gets over 2000 back in EITC, so an extra 5% of their income in addition to standard deductions and other deductions like the child tax credits that reduce taxable amounts by a much larger percentage if you have a smaller income. ...I'd need to know which tax shelters currently exist and why before knowing exactly what I think of them.*

4. Actually visit the recipients, and confirm need, on an annual basis. This *hopefully* would reduce fraud. *I would be horrified if I had to let someone visit my home this way. I would feel invaded. I am a very private person. Would they be checking to make sure I was poor, or making sure I cared for my children "properly" or what? Yikes. I'd have to feel twice as desperate to ask for help if it involved that. I know I'm weird but not everyone feels okay, especially poor people, with having the government look closely at them. People wouldn't seek help because they were afraid that the fact that they are bad housekeepers would draw attention or that someone would think their children were neglected if their were'nt enough bedrooms or something.* *It's a tricky thing to "audit" someone's life, and also expensive to implement. Why not use and improve existing digital "paper trails" since there are so few ways to avoid being a part of that and it can potentially be made more and more efficient over time.*


> 5. Provide unsecured loans for those who want to start a business, which would make them an income other than public assistance. We need to boost the economy. Let's help those who want to work for themselves. *There are some programs in existence to promote small businesses with favorable loans. Usually* *you have to do a lot of homework to create a business plan and show that your market is adequate*, *and I think there is financing available in many cases for those who have that kind of solid plan. For those who don't, those unsecured loans will be defaulting left and right. I own a small business, and I hear people talk about extremely unrealistic business ideas all of the time. I see such unrealistic and financially unsustainable businesses fail after a year or two when their startup funds run out. How would such a program prevent creating a multitude of these? I think if a business proposal is plausibly sustainable and thoroughly-researched then it can already find investors. It's basically harder and requires many more skills to succeed in small business than to succeed as an employee in my opinion.*
> 
> Pet food cannot be purchased with food stamps. I heard that fresh produce was not covered years ago, but thankfully that changed. Are there other changes needed? *Part of me would like to make certain percentages of sugar content excluded, but I truly feel that people should make their own choices instead and that such rules are too controversial to pin down.*


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> So serenbat, am I understanding you correctly when I say that it seems that you are not opposed to welfare being available for those who need it, and you are also not opposed to people applying for benefits if they are not earning enough to pay for everything their families need on their own -- so long as, of course, those people giving honest information on their applications, and are not intentionally cutting back their hours in order to stay in a lower income bracket and get more assistance?


That's not how I read what serenbat is saying, at all. You continue to give her credit for generous impulses when her words do not indicate any such thing. She has consistently complained that government at any level is providing any kind of aid for any low income parents, on the grounds that they are undeserving because they are asking for it and because other people in the society have to pay taxes to cover the cost. And it's a bad example for their children, who need to learn to shift for themselves MORE than they need food.

If you want me to do that annoying thing of quoting every post to prove my point, I will, but I think it's pointless. She said it all already.

If the problem is that some people are low-income yet not eligible for aid, then you don't say that we should make the eligibility standards tougher, because obviously we should be giving aid to the people who are struggling at that borderline. We have to extend aid further, not punish more families for being poor.

In any case, there aren't welfare programs designed to help moms stay at home with their children. Period. If some moms make ssi or food stamps or even TANF work for them that way, they must be amazing managers to do it. Certainly they're not on a picnic when they have to go to the various offices to sign up or even when they use WIC or food stamps to pay for their food.

I totally understand why some moms here choose not to use TANF or WIC or food stamps even though they are income eligible, and why some do. It's an equation--how bad is the experience of signing up and getting the benefit, how tough would it be to FEED YOUR KIDS without it?


----------



## pek64

I'm going to try to answer the points above.

The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.

I think organics should be covered. I also eat potato chips, because some days that's my only fat source, so I'd hate to exclude snack foods, but I don't see the benefit of Doritos. So food restrictions are difficult.

Folks who make more money can afford accountants to help them find ways around paying more in taxes. Those loopholes should be closed. Maybe interest paid on the primary residence can be declared, but an R that's not your primary residence or other houses are not deductible. (I've never had a second house, so I don't know if I'm right about this, but my sister had a house and RV and declared the interest on both.) I'd have to make myself more knowledgeable about tax deductions to answer this one more intelligently.

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!

Yes, I think the current levels of who qualifies is too low. I hear this complaint from others, that the cost of living has gone up, but not the qualification levels.

Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.


----------



## kitteh

I still think home inspections would be problematic. We have nicer looking home furnishings, including a leather couch and matching bedroom set that my inlaws mostly paid for. We also have two flat screen tvs, dvd players and cable boxes with dvrs for both. We scrimp in other areas to make these expenditures fit within our means. Of course, my family isnt asking for food stamps, but the point is that looks can be deceptive and don't necessarily reflect your exact income.


----------



## kitteh

I also have a (not so) smart phone that likes to double post.


----------



## mamazee

Also, people can have enough money to buy nice furniture, and then lose a job/jobs, and THEN need food stamps. A lot of people who need food stamps only need them temporarily, like between jobs. It would be ridiculous and economically stupid for them to sell their car/furniture/TV between jobs so they can look poor enough for the home study, and then buy new ones after their temporary need for food stamps is past.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:
Originally Posted by *pek64* 

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!



> Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.


http://www.sba.gov/content/microloan-program These are actually distributed by community nonprofits. For instance in my community I would go here: http://www.maced.org/loanproducts.htm This organization has difficulty finding qualified applicants. I have generally assumed such organizations existed in many places. A private investor if you could find one to start trying to convince would be even more interested in risk and likely profit.

When a mom is getting welfare to help her stay at home with children, I assume the children are preschool aged or younger. In my state your benefits would be extremely limited if your children were all above 5yo and you were not employed. Homeschooling would not excuse you. You would be expected to actively seek work and would have stricter time cutoffs. I think if you couldn't get paying work, you would be expected to do at least 20 hours of volunteer work and also continue looking. The 20 hours is definitely required for cash benefits because we live in a college town and I think starting in 2000 the single moms who were full time students here had to also work at least 20 hours to get benefits and many of them chose not to receive them and to instead go into debt with student loans to cover it.

Once children go to school part time jobs are a good option, but it can be difficult to match to the school schedule which would be the most important thing for saving on childcare. A lot of moms who may have gotten some state assistance when their kids were infants and toddlers are back in the work force at least part time by the time their kids go to school. Being a SAHM getting state benefits is pretty much already a temporary thing confined to those youngest years, which is part of why I see no problems with it.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

I would not support home studies, I think poor people are already judged plenty & we certainly don't need to add to it.

I would support cross-referencing IRS data to cut back on fraud. And while we're at it, I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.

To get back to the original topic, I'd favor an automatic stipend for all parents of children under age 5, to help cover either SAH income losses or daycare costs. I suppose there could be income limits, but they'd have to be generous -- would depend on local COL but maybe something like after $50K the stipend lessens, eventually to $0 for those that make over $100K.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> I'm going to try to answer the points above.
> 
> The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.


This just doesnt make sense to me.

When you apply for assistance you need to meet certain qualifications. You show proof of income, bank statements, how much your car is worth, you are supposed to declare how much cash on hand you have, etc. If you meet the guidelines you usually get approved. What does "living high" mean? If your boyfriend buys you a big tv, or your parents buy you a leather sofa, how does this change whether you qualify? and how would a worker determine that? The guidelines are the guidelines, what you choose to do with the income you DO make is up to you.

Its like when people complain about people buying, say, junk food with food stamps. If you get 100 dollars a month in food stamps, thats what you get. If you spend it on junk, you dont get MORE money. Whether you shop at Aldi, or only buy organic, or just eat beans and rice, or eat a lot of meat, or *whatever*...you still get the same amount each month. If you make $12K/yr and qualify for FS, you qualify whether or not you take some of your own money to get your nails done. If you take rent money and get your nails done well you have bigger problems that have little to do with food stamps or welfare or medicaid. And in terms of food stamps....i would guess that most people (or at least a high percentage) that receive food assistance are actually working at a job and have earned income. Or they have been recently laid off.

I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *queenjane*
> 
> I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.


We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.


----------



## pek64

OK
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmcneal*
> 
> We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.


My nephew spent his childhood having his mom sell his videogames to pay the rent or gas. It must suck to have that be your childhood.







And she was only on assistance for a very short period of time because of how low it made her feel. She was a hard worker but as a single mom it was hard to make ends meet even working fulltime.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> OK
> Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*


Thanks!


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy*
> I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.


In many states where there are a lot of income-eligible people, not everyone who could be is enrolled in the food stamp program. I knew this was true back when I was a grant writer, but it's still true. It means that a lot of families either go hungry or rely on other programs to subsidize their food costs.

The political right has criticized the current presidential administration for having too many people on food stamps. It's true that this is an indicator of an economic downturn, but it's also a way of cushioning the whole economy against the downturn. It's a much better way than giving the money to very large banks. The banks returned the TARP money, but they withheld a lot of the business-expanding loans they were expected to lay out to keep cash flow moving. When we as a society cushion the impact of a high unemployment rate on the lowest income people, they put that money right back into the economy, essentially because they can't afford to save it.

The thing is, no one would ever pass the idea of informing people below a certain income level of available programs based on their taxes. First, there are a lot of people on the left and on the right who would be worried that such a move is too invasive of people's privacy. There are also a lot of people in the country (as we've seen on this thread) who are concerned about robbing low-income people of their initiative to work. Also, the fact that the money flows back into the economy is not an argument for people who are unhappy with the idea of our taxes going back out to us in this way, for a variety of ideological reasons, some more savory than others.

In any case, to tie this back to the topic of the thread, I don't think food stamps are a sufficient supplement to allow low-income single parents to stay home with their children for more than a short time.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work.


this already does happen - it's not some radical new idea- it's here for many- if you get assistance or not

if you live in public housing (family or senior citizen) you are subjected to inspections - one could even argue that it is discriminatory for non-assisted housing families to not be subjected to the same for receiving other "assistance"- mostly the cost to enforce this and the fact the govt owned property is just that - not private

regardless if you receive any or no govt help- and if you have children you can be subjected to inspection based on several things - local/state zoning laws, health hazards, suspicion of child neglect, etc - so if you are a crappy housekeeper and someone feels this might endanger your child they can report you

assets - you have to disclose this in most places anyhow, this again is not something radical or not going on, it is, in my state if you have a car with a huge car payment and want food stamps you will not be eligible

the problem comes down to those who are committing fraud and doing what ever they can to make the "system" right for them and those who feel they can have a life style change entitling them to benefits at the expense of others - I see not all here feel fraud is not really fraud when those who need it to work for them do it and that making the system work for you is OK







what ever it takes!

Quote:


> Now my kids are older and yet because of our *"lifestyle choices"* we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system. We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, *though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that. *


when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about- we care far more about health care and making that accessible and affordable to all vs letting a mother stay home with their child - even in the countries that do help with this, they have accessible health care - maybe very bad but they do have more than we have - until we have that- this is a non-issue and in the meantime it there is growing interest to reform these systems of assistance

ETA- I really see this far down on the radar for most given like I said health care being #1- if all the mothers that are working quit tomorrow there simply would be no more assistance to those already getting it-short or long- many struggle (without any assistance) for years to stay home once they have children and continue to not depend on assistance after the births- short term is what assistance in most cases is meant for not a a life style of several years


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> *when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this*- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should be subject others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others


But others *can* do this.

It's not unfair that people take advantage of programs they are eligible for. You could choose to do the same -- anyone could choose to do this, as long as they are eligible. You could lose your job tomorrow and if your income falls below the limits, you could also receive assistance while being a SAHM.

I understand that you seem to be upset because you are just above the eligibility cut-offs but still paying a lot of taxes so you feel like you are funding others who are better off than you in the end. And I agree that in that regard, the system has majorly failed you. But you have a choice. You can keep working and doing your best to stay afloat and struggling just to get by, or you could leave your job, go on welfare, and deal with all the judgement & intrusiveness that goes along with that, and still struggle to get by. I know neither choice is great and that is exactly my point -- why fault someone for choosing what works for them out of two rough options?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about


I would argue that welfare programs are working on exactly that -- making the playing field level, making sure everyone has food to eat, a home to sleep in, and access to medical care. Yes, there are huge failings in this system, and I'd love to see improvements, but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> this really sums up why I feel the way I do


actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.


I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around-

we simply are NOT at a level playing field - we are not like other countries that do allow this- not even close

If you think giving money makes thing even you are sadly mistaken, quitting a job to live off others is also not expectable on so many levels- first it simply is not that simple - you loose far more than you gain in many areas.

I can't imagine that others think people should not work as to get assistance. Getting assistance certainly does not make it "level" - we all do not have access to fee food, health care and housing.

I also never said people should not get assistance! You simply are choosing to think otherwise. There is a big difference IMO from giving assistance for a short term vs 6+ years that I know some are on.


----------



## 95191

I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.

Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meemee*
> 
> actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.


Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around-


I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.
> 
> Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.


OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.


----------



## mamazee

A woman who was working minimum wage and got pregnant might very well find there is no way her work will pay for adequate child care, and therefore might very well "choose" to be a SAHM. Not a full choice but still, it would be a case of quitting rather than being fired.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:
Originally Posted by *crunchy_mommy* 

Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.
I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.


> *OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.*


This kind of happened to me. I was working as a waitress when I found out I was pregnant with DD, and I worked up until the last month or so, and returned to work again after 6 weeks. I hated being a waitress, especially since I had completed my degree and wanted to get on with my career search, but I realized that providing for my family was more important than my career aspirations. I worked lunch shift and my DH worked afternoon/evenings. Luckily we had the same 2 days off together. It sucked for our relationship, but it was what we had to do in order to ensure that WE raised DD (not that we could have afforded daycare anyhow, but still.)

But then when my DD was about a year old I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment for 6 months. Ultimately I decided not to stay at home 100% of the time, but found a part-time job working in a local elementary school. Because it is just a part-time (less than part-time, actually) job I am still eligible for partial unemployment and that has helped us bridge the gap until my annual 5% raises start to add up. DH has also had a raise during this time, which will help when the unemployment benefits end in a few months.

So my story isn't EXACTLY as you have described, but similar in that we have decided that I will not go back to looking for full-time work until both of our children are in school full-time. It just wouldn't make sense, financially, because most of the extra income would be going to childcare. That means at least another 4-5 years of working part-time. Although we don't receive TANF or food stamps, we do get WIC and live in public housing.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive?


it is not the same as quitting to get assistance! not even close, this is not even supported in countries that do support mothers to stay (a short time) with their children- other countries often do not support homeschooling because they expect the parent to work and they do not support the parent to be a SAHM for 18 years as a paid life style choice

ETA- and as it was pointed out by another poster- in other countries you have to have worked so many months prior to receive assistance after a birth


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> it is not the same as quitting to _get_ assistance! not even close


Right, and most of the situations where it might sound like someone quit specifically to get assistance, there are likely extenuating circumstances that you aren't privy to. My point is, if someone chooses to accept public assistance, most of the time they have already thought it through carefully & done the best they can to improve their circumstances & have good reason to be on welfare. I know you happen to know a few people cheating the system, but most of those on welfare are NOT doing so, most aren't bending the rules, most are people who had to make a tough choice.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make, and I'm not sure my efforts to clarify have been successful. *My* point is that we should reserve judgement of someone on welfare, no matter how it may look on the outside. We should expand welfare limits to encompass more of those just above the poverty line, and we should make it easier (and less stigmatizing) for people to apply for & receive benefits, while at the same time cross-referencing IRS data etc. to zero in on the small amount of fraud that does exist. We should look to what other countries are doing & consider adapting the system to better serve those who are struggling. But above all, we should allow people the freedom to make their own choices for their family -- stay at home, work, work part-time, buy lobster, get their nails done... as long as they are following the their state laws and successfully feeding their children etc. then they should not be criticized for their choices. That's my point and I don't understand whether you agree or not but even if not, there isn't really anything you could say that would change my mind on this aspect of welfare, it's pretty ingrained in my personal beliefs. So I don't understand what we are even debating anymore lol.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now my kids are older and yet because of our *"lifestyle choices"* we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system. We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, *though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that.*
> 
> 
> 
> when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others
Click to expand...

I do not know what you mean. I am paying my own way. I cannot afford health insurance and that, quite simply, is that. At this time this is the shape of our lives and I will mot accept being judged by somebody with NO grounds to judge. You do not know me and your words are ridiculous.

My husband and I operate our town's little independent bookstore seven days a week even though it teeters on the edge of survival--we are essentially keeping it open with willpower rather than money, we employ a single mom a few hours per week on a schedule made to meet her needs, I have a tiny but successful online craft business, and I am struggling to manage my children's needs as well. We are also working on other plans. There is hardly a day that goes by that someone doesn't express extreme gratitude for our efforts and willingness to keep our shop open when so many bookstores and small businesses have closed. I am following through on a promise made. When I bought this business, I created an income for the founder's widow and she has received a payment from me every month for 3.5 years so far while many months I have done without. She can travel and go on trips but I cannot and I accept that completely because I made a commitment. I may be a d*%# fool to do it as a businessperson but I am most certainly not making other people pay for me. I am working my butt off but it ends up unpaid because of issues with our business expenses. We are barely squeaking by and working on how to solve our challenges without jeopardizing any of our commitments. I am contributing to our society and community in many ways by the measuring stick that counts. My family lives 100% on self-employment income and I provide some income directly to two people who are not in my family--and I put their needs first.

Because my dh works about 60 hours per week at our bookstore I am able to be at home for homeschooling though many times I work late into the night on paperwork and other things. Both of us end up paid for only a small fraction of our hours, perhaps 30%. The only days we have both had together as a day off were Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. Those are our "weekends" He does some other paid work that is occasional only so then I drop in and run the bookstore. While I am a "SAHM" some of the time, I am also a WAHM and a WOHM and I am poor. I spend two full days a week at our homeschool co-op, which means I am contributing to that community by teaching classes and helping coordinate the group, and although this is work that nourishes many people it is unpaid as well. I don't receive state assistance for many reasons including the fact that I am paying for my own decisions. The small risk of an ER visit is not enough for me to screw all of the people who are counting on me over by abandoning what I am doing.

Oh, the story I could tell. You have NO idea how I have worked and what I have been through on the path to this place or where I am going next. YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece. I have been attempting to fix that one piece but so far we do not have a solution. I think I'll just keep trying to do the right thing in the spot I am in and work on figuring things out. So offended. No one has EVER said anything like that about how I live. Maybe because mostly I talk to people who actually know me.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece.


the govt decides and they are trying to change that

this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it

the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services

this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true

if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....*who do you think pays for it?*

Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?


----------



## littlest birds

Most of the medical care my family has used since I had no insurance has been simply paid for out of my pocket. I think we used a non-profit clinic once that had a sliding scale fee. It's independently funded.

In ANY health care system we are all paying for each other. If we pay insurance companies, they spread the cost among all payers, those who consume less care are paying extra to cover those who use a lot of care. We are paying for each other. When we have people receive "free" charity care from hospitals (which our local hospital does), the hospital raises their charges to cover their average costs and so again we are all paying through that. If we pay taxes and the government distributes care to the poor and elderly we are all paying for each other, too. Where's the bad guy exactly?

The ones who are paid for most by others are not those who access government-funded care so much as those who have major conditions and high expenses. Collectively the less healthy people are taking away from everyone else by consuming a larger share of services.

I don't mind when others cost me and they shouldn't mind when I cost them whichever access point I happen to have. I've done my part more than many insured just by taking better care of my health and my children's health so that we need a smaller portion of care from any source. If I minded I'd have to go around pointing my finger at all the obese and inactive people and everyone with acquired lifestyle health problems and telling them that it is their fault that health insurance is too expensive for me. If everyone used health care at the level I use it I could afford insurance. Anytime I have paid for health insurance, I have paid much higher costs than what I use while others have used much more "at my expense." I don't need to go around complaining about this because I just don't have problems with other people so much.

You cannot identify who is and has done their fair share in this society based on whether they receive benefits for a period while being a SAHM.

Sometimes we give, sometimes we receive. Part of your life you might pay more and receive less, sometime you may pay less and receive more. That is okay by me.

I've said this whole thread I don't judge other people's decisions because they receive assistance. I trust moms to make the best decision for their family. Even if they "might" be wrong I don't mind. I'm glad they have the freedom to choose.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> the govt decides and they are trying to change that
> 
> this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it
> 
> the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services
> 
> this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true
> 
> if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....*who do you think pays for it?*
> 
> Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?


We canceled our health insurance before my husband lost his job because we could not afford it. Even spending a few hundred dollars on eye exams and glasses was less than one month of what our insurance cost us.

If you were to visit the ER without health insurance they will let you set up a payment plan. If you canceled your health insurance and put half of what it's been costing you each month into a savings account, you'd probably be able to pay on the spot for almost anything. Major events are likely to max out many insurance plans anyway and you can end up paying them down for a decade or more whether you had insurance when they occurred or not.

Especially as the effort is being made to cover more and more people and obligate us all to pay toward that coverage, lifestyle choices that result in poorer physical health are the ones that cause someone to receive a large share of other people's dollars. Not whether the share comes via private insurance or a government program. (And as an added bonus, children at home with their mother probably consume fewer health care dollars than those in day care.)


----------



## 95191

Since there seems to be a problem with those without insurance paying there payment plan we are going to all paying.

When I "life style choice" cost others money it tends to not be viewed as favorable by the masses.


----------



## littlest birds

My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money. Especially looked at as a whole. Similarly I think anyone who chooses to be a SAHM who you may want to judge would have her entire life and all of the different things she has done and will contribute considered before you say she should not have that freedom. Since making such judgments well is extremely complicated, better to let the woman who knows her own life best make her decision to the best of her ability.

If I needed assistance I would get it. I don't so I don't. That is its purpose. But for years no one has paid a penny in that way to support my lifestyle choice. Because of my low income I am vulnerable enough that someday I might need a safety net.

That's exactly what it's for. You make it sound like any lifestyle choice that might contribute to a family being poorer/needing benefits should be considered unethical. I think life is not that simple and decisions like that have to take a lot of things into consideration. Most people who receive benefits have contributed as well, and will contribute more int he future. I don't think SAHMs receiving help should be spoken of as freeloaders. Moms of young children should decide for themselves whether staying at home is worth using a safety net.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money.


you may not think so but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> you may not think so but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured
> 
> so much so that we voted in effect to change that


Many (even most?) of us want universal health care not because we don't like paying for the uninsured, but because we don't like people having to skimp on essential medical care due to lack of insurance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's _life style choices_ that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.


I don't understand why you keep referring to "lifestyle choices"... every choice we make in our lives could be considered a "lifestyle choice" by definition. It sounds more like you are saying you don't want to pay to help people who might make different choices than you would. Which, quite frankly, could be just about anybody, because we are all unique so we all make different choices. So it seems like you are saying that you aren't willing to have your money go toward helping anyone else. I think most of us *do* want to help others so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that many Americans don't just because you don't.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I think most of us *do* want to help others so I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that many Americans don't just because you don't.


so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay? and if you really think all those uninsured are making payments when they use the ER you must live in a dream world because we are finding as a nation that is not working

money is not tight for you, like it is or others?


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> you may not think so but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured
> 
> so much so that we voted in effect to change that
> 
> We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.
> 
> I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.


I'm not consuming any health care. When I have I've paid for it myself. If you consume more than your share beyond what you have paid into your insurance then others will pay for you, too. You will be using a different safety net a different way. It looks a lot different, you enjoy the advantage of appearing to yourself and others much more responsible, but in real terms it's not so much different. As long as I am successful in providing the level of care we need no one else is paying for me.

I do not predict that I will need health care I cannot pay for but it could happen and others might help.

You do not predict you will need health care beyond your the part of your insurance contributions that doesn't go to the company's administrative costs/profits, but it could happen and then others might help you.

I am glad you are living your life according to your values and personal opinions. I just don't feel like whatever you are choosing to sacrifice gives you the right to judge others that aren't making the same sacrifice. I do not mean to be so personal, but when you criticize others it can feel personal. Everyone makes different compromises and sacrifices. Being a mom in family at the lower end of the income spectrum is really difficult whether you WOH or SAH. Why look down on others? If you really wish you could be a SAHM then maybe you should reconsider your choice and sketch out the costs and benefits of going in a new direction yourself. But if you made the right choice for you, I would hope you could be at peace with others' choices.

Anyhow, I noticed that you referred to the opinions of the masses and I am not sure where that is going or what it is supposed to mean. The idea that millions of people have these kinds of opinions bothers me, yet millions of people have opinions on the other side of the issue as well and I will never get the chance to talk to most of them. Because most of those opinionated people are strangers, they shouldn't be the ones determining which poor people can make which lifestyle choices--the people living with their choices should decide for themselves as much as we can reasonably arrange for the programs to allow.

I think that current programs are getting a lot of things right. Work requirements, time limits, documentation of living situation and income, evaluation of personal assets, exclusion of alcohol and deli items from food stamps with freedom to make food choices, child care help and programming that encourages volunteer work, training, and education. And allowing mothers of young children to receive some selected benefits without being employed is one of the things they are doing right.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay? and if you really think all those uninsured are making payments when they use the ER you must live in a dream world because we are finding as a nation that is not working
> 
> money is not tight for you, like it is or others?


Money is desperately tight for me, so I cannot afford insurance. I have for instance chosen to homeschool. But I do not receive benefits to so. Like many Americans I simply can't fit health care into my budget. It is scary.

While I do not think everyone makes payments, some of us do and I have. I've paid for several things out of pocket but I couldn't handle something major.

I know money is tight for you too but I don't think that means you should be mad at SAHMs receiving benefits. I would rather pay higher taxes and have wider benefits for young families and for health care. For anyone who wants that, why be upset with someone who qualifies now just because you may wish you were included too? Unfortunately, it breaks my heart that we have to pay for a system of care that is full of waste and for people who aren't putting much effort into their own health. Our health care system (childbirth for example) is overly medical and tech and it makes it really fancy and expensive often with little improvement in outcomes. How many unneeded C-sections are we paying for--via insurance and medicaid both? How often do we medicate with costly prescriptions for an illness that would resolve if allowed to run its course? That's costing us way more than those awful welfare moms. But that's a whole other subject...


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> so you want to pay more (in added taxes, your own out of pocket health cost, etc) so someone else who choose not (by her own choice, as in the poster who stated so) does not have to pay?


Yes, I'd rather pay more so everyone can have access to health care, no matter what other choices they've made throughout their lives.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> money is not tight for you, like it is or others?


Ummmm money is extremely tight, we are just above the cut-off for assistance and medical costs plus our (underwater) mortgage eat up virtually our entire income. We may lose our house. I still think making sure everyone in my community has food, medical care, and shelter is more important than my personal financial struggles.


----------



## mamaofthree

serenbat: i am honestly blown away by how angry you seem over this. you keep saying "life style choices" (in quotes, like it isn't a life style or something) is taking away from your family. so even if the government stopped social welfare programs do you think you would have so much more money in your pocket? i don't see why someone using benefits that they qualify for is so upsetting to you?

back when we lived in maine, dh and i both worked 2 jobs a piece and even with that we could just barely make ends meet. in fact we couldn't heat the house properly. we couldn't deal with dh's chronic cough, we could barely put food on the table. it finally got so bad that we applied for WIC, food stamps, and mainecare. fortunately for us dh got a great job offer on the other side of the country and we moved. now i am blessed to be a SAHM things are still tight, but we are making it work. how much harder needed we work? how many jobs should we have had? we both have degrees, i am a nurse for crying out loud. stuff was crazy. what sort of life style choices should we have made? given our children away? what is the better way? we needed help and so we asked for it and if the job had not come up we would probably still be using that help. i don't think we a users or jerks or lazy at all. who is anyone to judge us? is my dh a jerk for occasionally picking up a little caesars pizza on his way home for $5.00? we had internet but dh needed that for his job. are we bad because we had that? or bad because we paid $9.00 a month for netflix?


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> *you may not think so but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured*
> 
> *so much so that we voted in effect to change that*
> 
> We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.
> 
> I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.


Au contraire. In fact, one of the major changes to be made under the US National Healthcare Act is that people with pre-existing conditions CANNOT be denied insurance coverage, as is the common practice now with private health coverage. The reason these people are turned away from receiving coverage under the pre-"Obamacare" system is because the insurance companies KNOW that they are going to need more care (and therefore cost more money to the insurers) than they can possibly be asked to pay into the system. And there simply aren't enough able-bodied, young, healthy people paying into the system to offset the expense of someone who has cancer, or some other chronic disease. The insurance companies don't want those chronically or seriously ill people cutting into their profit margin, so they deny coverage, which in some cases is essentially a death sentence. Many--I'd venture to say that MOST--people see it as inhumane and immoral to deny care, often life saving care, to those in need simply because they cannot pay their "fair share", and because the insurance companies don't want to lose profits.

So, we have voted, in effect, to change THAT, and the solution actually involves MORE people paying for coverage that they probably will not use so that those who truly need it will not be turned away.


----------



## bmcneal

People who are poor should *never* have anything new. In fact, it would be better if they didn't spend any money on anything at all, outside of bills. If you have money for variety of food, you're spending too much money. Poor people should *only* have ramen noodles. Better if you can split one package/day. If you aren't working 24/7, better get a better/second/third/forth job. How *dare* people who are poor attempt to enjoy life at all!

*/sarcasm*


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Au contraire. In fact, one of the major changes to be made under the US National Healthcare Act is that people with pre-existing conditions CANNOT be denied insurance coverage, as is the common practice now with private health coverage. The reason these people are turned away from receiving coverage under the pre-"Obamacare" system is because the insurance companies KNOW that they are going to need more care (and therefore cost more money to the insurers) than they can possibly be asked to pay into the system. And there simply aren't enough able-bodied, young, healthy people paying into the system to offset the expense of someone who has cancer, or some other chronic disease. The insurance companies don't want those chronically or seriously ill people cutting into their profit margin, so they deny coverage, which in some cases is essentially a death sentence. Many--I'd venture to say that MOST--people see it as inhumane and immoral to deny care, often life saving care, to those in need simply because they cannot pay their "fair share", and because the insurance companies don't want to lose profits.
> 
> So, we have voted, in effect, to change THAT, and the solution actually involves MORE people paying for coverage that they probably will not use so that those who truly need it will not be turned away.


uninsured by lack of wanting to pay also factor into it- I know many that use the ER as their health care and do not make their payments, could careless about their credit score and have skated by for years doing so-they are costing the system and others certainly are paying it

all assistance is designed for short term need, not because you just don't want to pay it (as in the case some not paying for health insurance) - same as we can't just all quit and expect unemployment

I seriously feel many think this is just some never ending money pit that will always be there- clearly states are not being able to supply this even with federal help


----------



## captain optimism

Fine, whatever, the national policy is going to be that everyone over a certain level of income has to buy health insurance, that all insurers have to cover everyone, and that the government is going to, at least in theory, cover more people. Anyone who doesn't buy health insurance who can afford it is going to have to pay a fine, and everyone who can't afford it is going to be eligible for more government health insurance.

This is an inelegant solution to a huge problem, but it is the one our dysfunctional government was finally able to agree to do. Sort of--we still have some idiotic politicians resisting the idea as socialism, even though we got it from the Heritage Foundation, which is a right-wing think tank. A better solution would have been to pay taxes to the government and have them insure everyone, like they do in countries where they spend less money and get better life expectancy and health results. (That's a lot of countries, since the US spends the most on health care.)

I'm sure, once this set of regulations is fully in place, that there will be some people who make too much to be eligible for Medicaid and too little to afford health insurance, so you guys can still have this stupid argument.

I think it's stupid because it's predicated on the idea that every person who suffers a misfortune must deserve it. People neither deserve to get sick because they didn't behave well enough to prevent it, nor do they deserve to have to choose between health insurance and other necessities because the insurance is too expensive.

Or you know what? If they DO deserve to be sick or poor (or sick and poor) I don't give a [email protected] Public policy should be based on the idea that some people are going to be in trouble sometimes, and we as a whole society plan ahead to deal with that. You want to sit in your houses and feel superior to sick people or to people who can't afford health insurance, enjoy.


----------



## rightkindofme

Given the data that shows what happens when children from poverty are at least raised with a stable caregiver I am going to remain on the side where I'm glad we have a system to help people who need help. Even though there are people who take advantage of it. I'm not going to punish a whole lot of people who desperately need help because there are some @$$holes. Really, the idea that no one should get help unless everyone can be handed exactly the same amount and quantity of support is ridiculous. Not everyone needs the same level of help.

If you can work your rear off and survive then you are doing better than the people who could work just as hard and not survive. Saying they don't deserve help because they aren't working as hard as you is... well... uhm I'm going to stop there. And go argue on the other thread. Because I think that one is more directly related to why I'm annoyed right now.

In short: As someone who loses well over 1/3 of the household income to taxes before we start paying sales, property, etc taxes I say enthusiastically that yes welfare should allow moms to take care of their tiny children. Yes. Yes. Yes.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Given the data that shows what happens when children from poverty are at least raised with a stable caregiver


other children also need a stable caregiver, the system was not designed to be what it has become and I would rather see all treated equally- those other are not less important and deserver the same

abuse will only make it more of a divide not less


----------



## mammal_mama

erased an unhelpful comment


----------



## rightkindofme

If we withdraw support we will not be treating everyone equally. We will be saying that poor children should die.


----------



## contactmaya

Public schools are funded by the tax payer, roads are funded by the tax payer-we should abolish them.

Children in some countries dont get enough to eat, they die of diseases because they are malnourished. All children should be subjected to the same fate, otherwise it is not fair....

This is your logic serenbat


----------



## journeymom

What a painful, bitter place to choose to dwell --in this tiny, cramped, strictly principled place. Frankly it's *selfish* and more than a little elitist to *refuse to consider* that any one mom receiving benefits has good reason to do so, reason that you are not aware of. YOU DO NOT KNOW. What a luxury! That you can grasp your humanity so tightly to your body, not giving a drop away on FAITH.

Considering your fellow mamas as a community, statistically speaking it's inevitable that some are going to game the system unfairly. That's humanity. Humans are flawed. You know those 5,7 or however many days the utility company gives you to be late with the bill? Interestingly enough, it's called a grace period. GRACE. Be a mensch and provide your fellow mamas, as a whole community, some grace. It's good exercise for your heart and soul.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others


My biggest problem with people judging others for their "life style" choice is that we only seem to judge the people on the bottom.

For example, the average food stamps in the U.S. for a family of four is approximately $520/month. That means that family, though their "life style choice" costs the taxpayers just over $6000 per year.

Now, let's look at the other side instead. How about a person who choses to take out a million dollar mortgage. That certainly is a "life style choice." Now, interest rates are low now, but traditionally a 6% mortgage was considered good, so let's say because of the jumbo loan the interest rate was 7%. That person would pay (and deduct) close to $70K of interest the first year of their loan. In the 28% bracket, that would lead to a tax deduction of almost $20K and in the 35% bracket a tax deduction of almost $25K.

Those taxes have to be made up by everyone else. We are, in effect, paying $20-25K for that.

But there is not a lot of complaining about that "life style choice." Even though for each person who does that it costs 3-4 TIMES what it costs to put a family of four on food stamps for a year.

So, people complain less about subsidizing people in the top 5% than they do for people in the bottom 5%.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> I think it's stupid because it's predicated on the idea that every person who suffers a misfortune must deserve it. People neither deserve to get sick because they didn't behave well enough to prevent it, nor do they deserve to have to choose between health insurance and other necessities because the insurance is too expensive.
> 
> Or you know what? If they DO deserve to be sick or poor (or sick and poor) I don't give a [email protected] Public policy should be based on the idea that some people are going to be in trouble sometimes, and we as a whole society plan ahead to deal with that. You want to sit in your houses and feel superior to sick people or to people who can't afford health insurance, enjoy.












Additionally, a vast majority of people on food stamps are children, elderly or disabled. Exactly what has a child done to not deserve food? Clothes? A bed? Anyone who thinks the moral high ground in that situation is not giving people the basics has a seriously messed up sense of ethics.


----------



## erinsmom1996

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> It's not just that they find it to be better or preferable to not work, the sad reality is that some parents find that they absolutely cannot SURVIVE while working a minimum-wage (or even slightly above that) job.
> 
> This thread is really interesting, and one that hits home for me. My first child was a surprise and at first I thought it was such bad timing that I actually considered abortion because I wasn't sure we could afford her. How terrible and tragic is that? Looking back now I can't believe I ever entertained the idea, but that was my reality.
> 
> My husband is a Chilean immigrant and had just arrived in the US when I unexpectedly became pregnant (immediately!) He was not legally authorized to work, and I was just finishing up my last semester at UCLA and was working lunch shifts as a waitress. We were sharing a 2 bedroom apartment with an alcoholic relative of mine (certainly did not plan to bring a child into THAT living situation--we'd only intended to live there for a year until DH could find a job.) The first few months of my prenatal care were covered by my university insurance, but after I graduated (with $25k in student loans and another 25k in credit card debt!!) I was dropped from that insurance plan. Luckily the nurse-midwives over at UCLA accept Medi-Cal and urged me to apply. Since we were only living on my income, which was definitely less than 30k/year, I qualified for pregnancy-related Medi-Cal and WIC.
> 
> DH got a job through my workplace, but he was making minimum wage and wasn't given full-time hours. With no work history in the US that was the best he could get. I continued to waitress through my entire pregnancy. After the baby was born DH was able to find a much better job making $10/hr with a full-time schedule and I went back to waitressing. We knew we had to find our own place, but also knew that we would probably not be able to afford anything near our jobs, and we didn't own a car. Then one day I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment. Around that time my DH heard about a non-profit organization in our area that offered affordable housing to moderate- and low-income people, so we applied.
> 
> I found a part-time job at an elementary school, but I only make $14/hour and I get less than 20 hours a week. I still receive partial unemployment, but won't for much longer as my claim runs out in March. It certainly isn't an ideal situation, but It works for us because I am able to be at home with my DD for most of the day. DH has also received a promotion and a small raise at his job. We still get WIC and still live in the subsidized housing. We both got insurance from DH's job, but DD is on Healthy Families. Earlier this year we decided to have another baby, and I am currently 18.5 weeks along. This one was totally planned, and we knew that doing so would mean continuing WIC. Sometimes I feel guilty for planning a pregnancy when we live in subsidized housing, but the truth is that this is a temporary lifestyle choice that we have made in order to parent/raise our children OURSELVES. Before we ever got married we talked about wanting two children, so the thought of just having one because of our current financial situation is not something we are willing to do. I do not see us staying in this tax-bracket forever, and I know that if we chose not to have another because of money, I would undoubtedly regret that decision down the road.
> 
> The way I see it, I want to have my kids close in age so that I can continue to work part-time while they are little. We make sacrifices so that is possible. We have no car. I cut DD and Dh's hair (and my own, sometimes!) We live in a tiny 1-bedroom apartment and plan to stay here until we are absolutely bursting at the seams. We don't take vacations (unless family members invite/pay for us to come visit.) We maintain a very tight budget and live frugally. Even so, we have managed to entirely pay off the credit card debt and a lot of the student loans, and now have thousands in savings. Once both of our kids are in school, I plan to increase my hours and eventually start teaching full-time, and when that happens our financial situation will change significantly and I'm sure we will no longer qualify for WIC or the affordable housing that we currently have.


I'm sorry, but choosing to have another baby when you are receiving assistance just does not seem right to me. I understand you are living frugally but you are still getting money to support your family. Growing the family does not seem to be the best choice or the most responsible one. Many couples choose to wait to have another baby until they can afford it even if they would rather have them close in age. If you have thousands of dollars in savings, how do you still qualify for assistance? I guess I am not familiar enough with the system to understand that. I don't mean to be harsh but as a person who has worked at least part-time since I was 16 and never received assistance, your situation just rubs me the wrong way. I have no problem with people getting temporary assistance as long as they are bettering themselves and trying to get off of assistance. Having a baby when you know the result will be receiving assistance even longer is irresponsible.


----------



## littlest birds

The value of hard work and initiative and personal responsibility is tremendous Serenbat. We all want others to try their best and do what we think they should... I just don't think we need to leverage poverty-aleviation programs more than we already do to control people's behavior.

I'd like my actions to contribute to a society in which we all respect one another's efforts and make our sincere efforts. It sounds like you really care about that too. I just strongly believe that we do not build mutual respect by this kind of judgment of others, and to build true respect trusting others-- even if one person has a different way of weighing out the value of a SAHM to society. I think picking apart exactly what one person assumes a SAHM contributes is unkind and likely to lead to unfairness.

I value personal freedom to weigh out the benefits of something like outside employment vs. working in homemaking and make one's own decision. Even when receiving benefits.

Every story is different. I do not know if you read my story of the time when I received benefits as a young mother. Do you really think I did the wrong thing when I was at home with my children? Was I making the "wrong" contributions? Would anyone have really been better off if I'd put three children in day care, worked some crappy job, and done an even worse job at keeping things sanitary in a substandard house? Not just me, not just my children, but also those taxpayers... Who would have been better off? And now 12 years later what would have developed from those compromises? Who benefits from the kind of compromise you suggest I make?

I think everyone benefits from a family creating the most stable environment they can during the early years. The investment in social programs is worth it.

You say you don't like it because you "have to" pay taxes and if only you were free to choose you would be contributing to private charities that would do an even better job. I am skeptical. I think such an approach would be inconsistent and even more inadequate. I think most people would be even less likely to contribute significantly that they would be to follow through on a payment plan to pay for their own child's emergency room visit. Safety nets HAVE to be reliable to work. You have to KNOW they will be likely to be there when you need them, not just when the middle class is in the mood to pay.

I am sorry that your financial situation is frustrating you right now Serenbat. I see why those working less would seem to be making your life harder. I just think in the bigger picture it's better to assume that those people are making the right decisions for their family by applying their own ethics to their own situation while you figure out what is best for yours.

Here's an analogy: As a homeschooling parent I cannot imagine thinking that my tax dollars shouldn't help fund public schools. If I were narrow-minded I might think that I am paying others' way while working hard to pay my own way by making all the commitments and sacrifices it takes to pay for my children's education out of pocket. Why should I pay for other people's children's education and they are paying nothing toward my children? I am working really, really hard on teaching my children and other parents get to let the teachers do the work while I pay. That's unfair!

But I do not make that protest. I am better off living in a society with the results of our public education system than I would be if public schools didn't exist and every child only had access to what their own parents could privately fund.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

I think I'm starting to hate the internet. I need to step away from this thread.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I need to step away from this thread.


because other have thousand of dollars in the bank and still getting WIC or the affordable housing?

yup nothing wrong ....it's only me


----------



## littlest birds

Is the problem fraud or just SAHMs serenbat as those are very different things?

You can't have a lot of money and receive a lot of benefits without fraud. The program guidelines are not extremely generous so if you are following them you will not have a lot of assets. $2000 in savings is one single month of emergency funds in my household, half a month in some expensive locations, or a tiny down payment for a necessary basic car that may be the only way to get to work. If you don't know the whole story you just don't know if someone is doing something wrong or not.

Anyway, I ask questions that don't get answered so I'll step out too.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> What a painful, bitter place to choose to dwell --in this tiny, cramped, strictly principled place. Frankly it's *selfish* and more than a little elitist to *refuse to consider* that any one mom receiving benefits has good reason to do so, reason that you are not aware of. YOU DO NOT KNOW. What a luxury! That you can grasp your humanity so tightly to your body, not giving a drop away on FAITH.
> 
> Considering your fellow mamas as a community, statistically speaking it's inevitable that some are going to game the system unfairly. That's humanity. Humans are flawed. You know those 5,7 or however many days the utility company gives you to be late with the bill? Interestingly enough, it's called a grace period. GRACE. Be a mensch and provide your fellow mamas, as a whole community, some grace. It's good exercise for your heart and soul.


Bravo!


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Even so, we have managed to entirely pay off the credit card debt and a lot of the student loans, and now have thousands in savings. Once both of our kids are in school, I plan to increase my hours and eventually start teaching full-time, and when that happens our financial situation will change significantly and I'm sure we will no longer qualify for WIC or the affordable housing that we currently have.


Is the problem fraud or just SAHMs serenbat as those are very different things? you didn't see the post? I had even made a prior comment and was jumped on for doing so.

please keep thinking it's all me

and other's aren't doing anything-

fraud is only fraud if you get caught - if you can make it work to your advantage all the better


----------



## littlest birds

I may have missed something in a previous post (it gets fast and confusing at times!) but would really appreciate you answering. Truly. Is the problem for you personally someone who is cheating/lying or is every SAHM who is following all of the rules and simply getting benefits based on her dh's income also a problem? Is it okay to SAH if you are following the rules and being 100% honest?

I am personally fine with any measure that reduces fraud but I don't believe a SAHM who gets benefits needs to be forced to seek employment. And if so, would it be ALL SAHMs or just those in certain situations? I just want to know how much we agree and disagree at this point









(Also I think fraud exists as soon as someone is dishonest, not when they get caught. Lying is a lie even if you don't get caught. Theft is as well.)


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> Considering your fellow mamas as a community, statistically speaking it's inevitable that some are going to game the system unfairly. That's humanity. Humans are flawed. You know those 5,7 or however many days the utility company gives you to be late with the bill? Interestingly enough, it's called a grace period. GRACE. Be a mensch and provide your fellow mamas, as a whole community, some grace. It's good exercise for your heart and soul.


I couldn't agree with this more.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinsmom1996*
> 
> I'm sorry, but choosing to have another baby when you are receiving assistance just does not seem right to me. I understand you are living frugally but you are still getting money to support your family. Growing the family does not seem to be the best choice or the most responsible one. Many couples choose to wait to have another baby until they can afford it even if they would rather have them close in age. If you have thousands of dollars in savings, how do you still qualify for assistance? I guess I am not familiar enough with the system to understand that. I don't mean to be harsh but as a person who has worked at least part-time since I was 16 and never received assistance, your situation just rubs me the wrong way. I have no problem with people getting temporary assistance as long as they are bettering themselves and trying to get off of assistance. Having a baby when you know the result will be receiving assistance even longer is irresponsible.


erinsmom I totally see your point, it's definitely "questionable" but I would err on the side of trust again. This mama has worked, is working, will be working again. She's used public assistance as a partial support. WIC is designed to give a nutrition boost to moms , many of whom are making enough money not to get food stamps--it's actually designed to allow more people to qualify since it is just a supplement.

This family has two working parents and doesn't even own a car and has worked and worked to improve their situation. Maybe you would not make her choice and she has mixed feelings too but in the long run she is planning arrangements that will make their future more and more self sufficient and building an emergency fund by being extremely frugal shouldn't evict her from her housing if she still qualifies. It's only lowered rent and some milk and cheese for goodness sake. I am sure she is a good person and that if her choices aren't quite perfect, they're not imperfect enough for me to point fingers saying she is taking advantage of taxpayers. She should continue to live her life, making these choices freely, with our blessing.

Ackkkk! I let myself get sucked in again! I wish all of you well and must leave this thread to do some real work now.


----------



## 95191

I guess I don't see two to five years as temporary and not having to do with a life style/choice.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> because other have thousand of dollars in the bank and still getting WIC or the affordable housing?
> 
> yup nothing wrong ....it's only me


WIC is based on income guidelines and does not take assets into consideration. Their income guidelines are generous enough ($35, 317 for a family of 3 and 42,643 for a family of 4. Counting a pregnant woman as two family members) that I highly doubt that anyone making near the high end of those limits is absolutely scraping by each month, relying on WIC to feed their family. WIC is a supplemental program, it only supplies $30-60/month worth of healthy foods. Perhaps you think it is wrong for my family to accept the WIC checks when we have money in our emergency savings account, but WIC doesn't think so or they would have asset limitations. Frankly, the only reason that we are able to put the money into savings is because we live so frugally and don't own a car. So the few hundred dollars that WOULD go towards a car payment/repairs/gas instead goes into a savings account.

Medi-Cal DOES have asset limitations--about $3,300 for a family of 4 I believe. However, if you have assets that exceed those limits, you are allowed to spend down your savings (or sell your property and then spend the profits) in order to dip below the limit. From the Dept of Healthcare Services website:

Your countable property must not exceed the property reserve limit. Any amount over the property reserve limit will make you and/or your family ineligible for Medi-Cal. To be eligible for Medi-Cal, you may reduce your property to the property reserve limit before the end of the month in which you are requesting Medi-Cal.

Also, we found our housing through a non-profit organization that helps families with low and moderate incomes find affordable housing. I think I might have falsely stated before that we live in Public Housing, but that was incorrect. The non-profit organization is privately owned, and it is not HUD or section 8 housing.

We do not receive any other assistance, and our family doesn't get money from TANF or food stamps or anything like that. Having another baby means we are going to get more WIC, sure. We will probably qualify for WIC for at least the first year of the new baby's life, because I can't work during the summer when baby comes. But right now we are hovering so close to the top limit for the WIC income guidelines that I doubt my family will qualify for much longer than that first year.

WIC is, by nature, a TEMPORARY program. Even if our income were stagnant and did not increase whatsoever, once our kids hit 5 we are no longer eligible. We will not be using the program for that long, as our income will go back up after the baby comes.

So, essentially, we HAVE used these programs as a temporary assistance to get us into a better position in which we will no longer qualify for anything. I'd say that for us the system has worked exactly as it is intended to work. We chose to have the baby NOW because doing so actually diminishes the amount of time that I will have to work part time, and accelerates our ability to get off all forms of aid. The alternative was to wait until I get a full-time job that is able to cover our expenses and infant childcare so that I could return to work right after having the next baby. I refuse to put my infant into daycare, and instead choose a lifestyle that involves part-time work, and lower pay, in order to raise my children myself. I suppose I can see how you might disagree with this choice, but I'm not breaking any laws or committing fraud by doing it. And the amount of assistance that my family receives is so small that, while I do feel a little conflicted about it, the fact is I am NOT gaming the system.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> Is the problem fraud or just SAHMs serenbat as those are very different things? you didn't see the post? I had even made a prior comment and was jumped on for doing so.
> 
> please keep thinking it's all me
> 
> and other's aren't doing anything-
> 
> fraud is only fraud if you get caught - if you can make it work to your advantage all the better


I can't seem to get multi-quote to work, but as I pointed out in the above post, no fraud is being committed in my situation!


----------



## littlest birds

And it takes quite a bit of work and effort to live without a car, it may not directly provide a wage but I appreciate everyone who makes that effort because it helps reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption.

I think when people tell their stories is proves the point that it's not black or white. Your snap judgment may not make sense once you learn how a caring, intelligent, ethical person is actually making their life decisions.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I guess I don't see two to five years as temporary and not having to do with a life style/choice.
> 
> http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


I have a hard time taking that source seriously for a number of reasons:

1) It says both that 4 million Americans are on welfare and 4% of the population is on welfare. Does not define what those mean (the population of the US is over 300 million).

2) uses the term "Aid to Families with Dependent Children": this was changed to TANF in 1996

3) While the average TANF benefit is right around $150/month per family this source says "welfare" pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states. Minimum wage at the federal level for a full time job is over $1300/month. What are they *now* including in "welfare"

4) Includes Unemployment Insurance in their statistics (artificially inflating "welfare", additionally unemployment is an insurance program that everyone pays into)

5) TANF is limited to a 60 month LIFETIME maximum. They show almost 20% over 5 years.

Statistics can be made to say virtually anything, especially when you don't include definitions or sources.

http://www.tanf.us/


----------



## couldbebetter29

My opinion please need it and use it. In my south east mi town I see peoplr at the welfare office with I phones, expensive clothes, new jordans, ect. I feel a lot do take advantage of the assistance. For thoes that need it yes. But stipulations of when the person would be going back to work would be nice too and i am a very strong believer in my random drug tests at work to keep my job, the same should be applied to thoes getting assistance. Please dont bash.


----------



## littlest birds

I was really puzzled about those high benefit amounts. I didn't know what they were figuring. But I noticed the AFDC term and it has been about 16 years since it was called that! That's what I got when I was a single mom way back 1994, the maximum was $225 per month. I worked as a nanny 25-30 hrs but that went 100% toward rent and utilities and I qualified for AFDC and food stamps at that time. Even if you add about $200 of food stamps... that is so much less than those statistics. I don't know what was done to make them misleading but they don't make sense to me as someone who was in the system way back when they must have gathered their data.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> My opinion please need it and use it. In my south east mi town I see peoplr at the welfare office with I phones, expensive clothes, new jordans, ect. I feel a lot do take advantage of the assistance. For thoes that need it yes. But stipulations of when the person would be going back to work would be nice too and i am a very strong believer in my random drug tests at work to keep my job, the same should be applied to thoes getting assistance. Please dont bash.


Hi there, and welcome. I don't think anybody thinks that it is fine to buy expensive things using benefits at all. But then again a family member could have give a nice phone as a gift you never know.

What about people who are following the rules, though? People who are actually poor? And this whole thread was started to ask if it should be okay for a mom who is following the rules and telling the truth about her income to stay at home with a baby, with a husband working, but to get food stamps or medicaid if their income was low. What d you think of that?


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*
> 
> I was really puzzled about those high benefit amounts. I didn't know what they were figuring. But I noticed the AFDC term and it has been about 16 years since it was called that! That's what I got when I was a single mom way back 1994, the maximum was $225 per month. I worked as a nanny 25-30 hrs but that went 100% toward rent and utilities and I qualified for AFDC and food stamps at that time. Even if you add about $200 of food stamps... that is so much less than those statistics. I don't know what was done to make them misleading but they don't make sense to me as someone who was in the system way back when they must have gathered their data.


It could be due to Medicaid. Insurance benefits for a family of four could easily be $1K/month, but that's NOT the same as income, kwim?

If they are considering unemployment insurance to be "Welfare" that could artificially inflat the number as well. It is possible to get over $2K/month in unemployment benefits.

The info at the top says that it was updated in 2012, but as you said they're using a term that is 16 years out of date--- perhaps their other "facts" are out of date as well.


----------



## littlest birds

Well let's not debate the "ethics" of receiving unemployment legally and honestly and yet indulging in x, y, or z (because it's welfare and you should act properly desperate and of course it doesn't matter that we all contributed to it just like private health insurance)


----------



## kitteh

I have a problem with people considering unemployment to be welfare!


----------



## kitteh

Also, I just want to say that the most valuable thing that WIC has given to my family is breastfeeding support. When I found myself unexpectedly pregnant 3 years and 9 months ago, I didn't have strong feelings about breastfeeding either way. I figured I'd give it a shot when I was on Mat leave, but then when I went back to work waiting tables I figured we'd have to switch to formula, at the very least supplementing my breastmilk. My own mother did not breastfeed my brother and only BF me for 8 weeks because she had to return to work. So that was my model for breastfeeding.

Through WIC I received a lot of information and support about the benefits of breastfeeding, and about the legal protections afforded to breastfeeding mothers who work. I didn't know that my employer was legally obligated to allow me time and space to pump while on the job so that I could give my baby bottles of breast milk instead of formula. I also received a mechanical pump for a number of months--maybe 6 or 9?--that I used to pump while at home, and a manual pump to use at work, all free of charge (the mechanical pump had to be returned but the manual one was a gift. At a recent WIC appointment I was informed that they now give mechanical pumps to working, breastfeeding moms instead of just loaning them out for a period!)

My DD is turning 3 this weekend, and she still nurses. I really don't think that would have been the outcome without WIC.


----------



## mammal_mama

Kitteh, I'm so happy about how WIC helped you get into breastfeeding. That's awesome, and it really kind of connects with what littlest birds was saying about how those with a lot of health problems make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Breastfeeding just gets kids off to a better start and reduces the risk of many health problems for the mother, too.

I had a wakeup call in November when I went to the first well woman checkup that I'd been to in years, and learned that my actual weight was 294 lbs. I'm just under 5'10, not 6'10, so this puts me in the morbidly obese category. And I also learned that my blood pressure, which used to be normal, was in the prehypertensive category. So I've gotten back into incorporating yoga into my everyday life. And it's such a blessing to not be having to work 12 hour days or something to make ends meet. As well as allowing more time for yoga, it also enables me to be more mindful about what foods I put into my body. And since I have lots of time with the people I love, I'm not turning to junk food for comfort as I'd be very tempted to do if I were separated from them for long hours each day.

I'm just sayin', providing low income families with a little help can enable them to find a healthier balance between work and personal life and give parents the time and energy they need to take better care of themselves and their children, and can end up saving the taxpayers a lot more money in the long run.


----------



## mamazee

Hopefully the need for assistance is a one-generation issues. We all try to help our kids do better than we do, don't we? If staying home while they're little can help prepare them for a lifetime where they have more financial success than their parents, then in the long term it's better for the economy to do that. Especially if it's just food stamps, which amounts for very little and also stimulates the economy.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Hopefully the need for assistance is a one-generation issues.


If you look into the data on the statistics of generational welfare you will see it certainly is generational. Certain states are far higher than others.

Having another child while receive "assistance" also not uncommon.

Perhaps those who are responding are quite bias because of personal dependance (it's only a little milk over 5+ years-so what- when you can have saving and not spend your own money-unlike what others must do) and many must not live in states with high assistance populations or those who teachers are making less.

Quote:


> We *all* try to help our kids do better than we do, don't we?


would be nice if all could be equal


----------



## rightkindofme

yeah, it is hecka weird that people who have no jobs skills and are mocked and denigrated for existing arent able to teach their kids how to escape poverty. those lazy bastards.


----------



## mammal_mama

To build on my previous post, I wanted to add that I think providing more nutritional education programs in poor communities, including one on one counseling for individuals or families that are struggling with obesity, would be a very good use of our tax dollars. I think prevention is a million times cheaper than medical treatment for the myriad problems associated with obesity. So for those who are really worried about how much the poor are costing them, it makes sense to support programs that can help people live healthier lives before they develop a major problem.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> So for those who are really worried about how much the poor are costing them, it makes sense to support programs that can help people live healthier lives before they develop a major problem.


It certainly is a shame when private (non govt funded) groups do try- such as nutritional educational programs only to be meet with little expectancy and participation. I personally feel you should be mandated to attend classes (such as nutritional) in order to receive assistance but when we have little restrictions on what one can get with food stamps, as opposed to WIC, I doubt it would be received. I feel there is much that could be done as in only paying for whole foods and non-processed but that is not happening. At least with other forms of assistance there is mandated classes.

Giving vouchers that can be used at farm markets are not working in our area, we have a very low participation problem because the cost still is extremely higher than at a local store. Our local farm market has gotten a bad reputation, even by the local newspaper as the elitist market because of this. The cost vs going to a local farmer is more than double. Sadly most local farmers can afford to participate in the voucher program.


----------



## journeymom

Serenbat, until you go back and answer every 'but what about this?' example, until you go back and explain, without sarcasm and quotes around the word 'life style choice' how another mother's choices are less worthy than yours -your anger is ...at least baffling and really, if I took it personally I'd be offended.

Who are you to judge? You are a tax payer. Well, so am I. You are not the masses. You are one of many who feel like you are Taxed Enough Already, but I am one of even more who believes your philosophy is flat out wrong. Unfair even.


----------



## 95191

How is this NOT a 'life style choice' ?

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Now my kids are older and yet because of our *"lifestyle choices"* we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system. We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, *though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that. *
Click to expand...

Quote:


> This one was totally planned, and we knew that doing so would mean continuing WIC.


and as it was pointed out-

Quote:


> choosing to have another baby when you are receiving assistance


you make a conscious effort to do something - that is a choice, it is different from loosing a job and needing aid for a temporary time, as it was designed for- choosing to have a life style that impacts your ability to seek employment that would cause you not to receive aid, having another child while still receiving aid, etc= life style choice - to me

just because you work a system to your advantage does not make it ethical - does it impact on other's? - certainly does

welfare and some assistance qualifications have changed in my state because it is a life style for some, it's meant as temporary aid- we do not have a system to aid mothers as some are using it for- this is far different from what other countries do after a birth of a child


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> just because you work a system to your advantage does not make it ethical - does it impact on other's? - certainly does


So, how do you feel about what I posted before:

Quote:


> My biggest problem with people judging others for their "life style" choice is that we only seem to judge the people on the bottom.
> 
> For example, the average food stamps in the U.S. for a family of four is approximately $520/month. That means that family, though their "life style choice" costs the taxpayers just over $6000 per year.
> 
> Now, let's look at the other side instead. How about a person who choses to take out a million dollar mortgage. That certainly is a "life style choice." Now, interest rates are low now, but traditionally a 6% mortgage was considered good, so let's say because of the jumbo loan the interest rate was 7%. That person would pay (and deduct) close to $70K of interest the first year of their loan. In the 28% bracket, that would lead to a tax deduction of almost $20K and in the 35% bracket a tax deduction of almost $25K.
> 
> Those taxes have to be made up by everyone else. We are, in effect, paying $20-25K for that.
> 
> But there is not a lot of complaining about that "life style choice." Even though for each person who does that it costs 3-4 TIMES what it costs to put a family of four on food stamps for a year.
> 
> So, people complain less about subsidizing people in the top 5% than they do for people in the bottom 5%.


Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind?

How about people who get subsidized child care? How about wealthy people who deduct their child care from their taxes meaning we ALL subsidize it?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind? *They don't work the same way-not even close- the public schools system is open to ALL- if you choose not to use it, so be it, WIC is not for all- not even a fair comparison. The school system is not just for certain incomes- all children!*
> 
> *ETA - WIC and other forms of assistance were not designed for paying off student loans or for the notion that it just is easier for someone else to pay for your choices. If you can't afford to feed your own children maybe you should consider not having more until you can, but it is easier to know you just don't have it payed for it. Also (while some do get away with it) if you have enough disposable income that your weekly nail apt is more important than paying your own money to feed your child, I also do not feel this is what assistance is designed for. And it's just so "little" amount, as a nation we don't feel all children deserve this or it would be offered for all to have the same start, so it must be for a reason-need, not need because you don't want to use your own money and can just bank it or keep the weekly apt.*
> 
> How about people who get subsidized child care? * No, it is not equal either. Families making above the cut off still have to pay and depending on their taxes some are able to take the earned child credit- the taxes are based on what you earn/pay, if you don't earn enough to pay into why should you be able to take the tax break? Still families that that do not receive subsidies need child care- not at all equal or fair to the child. * How about wealthy people who deduct their child care from their taxes meaning we ALL subsidize it? *You just fail to see what the system of welfare/assistance is designed to do, be temporary assistance, not a I'll take what gives me what I want system that we all are not part of- these are two different things , the system is not designed for staying on and on.*


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> If you look into the data on the statistics of generational welfare you will see it certainly is generational. Certain states are far higher than others.
> 
> Having another child while receive "assistance" also not uncommon.
> 
> Perhaps those who are responding are quite bias because of personal dependance (it's only a little milk over 5+ years-so what- when you can have saving and not spend your own money-unlike what others must do) and many must not live in states with high assistance populations or those who teachers are making less.
> 
> would be nice if all could be equal


dang! everything you say is sorta mean. what is up with that? can you not make a post with out trashing someone else. you made your "life choices" if you don't like them then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! but stop hating on people because they are using a system that gives them a wee tiny bit of breathing room. if it craps your hide so much then do something about that too. help a mama out, donate to a charity, go work with those in need. maybe if everyone helped each other then no one would need "welfare" but for now, we do. and since it seems that so many who hate on welfare seem to have a "it's not fair, what about me, it's every man for himself" sort of attitude, then stop paying taxes and go do it all yourself.

as for me, i am totally happy helping in both ways, paying taxes and actually going out and doing something. maybe one day will well all have what we need. <3

i also wanted to add that yes, you can buy crap food on food stamps, BUT i don't think a change will come for that, not because people refuse, but because big business depends on people eating crap food. if food stamps went all "only whole foods, raw dairy, organic meats" etc i think nestle, kraft and the lot would go nuts. not so much the people we wan t to eat better but can't afford it.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> if food stamps went all "only whole foods, raw dairy, organic meats" etc i think nestle, kraft and the lot would go nuts. not so much the people we wan t to eat better but can't afford it.


Not to mention the grocery stores that serve lower-income areas... if there were much stricter limits on what food stamps could be used for, a lot of locally-owned businesses might shut down completely. Leading to even bigger "food deserts", all the problems that come with boarded up storefronts, etc, etc.

But hey, at least Serenbat wouldn't be lying awake in the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves...


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:
Originally Posted by *serenbat* 
Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind? *They don't work the same way-not even close- the public schools system is open to ALL- if you choose not to use it, so be it, WIC is not for all- not even a fair comparison. The school system is not just for certain incomes- all children!*Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind? *They don't work the same way-not even close- the public schools system is open to ALL- if you choose not to use it, so be it, WIC is not for all- not even a fair comparison. The school system is not just for certain incomes- all children!*



> * How about wealthy people who deduct their child care from their taxes meaning we ALL subsidize it? You just fail to see what the system of welfare/assistance is designed to do, be temporary assistance, not a I'll take what gives me what I want system that we all are not part of- these are two different things , the system is not designed for staying on and on.*


But it's still only "all" CHILDREN. Many people pay taxes and will never have the benefit of it. Just like many people pay for WIC and never have the benefit of it (though, to be fair, it is for *at risk* children meaning that you can be high income and still qualify).

Actually, there is nothing that indicated WIC is supposed to be a limited or temporary help. So, you're really fine with someone taking $20K/year in tax rebates on a purchase of a million dollar home but you begrudge the few hundreds of dollars someone takes from WIC to provide food for their child? There are people who feel THE SAME WAY about the public school system--- that if you want to have children, you should be ready to provide for them (including paying for their own school). It must be "nice" to have such a well-defined line of black and white that just happens to put all people needing a little extra help (that aren't wealthy) in the horrible camp.


----------



## TiredX2

And the only people eligible for over $20K in tax rebates a year on mortgage interest are those who can "afford" that size of house--- but you're not complaining about their (much larger) use of your tax subsidy. Why is that? Why all the jealousy towards the poor?


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> It certainly is a shame when private (non govt funded) groups do try- such as nutritional educational programs only to be meet with little expectancy and participation.


What I'd really like to see is programs that cater to low-income people in a way similar to that in which many grocery stores in middle to upper income neighborhoods cater to their customers. In some grocery stores near my mom's home in the suburbs, you could walk through on a Saturday morning and literally get your breakfast or lunch just trying all the samples, and can also get some fun ideas regarding different food combinations to try that you might not have thought of. Now, I certainly understand that this is done in wealthier neighborhoods because it increases sales of those products and benefits the companies selling them. It would be like suicide for food producers to do the exact same thing in poor neighborhoods where there are tons of hungry homeless people, or people who have some sort of a home but are just hungry and have little opportunity to try out new delicacies.

What I'm thinking of would be for a government or private educational program to partner up with grocery stores that are in walking distance for many poor people, and set up tables similar to the "sample" tables in the stores in wealthier neighborhoods -- only in this case, the educators would be demonstrating easy methods for preparing a wide range of natural, healthy foods. Samples could still be provided, of course, and educators could be available to help any people who'd like some help shopping for healthy foods on a budget.

This makes so much more sense to me than offering classes in a separate location from where people buy their food -- meaning, one more place to find transportation to, and to try to manage your small children while taking in a lot of new information. Some people have literacy problems, too, and having the education be so hands-on, as well as fitting so easily into the frequent grocery shopping routine that's part of every parent's life, and is obviously quite frequent for parents without cars who can't buy as much in one trip, just makes good practical sense.

I also agree with those posters who've said that home visits are not as likely to be popular -- in this case, I'm expanding the "home visit" concept to include having a nutritional educator come into one's home to provide personalized instruction. It's understandable, and doesn't mean anyone has anything evil to hide, when you consider that many of us who frequent MDC have parenting practices that we know are best for our kids and that we feel very good about, such as child-led weaning and cosleeping -- but that we wouldn't feel so comfortable bringing under the scrutiny of a government employee or other complete stranger who may not have done all the research that we've done on those topics. Plus, *it's simply more cost-effective* to send a group of educators into one place anyway.

I realize some people may say I'm promoting "enabling" -- but I actually think it's a lot more efficient to do things in the way that is most likely to get results. Everybody goes to the grocery store (or at least everybody with kids does), and seeing good food preparation ideas in action at the same time that you're choosing what groceries to buy on your limited budget, and getting help if you need it when looking for the healthiest foods at the lowest prices, seems much more likely to result in more low-income families eating a healthier diet. Plus, there are often huge discrepancies between the quality and selection of foods -- especially fresh fruits and vegetables -- that are available in stores that cater to the rich and those that are available in stores in poor neighborhoods. If more nutritional educators did their work in these stores, their presence and involvement with the stores would most likely help to change this unfortunate situation.

I'm getting kind of excited about my idea...I'm actually wondering what I might be able to do about it.


----------



## mammal_mama

I'm wondering if we might have better results in our welfare system it it were run by *ethical and successful* business people. While I think there is soooo much wrong with the way corporations are running America, and with how we're labeled "consumers" and bombarded with advertising, I keep thinking about how most successful businesspeople invest a lot of resources into making sure that their products are marketed in the ways that are likely to get the best results at the lowest cost.

In contrast, it seems like many programs for the poor are run for the purpose of feeding into the stereotype that no matter what you do, the poor are always with us, they're always going to eat and feed their kids crap and have high rates of obesity and, now, high rates of childhood *type 2* diabetes -- the kind that used to never surface until after about the age of 40, and high rates of all kinds of other health complications related to eating lots of empty calories for years and years...

If there were a well-run business set up for the purpose of lowering healthcare costs by increasing the likelihood that the poorest Americans ate a healthy well-balanced diet, it seems like there's be a lot more poor people feeling like eating natural, healthy foods was their own idea (you know, subliminal advertising messages or whatever you want to call them).

Just think how effective "marketing" has been in getting so many of us to spend money we don't have on things we really don't need or benefit from -- if government were really a force for good, and were run like an ethical business, surely its "marketing" would be just as effective for good as "corporate" marketing has been for bad in many cases.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I'm wondering if we might have better results in our welfare system it it were run by *ethical and successful* business people.


If you include *ethical* in the equation you would have to have it in the discussion. Is it ethical to have more children when you are already receiving assistance vs waiting to when you can provide on your own?

Some places are doing some things - Philadelphia is running a city program that is addressing obesity for those on assistance.


----------



## captain optimism

Private groups offering nutritional education to low-income clients often do so with government funding. I used to write the grant proposals for programs to help low-income parents. They had a GED program, a job-training course, short-term housing for homeless families, and a couple of social work programs to support young and low-income moms, and a really great young fathers program. (That was basically one incredibly charismatic guy who turned a lot of young men's lives around--it was one of the highlights of my job to write grant proposals describing the work he did.)

Our experience at that non-profit was that we had a lot of clients who wanted the programs, not that they refused to use them. It's true that only a minority of people really had it together to get everything out of the help that they could, and there were some great success stories. I would say most of the people who enrolled got a lot of what they were seeking--parenting advice and help, books for their kids, access to better jobs, counseling to deal with the after-effects of domestic violence, and so on, even though they were really at-risk families, people in serious crisis. Yes, sure, some dropped out, but mostly we helped people live better and not stay stuck.

People are a lot better than we think they are.

I don't think the answer is to seek more guidance from the private sector. The truth is that organizations like the one where I worked with private sector foundations and corporations, both to get funding and for help with getting jobs for clients. We actually worked with other non-profits, with the state, with the city, and with the private sector. That's usual. In some states more of the money comes from private donations and in some more from the state.

We were often, even at that time before the most recent economic downturn, caught in a bind by the welfare reform provisions. We couldn't offer job training to homeless moms in our shelter because they had to be on TANF to stay in the shelter and TANF required them to work, not get job training. Of course, they couldn't make too much money while they did it, because if they made too much they'd lose their housing. So we, as an organization, had to make those same bad choices as low-income moms do. All their three and four year old children had to be in daycare, even though their kids were traumatized by losing their homes.


----------



## 95191

I was referring to religious groups in my area do not fair well with outreach, and our local farm market (also is doing food related programs) isn't doing well reaching those in need either- but that has more to do with their other issues, and given the funding my local markets is getting technically they are govt funded in certain ways.


----------



## mammal_mama

First off, captain optimism, I really do agree with you about the basic goodness of people, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that poor people, or any people, need "subliminal advertising" to persuade them that they really want to feed their families real, healthy food and not junk. I've just been thinking about how successful businesses market their products in such a way that they're most likely to reach and be enthusiastically received by the target market.

If the product is a healthy lifestyle, then considering the fact that everyone already wants to feel good and have happy, healthy, successful children, it shouldn't be all that hard to get that product from the minds of the planners into the hands of the targeted group.

As parents, we do our own marketing when we prepare and serve our foods in the ways that are most appealing to our children, and make them easily accessible -- and there's nothing deceitful or patronizing about that.

I also agree with you and serenbat that there have been, and continue to be, some really good, helpful, effective programs out there. I just kind of feel like my idea of running the program right there in the grocery stores in poor neighborhoods, which has probably already occurred to others, and may actually be happening in some places for all I know, could make up at least some part of the missing puzzle piece and help fill in the gap between what many of us now know about food and health, and what many poor people are actually eating.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> If you include *ethical* in the equation you would have to have it in the discussion. Is it ethical to have more children when you are already receiving assistance vs waiting to when you can provide on your own?


I think ethical business people are most focused on operating their own businesses ethically, not on making sure that each and every customer fits in with their personal beliefs. It's true that most people are in business to make money -- but the smartest ones invest a lot in making their businesses customer-friendly, such as by hiring people who really care about other people and want to help them, and by training them to see things from the customers' perspectives and to assume the best even about the most difficult and disagreeable customers.

While looking for a definition that explains what it means to assume positive intent, I stumbled across a really good business article on the topic, and I've pasted the link below for anyone who is interested.

http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/how-to-assume-positive-intent


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I also agree with you and serenbat that there have been, and continue to be, some really good, helpful, effective programs out there. I just kind of feel like my idea of running the program *right there in the grocery stores in poor neighborhoods,* which has probably already occurred to others, and may actually be happening in some places for all I know, could make up at least some part of the missing puzzle piece and help fill in the gap between what many of us now know about food and health, and what many poor people are actually eating.


Actually, this is the key problem. Both urban and rural low-income families may live in so-called food deserts. These are areas with reduced access to fresh food.

These are the areas the USDA considers food deserts: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-desert-locator/go-to-the-locator.aspx They figure out what counts as a food desert by whether the supermarkets are spaced far apart, so that people can't get to them.

In my area, which is crowded and urban, the use of SNAP at farmer's markets has worked very well--but that's because we have pretty good public transportation and farmer's markets all over our city. My own area has gotten both private and public funding for anti-obesity programming--which they have put into public recreation facilities, maintaining crosswalks and bike lanes, and bringing locally-grown food into the public schools.

Our attitude toward public health is pretty similar to our attitude toward public welfare. It's very blaming and shaming and all about individuals and their initiative. It's not really a public policy, it's a lot of noodging.


----------



## 95191

with all things ethical you have to make the choices

even given health foods it does not always mean the right choices are taken by those exposed to the importance of the options

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html - this is very small when you figure in the rest of the state on assistance, it is a large city but nothing is being address currently outside of larger areas on a scale like this


----------



## rightkindofme

I get that you have lots of issues with how the adults are behaving. The children didn't ask to be born. The children involved can't pick or unpick their parents. If you discontinue aide you aren't punishing the parents for their stupidity you are punishing the children for being stupid enough to be born.


----------



## mammal_mama

serenbat, I agree that there will always be some people who don't make the healthiest choices. In some cases, they may not today but then they may get a wakeup call like I did.

I just think that if the concern is about the cost to the taxpayers, then healthcare as it currently stands is one of the hugest expenses we're looking at. I really love what the group in the movie "Edible City" is doing in Oakland, California, bringing the poor people together to grow their own food and own and operate their own corner stores. And the movie points out that locally-grown food, and Mom and Pop stores owned by people in the neighborhood, used to be the norm in this country *less than 100 years ago*.

I know we can't go back, but knowing what many of us now know about food and health, I wish every single official that we elected really saw the situation and cared about moving forward to something even better.

And it's not moving forward to complain that those who are too poor to buy insurance or pay for their own care are the root of the problem. Since I talk with a lot of Europeans as part of my job, I've learned that one component of universal health care in at least some places, is the expectation that people eat right, get plenty of exercise, and stay healthy.

But at the same time, European city planners seem to pretty much be committed to keeping cities on a human scale, which makes it easy for people to do a nice amount of walking as part of their daily routine. Even if they have cars, most people in cities have good grocery stores in easy walking distance, and public transportation is also much better than it is in many American cities. Populations seem to be more concentrated in the center of urban areas, which makes it easier to develop a good bus or rail system, whereas in many American cities, those with enough money to move prefer living in the suburbs, so everything is really spread out and it becomes a way of life to just get in your car and go everywhere.

I'm just learning about so many policies that would really be conducive to helping Americans get healthier -- no, not force them to make the right choices, but just, for example, make it easier for busy people to get regular exercise as part of their daily routine, rather than having to carve out an extra chunk of time in an already full day -- but it seems like city planners and government officials are just blind to the fact that there's are *reasons* why we have higher obesity rates than other developed nations. I know we can't be Europe, but why can't we learn more from them?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If you discontinue aide you aren't punishing the parents for their stupidity you are punishing the children for being stupid enough to be born.


I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make.

The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it.

It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.

I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I know we can't be Europe, but why can't we learn more from them?


the current systems of assistance we have are not able to support it- why allow abuse and glorify it? it is not the same, we as a nation do not have it


----------



## rightkindofme

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make.
> 
> The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it.
> 
> It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.
> 
> I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.


Actually the support I got from welfare as a child kept me from starving. It kept me full enough to be able to learn at school. So that I could go on to college and become a productive member of society.

I don't think it is a "good thing". I think it is way the fuck better than the alternative. I was already unwanted in every way. I'm really fucking grateful that my government has more compassion than you.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make.
> 
> The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it.
> 
> It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.
> 
> I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.


Here's a devil's advocate question, Serenbat: what do you think *should* happen to babies who are born to mothers on public assistance?

One modest proposal: the parents could be charged with neglect, have their rights terminated, and the babies could then be adopted by upper-middle-class couples who can't have children of their own. There are LOTS of those couples, after all. Then the babies could grow up free from hunger, want, and worrying about whether their family will have electricity next month. And the mothers of the 1% will have the children they so obviously deserve. It's a win-win!

Oh wait... seems to me a lot of countries have tried that before...


----------



## captain optimism

Instead of concentrating all our energies on blaming people for making bad choices, we need to offer them the possibility of making better ones. If you can't get fresh food where you live and if cooking is a huge time and expertise cost, you will get used to buying crappy processed food. If walking around and playing outside are dangerous, either because of traffic or because of crime, you won't do those things.

If you want moms to make excellent choices about when to have children, you have to have an excellent school system that prepares people for a variety of educational options. Women delay childrearing when they have something equally worthwhile to do with their young adulthood, and people who don't have a good basic education can't choose to do a lot of those equally worthwhile, lucrative things that contribute to society. Further, the last twenty years saw national policies of promoting abstinence in schools instead of teaching teens about contraception, trying to cut funding to the one national non-profit that provides teens with contraception, and standing against health insurance for kids.

Taxpayers paid for the stupid public policies that got us here in the first place. To make it the fault of every individual woman who had to choose between abortion and carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term is ridiculous. If we force lots of women to choose between two bad alternatives, they will always make a bad choice, because a bad choice is all there is. We pretend it's the natural condition of society, but our public policies set the conditions, and we pay for those policies one way or another.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> But at the same time, European city planners seem to pretty much be committed to keeping cities on a human scale, which makes it easy for people to do a nice amount of walking as part of their daily routine. Even if they have cars, most people in cities have good grocery stores in easy walking distance, and public transportation is also much better than it is in many American cities. Populations seem to be more concentrated in the center of urban areas, which makes it easier to develop a good bus or rail system, whereas in many American cities, those with enough money to move prefer living in the suburbs, so everything is really spread out and it becomes a way of life to just get in your car and go everywhere.
> 
> I'm just learning about so many policies that would really be conducive to helping Americans get healthier.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it.
> 
> It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Serenbat: what do you think *should* happen to babies who are born to mothers on public assistance.


I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.

What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!

You are meant to take personal responsibility.

You are not meant to raise a family for years on it - why is this so difficult to understand? It is not a system designed for all mothers to stay home with their children (as in the the system other countries have) when they are born, it is not meant to have multiple children on, it's meant as temporary (better yourself and your situation) so you don't stay on to raise a family- the goal should be short and get off it.

Again, why* advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society?*


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.
> 
> What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!
> 
> You are meant to take personal responsibility.
> 
> You are not meant to raise a family for years on it - why is this so difficult to understand? It is not a system designed for all mothers to stay home with their children (as in the the system other countries have) when they are born, it is not meant to have multiple children on, it's meant as temporary (better yourself and your situation) so you don't stay on to raise a family- the goal should be short and get off it.
> 
> Again, why* advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society?*


I never said anything about starving children, either. Refusal to answer my question noted.

Let's try again: what do you think *should* happen to the children of people who stay on public assistance long-term? (Where, I guess, "long-term" means "one minute longer than Serenbat thinks they should be there".)


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> the current systems of assistance we have are not able to support it- why allow abuse and glorify it? it is not the same, we as a nation do not have it


I was thinking about things that need to be done on a governmental and city planning level, such as supporting a revitalization of our city's urban cores and providing incentives for more businesses to be centered there and creating a situation where many people with more financial options actually *want* to live in the urban core -- while at the same time making sure there continues to be plenty of affordable housing for lower income people so they're not pushed out to the fringes. And providing more incentives to small businesses so that little grocery stores run by people in the neighborhood can actually thrive and sell good foods at affordable prices and not convenience store prices. So that even people who have cars actually find it feasible to take a brisk walk to the neighborhood grocer's and buy what they need for a couple of days at a time..

With more people concentrated in a smaller area, it would become more feasible to invest in a really good public transport system, because if more people's homes and jobs are centrally located, maybe some folks would still prefer driving, but I think many would start taking the bus or train, which would automatically add a little walking to their daily schedule because the stops are usually a few blocks away from your destination. One single mom in my city would love to use public transport if it wouldn't currently eat up so much of her time. She has about a 15 minute drive to work but I think she said it would take her at least an hour each way to ride the bus. That's a lot of time for a single mom to give up!

I realize these changes would cost something -- but, in view of our environmental crisis, how can we afford not to start shifting more in that direction? Also, in view of our health crisis, how can we afford not to change the structures that push so many of us into being such a sedentary nation? The upfront cost of the change might seem high, but I think the long term economic, and quality of life benefits, would be tremendous.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> One modest proposal: the parents could be charged with neglect, have their rights terminated, and the babies could then be adopted by upper-middle-class couples who can't have children of their own. There are LOTS of those couples, after all. Then the babies could grow up free from hunger, want, and worrying about whether their family will have electricity next month. And the mothers of the 1% will have the children they so obviously deserve. It's a win-win!
> 
> Oh wait... seems to me a lot of countries have tried that before...


this is crazy!









this thread isn't even about this


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> this is crazy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this thread isn't even about this


Attempt to derail, and second refusal to answer my question, noted.

What do you think *should* happen to the children of people who are on public assistance for more than a short term? I'll even allow you to define "short term" any way you like.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Refusal to answer my question noted.


you missed the part (better yourself and your situation)

I suspose your solution is not do so!


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> you missed the part (better yourself and your situation)
> 
> I suspose your solution is not do so!


Third refusal to answer my question noted. Bonus points for derailing smilies this time!

What if people *don't* "better themselves and their situation" - by which, you mean, getting off public assistance in the amount of time you find appropriate? What should happen to those people's children then?


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.
> 
> What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!
> 
> You are meant to take personal responsibility.
> 
> You are not meant to raise a family for years on it - why is this so difficult to understand? It is not a system designed for all mothers to stay home with their children (as in the the system other countries have) when they are born, it is not meant to have multiple children on, it's meant as temporary (better yourself and your situation) so you don't stay on to raise a family- the goal should be short and get off it.
> 
> Again, why* advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society?*


Yes, you're right, the current system is not designed for all mothers to stay home with their children. It's designed for NO mothers to stay at home with their children beyond infancy. The question at the beginning of the thread was, *should* there be welfare that *would* allow mothers to stay at home with their children. I am almost positive that the reason it was phrased as it was, with no acknowledgment that the current system isn't designed this way, was in order to fan the flames of a long discussion.

You, personally, introduced the element of calling nearly every possible use of the social safety net, including going to the ER and using food stamps, "abuse" and "fraud." No one else with negative feelings about government support for low-income families went as far rhetorically as you did. (Or seemed to--sometimes your infelicities of expression confuse your readers.)

Your seeming thorough opposition to anyone making any use of the social safety net prompted this modest proposal style response. ("A Modest Proposal" was a 1729 satirical essay by Jonathan Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their children. Some of us read it in school.)


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> ("A Modest Proposal" was a 1729 satirical essay by Jonathan Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their children. Some of us read it in school.)


Hey, I bet some homeschoolers and unschoolers read it too! 

Nonetheless, I'm glad somebody got the reference. Everybody seemed to miss my props to Ambrose Bierce yesterday...


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Hey, I bet some homeschoolers and unschoolers read it too!
> 
> Nonetheless, I'm glad somebody got the reference. Everybody seemed to miss my props to Ambrose Bierce yesterday...


Aw jeez, it was H.L. Mencken, not Bierce. I bet if I'd been homeschooled, I would have known that!

Back to the topic, folks...


----------



## 95191

The institutionalized program was set up to be an *offset measure* for those in need, *not a complete replacement of income and benefits.*

But *welfare abuse has been a serious issue* that has caused strict regulations for welfare services on who is eligible and how welfare can be used.

Since one of the goals of US welfare is to help individuals and families *break the cycle of dependency on welfare*, educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job.

http://www.welfareinfo.org


----------



## glassesgirlnj

_"educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job."_

OK, now we're starting to get somewhere. You think educational assistance should be provided to parents on public assistance, to get them off of government benefits faster. Am I understanding you?

I haven't received those benefits myself. (Incidentally, Serenbat, our family is probably in a similar financial situation to yours; we make JUST a little too much to qualify for certain things, such as daycare vouchers and WIC. And we *could* qualify for moderate-income housing, if we wanted to sit on a waitlist for decades...)

So, does anybody on this thread whose family HAS received government benefits - I know there are several of you - want to share her experience with the kind of "educational assistance" that Serenbat is talking about?


----------



## journeymom

We need to get this distraction out of the way: *Do all of us here agree that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves?* Does anyone here actually believe people should not take responsibility for themselves?

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.
> 
> What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!
> 
> You are meant to take personal responsibility.


I don't think I personally have clarified that I completely agree with you, welfare as it exists now is meant to be a short-term assistance. I absolutely agree, we all should take personal responsibility. Everyone who uses public assistance should endeavour to get on their feet and self-sufficient as soon as possible.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> I know we can't be Europe, but why can't we learn more from them?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> the current systems of assistance we have are not able to support it- why allow abuse and glorify it? it is not the same, we as a nation do not have it


Since you highlighted that particular comment of Mammal Mama's, please go back and point out precisely where Mammal Mama said the current systems of assistance should allow and glorify abuse. Where is the glorifying? I believe she was describing European society where, like you are demanding (rightly so), the recipients of assistance also take personal responsibility for their health. She then went on to contrast life in Europe to life in the US, how one is more conducive of good health than the other. And then ask why can't we learn from the European example. My understanding is that she didn't negate your comments at all, she merely offered more solutions to the problem.

As you say, "you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda."


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> The institutionalized program was set up to be an *offset measure* for those in need, *not a complete replacement of income and benefits.*
> 
> But *welfare abuse has been a serious issue* that has caused strict regulations for welfare services on who is eligible and how welfare can be used.
> 
> Since one of the goals of US welfare is to help individuals and families *break the cycle of dependency on welfare*, educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job.
> 
> http://www.welfareinfo.org


SERIOUSLY? Seriously? You trust the word of a website that promotes the use of payday loans to low-income people as a "resource"? I mean, it's totally accurate to say that the stated reason for the welfare reform of 1996 was to break the cycle of dependency on welfare, but can't you find a better source to bolster your authority in saying *precisely the same thing that I've said multiple times over the past 27 pages*? Can't you at least go to the federal government's own websites to find information about their programs? You have to link to implicit promotions of predatory lending?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Aw jeez, it was H.L. Mencken, not Bierce. I bet if I'd been homeschooled, I would have known that!
> 
> Back to the topic, folks...


Oh, right, not a fan of Mencken here.


----------



## captain optimism

On the matter of what educational activities a TANF recipient can do in lieu of a work requirement, remember that TANF is a block grant to states, and rules about what you are allowed to do as education vary from state to state. In some states it has to be vocational and in some, there are programs for people to attend two and four year colleges.

SNAP is also administered by individual states. Some states give the same amount of food stamps to college students as to other low-income recipients, while others reduce food stamps for people who go to college.


----------



## journeymom

As per the original question- should we support moms so they can stay at home with their children? I have a few thoughts.

-I am referring to general public support, not welfare.

-I don't think all children benefit from having a sahm. I think some children benefit more from being in good quality day care and preschool.

-I don't object to the idea completely.

-Sweden's example is great, but it must be pointed out that more than 300 million people live in the US, to Sweden's 9 million.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Where is the glorifying?


we do glorify it when we deem it expectable to have multiple children when receiving assistance and do not discourage the it

we do glorify it when when we view it as just a little bit....as if just a little cheating/a little fraud is OK too

we do glorify it when we positively view those who make the system work for them as Ok because it's their choice

we do glorify it when we don't encourage personal responsibility and deem it expectable to depend on others thus meaning it's better to stay home if you can get govt assistance vs working

we do glorify it when we when we can't see that yes it is your life-style when you depend on it for years and years and I do think 60 months is more than fair for most assistance and so does the government

I see many here glorifying it- IRL I see the complete opposite with many knowing of abuse and seeing dependance prevalent and a major need for change


----------



## mamazee

I don't know how you discourage people from having more children, unless it's by making birth control/women's services easier to get, which I'm all for. But having babies is an instinctive urge, and without birth control is very likely to happen.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> I don't know how you discourage people from having more children, unless it's by making birth control/women's services easier to get, which I'm all for.


I'm basically for it too. But if we're specifically talking about discouraging "welfare moms" (the subject of this thread) from having more children, that's led to some pretty ugly practices historically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I don't know how you discourage people from having more children,


like you do other things- *it's not OK to drink while you are pregnant, smoking is not a hot idea, *and we seem to put those messages out there, we (society / govt) put out lots of messages - how about, it's not good for your child to not take responsibility for yourself- there are lots of ways to do

first saying, hey, that are not ethically good for you and your child, and bringing more children in to the mix is not a good idea at this time - that doesn't mean you are pushing an agenda for abortion any more than saying drinking and smoking aren't great when pregnant and around existing children

society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> <
> 
> society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)


I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents *don't* follow those rules.

Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.

What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)

So, assuming Igor and Ivanka are not going to change their behavior in any way, what would The World According to Serenbat do with their kids? You may use both sides of the paper.


----------



## captain optimism

At the moment, according to the Guttmacher Institute which collects data on birth control and abortion, nearly half of all US pregnancies are unintended. Of those, 40% end in abortion. That's WITH the negative propaganda on abortion--50% of people in the US describe themselves as "pro-life." Guttmacher's stats say that 61% of the women who have abortions in the US have another child already.

In spite of the fact that so many of us disapprove of abortion, we have the second highest rate of abortion per capita in the world, and more than half of the people who are getting abortions are doing so because they have gotten pregnant by accident and already have another child or children.

What was especially telling to me about these stats was that 54% of the women who had abortions had been using contraception in the month before they got pregnant. Most used it inconsistently or incorrectly. A lot of the women who were not using contraception reported that they considered themselves at low risk for getting pregnant.

Yes, I think it would make a very big difference if we had better access to contraceptives and to information about contraception.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Again, this is an issue of public policy, not one of individual ethics. If you want fewer unintended pregnancies, go with funding for family planning.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Yes, I think it would make a very big difference if we had better access to contraceptives and to information about contraception.


you are not going to see it when so many that call themselves Pro-Life are anti-contraception as well, and many are in all cases


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents *don't* follow those rules.


sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

doing nothing is just that


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> this is an issue of public policy, not one of individual ethics.


I think this is a really important distinction for this conversation.

Edited, discovered a mistake.


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!
> 
> doing nothing is just that


Don't do that. That's not what she said at all.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> <
> 
> society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents *don't* follow those rules.
> 
> Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.
> 
> What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)
> 
> So, assuming Igor and Ivanka are not going to change their behavior in any way, what would The World According to Serenbat do with their kids? You may use both sides of the paper.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Don't do that. That's not what she said at all.


so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, *are you encouraging dependance?* you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!
> 
> doing nothing is just that


you cont to not answer the question. you just come back with sassy sideways comments. what do we do with families who cont to have children while on assistance? how do you stop people from having kids? you said educate like has been done with smoking and alcohol... yet many women still drink A LOT and smoke while pregnant. yes it is viewed as bad by the general public (so is being on "welfare" as seen by many of your own comments), BUT it doesn't stop people from doing it. it seems there is only so much we can do...1.) take their children from them after a certain period of time 2.)force sterilization on the them (most likely the women, because the men although they are needed to make the babies don't actually carry them.) 3.) kick their butts to the curb after a certain number of years whether they have a way to support themselves or not, kids be damned.

all the other choices are pretty much just educate and hope for the best.

and just an FYI we are all dependent on each other. all of us. i don't see that as an issue, but i know you do. unless you are really truly doing EVERY SINGLE THING yourself, you are also dependent on others. i think that view might be worth looking at. our feelings about dependency. how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, *are you encouraging dependance?* you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance


We have a massive political agenda to end dependence on government assistance. What we lack is sufficient political will to work on ending poverty. It's really easy to put restrictions on who can get money from the government to live, but it's a lot harder to reduce the actual need for government or charitable intervention.

The US has the world's highest GDP and 20% of the children in the country live in poverty. We have the second highest child poverty level among developed countries--after Romania. (UNICEF measures it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/us-child-poverty-report-unicef_n_1555533.html) Of course, in our case they could only measure relative poverty, because we don't actually track some of the other indicators. We do know that children in our country are at risk for hunger and homelessness. (A lot of the states with the highest rates of obesity also have the highest rates of food insecurity, which is pretty interesting.)

On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy. (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance


Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here. What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you? How do you define it? For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency?

It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?


----------



## MotheringBliss

"how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "

Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting primal/innate/essential human needs.

Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:

Oregon's consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, "I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children." In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient "to the best of [his] knowledge and belief" in the signing away of the patient's reproductive capacity.

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807

Australia is now paving the way for *children of any age to consent to sterilization - without parental consent*. That's right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is 'sufficiently mature', they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, *there is no age minimum*, as long as they are 'mature' enough.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k

To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives? Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper. With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?

I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance. Where are we when we need each other?


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here. What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you? How do you define it? For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency?
> 
> It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?


I, too would love to hear a clear answer from serenbat. Good questions.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MotheringBliss*
> 
> "how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "
> 
> Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting primal/innate/essential human needs.
> 
> Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:
> 
> Oregon's consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, "I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children." In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient "to the best of [his] knowledge and belief" in the signing away of the patient's reproductive capacity.
> 
> http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807
> 
> Australia is now paving the way for *children of any age to consent to sterilization - without parental consent*. That's right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is 'sufficiently mature', they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, *there is no age minimum*, as long as they are 'mature' enough.
> 
> Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k
> 
> To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives? Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper. With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?
> 
> I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance. Where are we when we need each other?


 Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children. You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming. Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section. From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children. Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.

I don't think that the current system glorifies or encourages dependence. Thank goodness so many of us are willing to treat these "dependents" as decent human beings even during whatever period they receive assistance. Few people like being dependent, they certainly do not want to be talked down to and preached at, and treating them like parasites is bringing poison into our communities.


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy. (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)










well said.

i find from my own experience the biggest opponents to welfare are those who are on the cusp where they just missed the qualification by a tad bit and their objection is fraud. while yes fraud goes on, is it going on so much that it makes the program more harmful?

and the funniest part? that the government is doing something to help people from their dependency on the system. to me that is the biggest joke. just see how much help the govt. gives to get people off esp. in the southern states.


----------



## contactmaya

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> I'm basically for it too. But if we're specifically talking about discouraging "welfare moms" (the subject of this thread) from having more children, that's led to some pretty ugly practices historically...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization


Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!


----------



## mamazee

I really just don't know specifically what is meant by "discouraging." I might agree, depending on how it would be discouraged.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*
> 
> Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children. You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming. Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section. From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children. Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.


I don't like the idea of reviving sterilization as a public policy. We have a long history, in this country and elsewhere, of government bodies deciding to sterilize women because they are "unfit" in some way--"stupid" or "dependent." When doctors encourage women to accept sterilization, I think that's an abuse of their authority.

Public policies that are really good for society have to make people happier. Taking away the fundamental choice of whether to have children is depriving them of one of the principles guaranteed in the Constitution--the pursuit of happiness.

I believe that if we offer people appropriate options that they will make good choices, and that a young woman who is currently down on her luck can often recover. Not everyone will make the right choice, but if it's possible, most will. We want to do right by our kids.

It's fundamentally wrong to abridge women's ability to choose whether or not to have sex and whether or not to have children.


----------



## mamaofthree

dh was just telling me about his day at work. a co-worker just returned from a trip to Kibera ( the world's largest slum in Nairobi). 110,000 people in one square mile. they have no toilets so raw sewage runs in the streets, children starve everyday, there is constant sickness, hunger, violence, death... everywhere. there is no safety net for these people. none, no government help, hardly any education. it is sad, scary and just a pretty awful way to life.

we are lucky to be here, here where we have a safety net. where you can get food, you have running water, you can send you kids to school. even if you are the poorest of the poor you can still get some help if you are willing to look for it and ask for it. and here we are fighting over pennies from everyone. pennies a year from your tax dollars goes to prevent that sort of situation here.

how can anyone want to prevent people from getting help? who has the right to decide who is worthy of help and for how long? whose children are better? whose children get to eat, have a safe home, have medical acre? i am blessed beyond measure because we have food every night, and health insurance and a house. why would i want to deny anyone EVER of having that? because they are what? "stupid", "poor", making bad "life style choices"? who am i to say? who are you to say? where do we draw the line?

geeze. this whole idea of fighting about who gets food is just so damn stupid it makes me sick. if i have to pay more in taxes so someone eats tonight then damn it, i will. and i will be damned if it will get my undies in a bunch, because no one on earth should have to live like that, no one should have to live in that sort of fear place. and all the complaining about how hard you ( a generalized you here) work and how "you" shouldn't have to work to help another human being is just sickening. because honestly there by the grace of god go you.

serebat: you have said more than once why is some "welfare mom's" kids more important then yours... they aren't, BUT they are not less important. no one is less. when we start seeing that we all want love and acceptance and help and togetherness then maybe this world will come around, but if we cont to have this "us against them" mentality all we will have is "haves and have nots"

i am not sure how much more of this thread i can take.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *contactmaya*
> 
> Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!


You're welcome!  ...Prob won't hear much from me for a while, still trying to get my 14-month-old to fall asleep. (At least reading "Mr. Seahorse" aloud is more productive than listening to regurgitated Fox talking points.)


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you? How do you define it? For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency?


I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html

*MAJOR GOAL*

*The four purposes of TANF are:*


assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2

it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I really don't get why this is just such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare


BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most people are not committing fraud. And most are not long-term dependent on welfare, it's a temporary stop-gap. And families with young children just happen to be most in need of this temporary aid, because:

1. Little kids need to eat to grow, and, you know, SURVIVE.
2. Whether you work & pay for daycare, or stay home and lose an income, having a child seriously cuts into your financial resources. This is mitigated some when most kids reach school age.
3. Many with young children are also just starting out on their own as adults. Not only do they have to learn how to manage finances, but they either had to skip out on college and can't get a good-paying job, or they are under the weight of thousands & thousands of dollars in student loans, and still not making much money because jobs for those just out of college pay crap. In our society, families just starting out in life are at a huge disadvantage.

Whether you have 1 child or 10, the loss to income to be a SAHP is the same. (Working parents will obviously have more costs per child for daycare.) If someone wants 3 children, why not have them all around the same time, and then be able to re-enter the workforce as they hit school age? Having them years apart means they are constantly leaving & re-entering the workforce and just may not be in the family's best interest, financially or career-wise, and likely would cost society more in the long run (seeing as that's the thing you seem concerned about).

And, sometimes you can't wait to have another child without giving up on your dreams of multiple kids altogether. If you are a 43-year-old mom, there aren't exactly a ton of child-bearing years ahead of you while you wait 'til you're financially well-off. Same is true of people with certain health & fertility issues. I don't see a problem with a family already on assistance having another child while they still can. Then in a year or two they will be more financially stable & no longer relying on the system. I am appalled that you would imply a family should permanently limit their family size because they are temporarily in need of help.

Sterilizing parents, letting children starve... this conversation is making me sick. I swear this time I'm really done.


----------



## Maisigh

Personally, I'm in favour of a different kind of system all together. I hear so often that this system is broken, that system is broken. Well, f***, why do we keep doing it then? We invest so much time and energy into this one and we don't even like it! Change it. There's been this marvelous idea popping up here and there and I seriously hope it will catch on like a wildfire gone even wilder! It's called sharing. We do it all the time anyway--sharing movies, music and whatever else on the internet, giving away stuff to goodwill, having people over for dinner and I'm sure there are plenty more examples of what people share on a regular basis...why don't we just start sharing even more? I have skills. I can trade them for a skill/service/something I value. Why do we need money to survive? We don't.

I think for the system we have, welfare is necessary but falls far short of what families need. That people abuse it is irrelevant because people will abuse/neglect anything they don't value. Every person has dignity and worth, no matter their income, gender, education, possessions etc. The welfare system in the states is mindbogglingly pathetic, the same for here in Canada I presume (although I'm not on it now, I was when I was a child and my family couldn't afford much of anything at all) and I never would wish that fate on anyone.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results? Ya, that makes sense in this case...so...if we want a different result, we have to do something different. We can't rely on what isn't working.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.
> 
> http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html
> 
> *MAJOR GOAL*
> 
> *The four purposes of TANF are:*
> 
> 
> assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
> reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
> preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
> encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
> 
> My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf
> 
> http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2
> 
> it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that.


You have not only attacked TANF recipients. You have attacked pretty much everybody getting any small portion of assistance. Starting with attacking me because I am uninsured, then people who receive WIC, everyone who receives food stamps, and anyone who has another child while getting ANY kind of help at all. Some of these are two-parent families with at least one parent fully employed no matter what their family composition, other responsibilities, or other plans for their future. In some families both parents may be working in some way but just not enough for you. I homeschool and work as well, as does my husband but I got scolded for being irresponsible because we can't afford health insurance. We are not talking about people in the welfare system generation after generation, but someone who might get food stamps when her children are young even though her husband is the only one employed. You are making broad generalizations about many people on many different paths and without the respect and decency to see that there are more issues in life than avoiding the littlest hint of dependence on others. That is why your arguments don't make sense. As if any kind of dependence at any time were some kind of hideous toxin.

So if a woman has worked and has paid her share of taxes for years and then during her children's younger years she gets assistance and is home for a while, and then whn they are a little older she is employed again, "paying her share" again... what is the harm? I see more benefits than harm and I am glad that we have that little bit of acceptance for helping people when they are at their most vulnerable.

Do you really despise everyone who receives any benefits if they do not behave according to your formula? Earlier you suggested you only meant if that woman had the option of a job that would pay for all her bills, plus child care, plus insurance, and she just decided not to work at that job. Very few women are poor because they are turning down those jobs, people on the edge rarely have those kind of employment opportunities. Later the comments were more about those parasitic "welfare" moms milking the system and talk show quality generalizations. Sounds like you just hate that undeserving 47% to me.

Making the system work for you is healthy and positive? Well making whatever system you are part of NOT work for you is stupid. Its smart to get food stamps when poor nutrition, anxiety, and empty cabinets are the reward. It's smart to apply for WIC or for health care assistance if that your children need that care and it helps you and it was meant to help. It's not nasty and manipulative. Whoever the abusers of the system are they are not most people, nor is any woman who is a SAHM and receives some kind of assistance. Let people live a decent life. We don't like seeing hungry children begging in the streets or being allowed to sicken because their parents are to proud to be "dependent" or secretly left at home as preschoolers because the mother is slipping away to a job and has no safe option for childcare that she can pay for herself.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Sterilizing


this is being asked of all patients at our hospitable regardless- this is a service and they ask you at intake- same form for everyone, no one special - just like circa

many women do choose it, are only some to be asked?

Quote:


> Earlier you suggested you only meant if that woman had the option of a job that would pay for all her bills, plus child care, plus insurance, and she just decided not to work at that job.


I certainly did not say only. You seem proud not to work and depend- many do not feel this way. They want to be proud to take care of their children, you seem to not see that- clearly not all of the 47% depend. You must also think all those who are part of the Occupy Movement don't have job either.


----------



## cynthia mosher

Let's keep this a reasonably polite discussion without making it personal. If you can't, I'll have to restrict your participation in the thread.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents *don't* follow those rules.
> 
> Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.
> 
> What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)


Serebat&#8230;.I highlighted the above question as I think it is a good one. This is a long thread, so if you have answered it, my apologies.

There are 2 types of poor of people on welfare in N. America (with further subcategories). Those who are on it temporarily, and those who are "generational poor." This thread mostly seems to be around those who are generationally poor.

Generational poverty is really hard to move out of.

This is from wikipedia, but I like it:

"In economics, the *cycle of poverty* is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."[1]

The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon were poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations,_i.e._, for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or escape poverty&#8230;."

Generational poverty is no way to live. I do not know how to help people escape it, but if Wiki is to be believed, some of it must come from outside interventions. Public policy initiatives.

It might be interesting to look at countries that have low generational poverty statistics and see what they are doing right.


----------



## rightkindofme

Apparently me recounting my personal experiences is too "jolting" so I'm going to stop participating in the thread. That's fine. It's pretty clear that this discussion is over anyway.


----------



## kathymuggle

One more thought: on an individual level, I do think taking responsibility for oneself is the only way to climb out of poverty. Governments can make policies that support this, or give people a fighting chance, or not.


----------



## kathymuggle

To answer the Op:

I think parents (one parent, family choice) should be supported nicely until about age 1. This allows for a good breastfeeding relationship and optimal health. There are lots of illnesses kicking around and daycares are breeding grounds. My 2 cents.

After age one or so, I think parents should get enough money to meet needs of housing and food, but that is about it.

Minimum wage (which should be a friggin living wage - and in most areas not under 10$ an hour) should be higher than the amount you get on welfare. Daycare should be subsidized, as well as healthcare.

Making more money than you would on welfare, while still being able to access some of the benefits of welfare (such as healthcare), would go a long way towards pushing people off of welfare.

OT, a little, but I was looking at healthcare stats the other day&#8230;and those on welfare had better access to healthcare than those who were poor but not on welfare. To move people off of welfare and into working (which is a better lifestyle for most people&#8230;and takes less taxes, or at least allows taxes to be distributed more equitably) you need to remove the barriers to getting off welfare.


----------



## 95191

I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.

When you see personal (and starting to be a lot in our case) more and more examples of use/abuse you tend to have little to no sympathy anymore. This is coming from the class the works and seeing it directly effects perspective. I perfectly well know that corporations are getting massive tax breaks - I also know you can't be turned away at the ER and that is far cheaper than paying for your own health insurance, you see it, it's counts.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rightkindofme*
> 
> Apparently me recounting my personal experiences is too "jolting" so I'm going to stop participating in the thread. That's fine. It's pretty clear that this discussion is over anyway.


Wow, I'm really sorry to hear that! You are one of the people on this thread who's actually talked about your experiences being on public assistance - and so, I would think, your opinions would be invaluable.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.


TBH, I could "hear of someone who was told" a lot of things... but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", as I'm sure you know.

This was in the Philly suburbs, right? Care to let us know who "someone" was? Or what pantry this was? Or what worker at the pantry would say such a thing? (I wonder if the people running the nonprofit would be interested in finding out what's being said to their donors...)


----------



## meemee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.
> 
> just because you give doesnt mean it has to be appreciated. remember most of the food might be wierd to them. our local farm not only donates extra produce to the local pantry, but they also teach cooking classes to show them how to eat it. when you are used to the white crap from teh pantry - if you get artichoke hearts you would have no idea what to do with it.
> 
> When you see personal (and starting to be a lot in our case) more and more examples of use/abuse you tend to have little to no sympathy anymore. This is coming from the class the works and seeing it directly effects perspective. I perfectly well know that corporations are getting massive tax breaks - I also know you can't be turned away at the ER and that is far cheaper than paying for your own health insurance, you see it, it's counts.


serenbat i sympathise with you. i understand what its like to see the abuse going on. esp when you are in the cusp of being in between - too rich to qualify but not rich enough to pay for it yourself. but remember dont throw teh baby out with the bathwater. abuse is not the major part of the welfare system. it IS helping many, many people out. just coz there are a few bad apples doesnt mean the whole basket is trash. it is not the best system. but at least it is a system. and you feel it more because it reflects your own personal situation. gosh esp. your kids. so i can see why it hurts and frustrates you so much.

insurance. how can you pay for insurance when you cant even put food on the table?!! that's one thing. the other thing do you know how many families are sick? how many homeless are sick - chronic conditions, because they get seen perhaps at the ER (i wonder if they go there, coz i have never seen a homeless person at teh ER but at a clinic i have - the free clinics around me - people line up at 4 am for them to open at 8 am in the cold and then they take maybe 1 or 2 new patients and the rest returning) does not mean they get taken care of because there is no way of getting continuous care for their chronic condition.

if my dd was to get cancer - she is on Medi-cal - and if it is pretty aggressive i know she will probably die - because they just dont move fast enough. i've seen it happen too many times - for both babies and adults. two people get breast cancer at teh same time. one gets seen almost immediately. the other has to wait a month. and then wait again. guess who doesnt make it. i try to get out of that poverty to make sure we have good health insurance but i just dont get those jobs. either i am over qualified or not qualified enough. so people do try.

kathy i think welfare factors housing and food needs when they assign food stamps and TANF.

see how much pressure Universal healthcare would take off of all our shoulders. how much healtheir people would be just never having to worry about health conditions and would have a choice of jobs they want to work in.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Wow, I'm really sorry to hear that! You are one of the people on this thread who's actually talked about your experiences being on public assistance - and so, I would think, your opinions would be invaluable.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> TBH, I could "hear of someone who was told" a lot of things... but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", as I'm sure you know.
> 
> This was in the Philly suburbs, right? Care to let us know who "someone" was? Or what pantry this was? Or what worker at the pantry would say such a thing? (I wonder if the people running the nonprofit would be interested in finding out what's being said to their donors...)


You said the top to rightkindofme on her btdt (which are personal stories (anecdotes))&#8230;which I totally agree with.
Then you said the bottom, which was snarky and dismissive of anecdotes (while you had previously been okay with rightkindofme's anecdotes&#8230;.).

I get Serenbats post was on things she heard or impressions she has&#8230;while rightkindofme was stuff that happened to her, but none-the-less, applauding anecdotes on one hand and snarking it on the other is a little odd.


----------



## mamazee

I think it's very possible someone was told that some foods are more in demand at a food pantry than others. I've always been told that. The food pantry here hands out a list of most desired items. I don't think they'd turn any food away, but there are some foods they need particularly, and some foods that might be unfamiliar or more difficult to cook, or that might require condiments (that cost more money) or other ingredients that cost money, that aren't very useful at a food pantry. I don't see anything unusual about that at all.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*


You have a very good point! 

I should have been clearer that I was interested in hearing people's *direct experiences* of being on public assistance (which rightkindofme, and I think mammal_mama, and some others here, have been very helpful in providing.)

I'm not so much interested in hearing what was told to someone's sister's petsitter's friend, by an anonymous worker at an anonymous nonprofit. Hence my (serious, not snarky) questions to Serenbat as to what pantry this was, and what representative of that pantry was saying such things.

For my own direct experience, I've donated a variety of "fancy" things to food pantries - chai, imported biscuits, organic beef broth, et al- because I think people using food pantries deserve to have some small luxuries in their lives too. And never has anyone told me not to bother, or to bring Spaghetti-O's next time, or anything even close to that.

So if this is happening at other food pantries in the NJ/PA area (where both Serenbat and I live), I'd like to hear more. Does that make a bit more sense now?


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.


Once upon a time (alert: anecdote!







) I gave a burger to a homeless teen who was asking for money. He was with other homeless teens. He took a bite and then proceded to throw it on the floor! I was embarrassed and felt unappreciated. I realise now he was just showing off for his friends, but still. I have also had numerous positive experiences giving out food. Some people are unappreciative a$$holes, and some are not&#8230;and poverty does not change that.

The pantry thing is odd. It was odd on the part of the pantry. While I imagine they really do have food items that are more in demand/more popular than others (and a handout on items in demand would be a good idea), it is pretty rude to say not to bother with items as they are unappreciated. It does not encourage donations, you know? I don't have any trouble with people selling more expensive stuff to get cheaper stuff - the cheaper stuff may last them longer or be stuff they will eat. It seems pretty smart to me, actually.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> So if this is happening at other food pantries in the NJ/PA area (where both Serenbat and I live), I'd like to hear more. Does that make a bit more sense now?


It does, thanks. It is a volatile thread, and I am sensitive for anything that smacks of dogpiling, so I might have jumped to "snarky." Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> The pantry thing is odd. It was odd on the part of the pantry. While I imagine they really do have food items that are more in demand/more popular than others (and a handout on items in demand would be a good idea), it is pretty rude to say not to bother with items as they are unappreciated. It does not encourage donations, you know? I don't have any trouble with people selling more expensive stuff to get cheaper stuff - the cheaper stuff may last them longer or be stuff they will eat. It seems pretty smart to me, actually.


It was personal care items- shampoo, body wash, razors - better brands- they said they wanted cheaper brands-generic or Vo5 - cheaper priced items

This place does wants personal care items because they do not get those in donation- it's a church and they get food (as a donation from a large food bank) and they also take bags of food too. They seek out things not coved by SNAP- they also said they want cheap brand TP and paper towels, and not to get better ones.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> Once upon a time (alert: anecdote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) I gave a burger to a homeless teen who was asking for money. He was with other homeless teens. He took a bite and then proceded to throw it on the floor! I was embarrassed and felt unappreciated. I realise now he was just showing off for his friends, but still. I have also had numerous positive experiences giving out food. Some people are unappreciative a$$holes, and some are not&#8230;and poverty does not change that.
> 
> The pantry thing is odd. It was odd on the part of the pantry. While I imagine they really do have food items that are more in demand/more popular than others (and a handout on items in demand would be a good idea), it is pretty rude to say not to bother with items as they are unappreciated. It does not encourage donations, you know? I don't have any trouble with people selling more expensive stuff to get cheaper stuff - the cheaper stuff may last them longer or be stuff they will eat. It seems pretty smart to me, actually.


The pantry thing does sound odd, but I can understand the reasoning behind it, and maybe the volunteer at the pantry just didn't have good people skills and wasn't able to explain the reasoning well. Also, if you went in not expecting that and were told some things weren't as useful and being given suggestions about what might be a better choice to donate in the future, I can see feeling put out and a bit disappointed after you were trying to do a good deed. I can also imagine someone being upset and telling others about the experience in a negative tone due to the disappointment.

This doesn't mean that the food pantry volunteers, or certainly the people who rely on the food pantry, aren't appreciative of donations.


----------



## mamazee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> It was personal care items- shampoo, body wash, razors - better brands- they said they wanted cheaper brands-generic or Vo5 - cheaper priced items
> 
> This place does wants personal care items because they do not get those in donation- it's a church and they get food (as a donation from a large food bank) and they also take bags of food too. The seek out things not coved by SNAP- they also said they want cheap brand TP and paper towels, and not to get better ones.


I can see a few reasons for this too. It might be easier to have one general quality level so that people know what to expect when they come in and don't ask for other, nicer, brands. Also, if people are buying stuff and donating it, they could be saying, "You could donate twice as much stuff if you bought stuff that costs half as much" but in a clumsy way.


----------



## kathymuggle

dbl post


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> I should have been clearer that I was interested in hearing people's *direct experiences* of being on public assistance (which rightkindofme, and I think mammal_mama, and some others here, have been very helpful in providing.)


Well, I was on welfare as a child. More situational than generational, however.

The biggest hardship to me were:

1. My clothes sucked compared to everyone else. I was shy, and somewhat teased over it, which just made me go into my shell more and dislike school more.

2. My house was shack-like compared to everyone else. I almost never invited people over, although my parents were welcoming and kind people. This further isolated me. I could see how this could lead to lack of choice in friends - if the only people you felt comfortable inviting over or who could even "get you" were those in the same economic circumstances as you.

I had several things going for me. We never had food issues as our house was quite cheap,we had universal health care, and my mother was well educated - I never had academic trouble at school.

I was on welfare about 17 years ago (I was 23). I was able to get off due to the fact that there was lots of real support for moving people from welfare to work at the time, where I then lived (British Columbia). Some of that help was tightening up as we left - and that is unfortunate, because I think we would have ultimately been on welfare for longer if the system was more focused on its short term budget than on moving people into the work world.


----------



## 95191

not on topic but it's big now to have at yard sales and at flea markets - people sell items (new) it's called stock pile (they even advertise on craig's list as a stock pile- sort of like extreme couponing but selling it)- what you can get free or nearly with a coupon and turn around and resell it higher but yet under the real cost without a coupons- people do buy things this way- some is personal care, lots of plug in smelly things and food


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> This doesn't mean that the food pantry volunteers, or certainly the people who rely on the food pantry, aren't appreciative of donations.


It's not the volunteers - I get the impression they see people not using the items and know they are only being grabbed to be sold, not appreciated by the people you would think would appreciate it.

Frankly the stuff the do ask for on their list is high sodium, quick ready to eat stuff because they say that is what is in demand- this place gets real fresh veggies and fruits along with meats but the more junk like stuff is gone first.


----------



## mamazee

I just saw a TV documentary about kids in poverty, and surprisingly a lot of people who use food stamps don't have refrigerators (the documentary showed people living in a motel who got ice from the ice machine and put it in the sink to try to keep stuff cold), or ways to do much involved cooking (like they might have just a microwave). Also, a lot of people who use food stamps work, but only make minimum wage, and are exhausted at dinner time after being up on their feet all day, and do rely on ready-made stuff.


----------



## 95191

I do know in my area we do not have any motels that allow it.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> Frankly the stuff the do ask for on their list is high sodium, quick ready to eat stuff because they say that is what is in demand- this place gets real fresh veggies and fruits along with meats but the more junk like stuff is gone first.


I know this is off topic - but it is a real issue. Do you give the patrons food they will use or do you give them food you deem good for them? They are adults - and if the ultimate goal is being responsible for yourself, that includes food choice. Sometimes there is the sweet spot where both conditions (healthy and well received) are met, but not always.

My mom volunteers at a breakfast program. The guidelines specify only health foods are to be used. The kids often will not eat the healthy foods (some they will, though). Some kids really would prefer to go hungry or wait til lunch than eat bran flakes. Skipping breakfast does not help their academic performance.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> It's not the volunteers - I get the impression they see people not using the items and know they are only being grabbed to be sold, not appreciated by the people you would think would appreciate it.
> 
> Frankly the stuff the do ask for on their list is high sodium, quick ready to eat stuff because they say that is what is in demand- this place gets real fresh veggies and fruits along with meats but the more junk like stuff is gone first.


Oh, I can identify with that!

When I was volunteering at the Catholic Worker House in Champaign, IL (hey look, it's my own experience, with a named nonprofit in a named town!), we were trying to revamp the meal plans to include more vegetarian food. Let's say that did NOT go over well. 

However, instead of grumbling about how "ungrateful", "entitled", etc etc, the clients were, we recognized this was a new style of eating for them, and in order to serve our clients better, we might need to make the change more gradually. (I only lived in Champaign for a year, so this was still going on when I left... not sure if they serve meat at that CWH now, or not.)

I also agree with the previous posters who said that reselling items you can't use is actually a smart strategy! Don't we suggest that to people on MDC's Frugality board all the time? Or is that different somehow?


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.
> 
> When you see personal (and starting to be a lot in our case) more and more examples of use/abuse you tend to have little to no sympathy anymore. This is coming from the class the works and seeing it directly effects perspective. I perfectly well know that corporations are getting massive tax breaks - I also know you can't be turned away at the ER and that is far cheaper than paying for your own health insurance, you see it, it's counts.


If you change all the 'you's in your statement for 'I's, it will be more accurate. I don't entirely share your perspective.

I'll share my own anecdotes. Ages ago I read an essay from this journalist whose mom was single, and was a house cleaner in a very exclusive neighborhood at the coast of Massachusetts, where the wealthiest people had summer homes and came to "Summer". Tradition was, at the end of the season when the wealthy home owners all went home they dropped off the remains of their cupboards at the food pantry in the next town over, where she grew up. Well, okay that's nice, but these people left behind a lot of non-standard, useless stuff. Like jars of capers and cocktail onions and rose hip jam and boxes of risotto rice. These aren't helpful or useful for a mom trying to feed her kids. The journalist, a woman, said while of course the people receiving these donations knew the wealthy donators didn't mean any harm, it still galled. It did serve to illustrate at best a cluelessness, at worst an indifferent attitude that if you're poor you should be 100% grateful for whatever anyone can be bothered to give you.

Anecdote number two, I participated in my church's service day at a women and children's homeless shelter. The gal heading our group bought bags and bags of potatoes and, I don't know, maybe 10 cans of ham. We cooked and served the food and these moms with their kids were very appreciative and thanked us sincerely. The potatoes were all eaten, but most of the ham was uneaten. Our group leader was shocked and baffled. Why in the world didn't these people eat up the ham? I talked to my husband about this later. His family was frequently on the edge and they did receive church food aid, including canned hams like that. He said he hates the sight of those cans now. Everyone knew that ham was far inferior to the whole hams you see on an Easter dinner table.

I've lost my train of thought here, sorry. Shouldn't have coffee on an empty stomach.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Do you give the patrons food they will use or do you give them food you deem good for them?


I'm under the impression they give what they get - they ask for certain items directly. The local food pantry that supplies them ONLY gives whole foods - they advertise that when they send their local appeal out, they are not suppling them with soda!

Quote:


> I also agree with the previous posters who said that reselling items you can't use is actually a smart strategy!


My issue was two of the items in the bag came from me - one was bubble bath - and I suppose I should have just given it to the homeless shelter but they don't have tubs but it could have been used. I knew the person that was taking the other stuff I gave, it saved me time dropping it off at the homeless shelter and I use to give these items to someone I did know appreciated them. They simply have dyes we do not use in them- they were not cheap and Christmas gifts.

I no longer give really to this pantry because of their drop off hours are so hard to meet. If I have things I try and give them to the homeless shelter - they have more need (in my area) and you get the sense they appreciate it a bit more. You have to meet a criteria to stay there and you have to follow rules vs anyone no questions asked can pick up at the church and I do know people resell and I would like to think they are used (needed) more- that's would make me feel better. I understand you can be poor and need to sell, I also know many churches in my area have "rummage" sales through out the year and stuff is dirt cheap and the local antique dealers are waiting in line to get in and MANY clearly do not need dime items but have no problem in turning around an item for $$$$$ bucks.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If you change all the 'you's in your statement for 'I's, it will be more accurate. I don't entirely share your perspective.


on well, it was my stuff and I did not do the dropping off- I do trust what my mother said! She got the same impression I did.


----------



## journeymom

Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking. You misunderstood what I said. I'm not doubting you, I just don't agree. When you say, "It rubs you the wrong way", that isn't accurate. No, it doesn't rub me the wrong way at all. If these people turn around and resell stuff they can't use, they are benefiting from the donation, right? And ultimately that is what's supposed to matter.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> "It rubs you the wrong way"


I rubs my mother and I the wrong way- and my DH when I told him and two others that also know of it - I rubes ALL of us the wrong - is that better?


----------



## 95191

I do not feel I want a profit from a donation - I want USE-, like in WOW, something nice a little treat, not what can I make off it........ next time I clearly will not give to this church.


----------



## journeymom

Absolutely!







Thanks for the clarity!


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I do not feel I want a profit from a donation - I want USE-, like in WOW, something nice a little treat, not what can I make off it........ next time I clearly will not give to this church.


Taken to an extreme, this would bug me. In some ways I know it shouldn't - I shouldn't attach string to stuff I freely donate. But yeah, someone going to a food bank, collecting all sorts of food they have no intention of using, and then turning around and selling them does bug me.

Scenario A - all good.

Person goes to food bank because they need food. Person gets a lot of food they need and some they know they will not use. Persona sell or trades the small amount of unusable food.

Scenario B.

Person A regularly goes to food bank (whether they strictly need to or not) to score high priced items then can then sell.

Scenario A - good. Scenario B - not so good.

I do not think there is much of scenario B going on, and I think focusing on the rare ( statistically and from what I have seen) instances of fraud or profit making from poverty gives those on welfare an image problem they do not deserve - and is a barrier to finding meaningful ways to help. Some of how much fraud is going on might be regional, though, and I might be wearing pollyanna glasses&#8230;.I hope not, though.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

_Tradition was, at the end of the season when the wealthy home owners all went home they dropped off the remains of their cupboards at the food pantry in the next town over, where she grew up. Well, okay that's nice, but these people left behind a lot of non-standard, useless stuff. Like jars of capers and cocktail onions and rose hip jam and boxes of risotto rice. These aren't helpful or useful for a mom trying to feed her kids. The journalist, a woman, said while of course the people receiving these donations knew the wealthy donators didn't mean any harm, it still galled. It did serve to illustrate at best a cluelessness, at worst an indifferent attitude that if you're poor you should be 100% grateful for whatever anyone can be bothered to give you._

I see your point; but wouldn't it be at least as bad to donate nothing but store brand junk, also because "if you're poor you should be grateful"? With the added message that "you don't deserve special things"?

There should be a happy medium somewhere, I suppose.

That being said, anytime someone wants to give my family a jar of rose hip jam for free, please let me know!!


----------



## 95191

"I" feel in my case the church is also not happy and clearly knows what is going on and they didn't just say thank you, they made it clear- that to me is telling.

I once gave a young mother what I thought were nice gently used clothing - she informed me that is what her DD's SS was for - *new* clothing - "I" never tried again.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> I see your point; but wouldn't it be at least as bad to donate nothing but store brand junk, also because "if you're poor you should be grateful"? With the added message that "you don't deserve special things"?
> 
> There should be a happy medium somewhere, I suppose.


Well, we could just give money to families who don't have enough to buy food, and let them buy their own food, instead of humiliating them.

I've been following some of the reaction in the British press for their sudden need for food banks since the government cut welfare in austerity measures. They had no tradition of feeding needy people. Until WWII, lower-income and working class people were typically shorter than middle and upper class people. (And they actually HAVE social classes with those kinds of labels.) Now they're moving back in that direction.

I'm not objecting to food bank donations--it's far less wasteful than throwing food away, and if it's local, it's environmentally friendly. I'm just saying, again, that we could have better governmental social welfare policies in place than we do. We could have public policies that prevent poverty a lot more effectively.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I might be wearing pollyanna glasses&#8230;.I hope not, though.


talk to someone who works directly is one way........but really talk to others, those who work in an ER, do medical billing, and I could tell you tons of what it was like when I staffed for a temp agency- there are many professions that you may not think of that know a lot about fraud/misuse, etc.


----------



## couldbebetter29

MY step daughter was told a true story of how my parents had 6 children when they were growing up, ( my parents are now 62-64). Her reply shocked me " how did they survive on food stamps and welfare?" My step daughter is 10. my fiance and i dont recieve food stamps or assistance though her mother dose because she chooses to live on stamps and assistance and live in low income housing and chooses not to work with kids that are 17,14,10,and 9.
Is this really what we want to teach our children?
Also just a question and feel free to anwser, of there was no assistance and stamps available, would you choose to continue to stay at home or work ?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I'm not objecting to food bank donations--it's far less wasteful than throwing food away, and if it's local, it's environmentally friendly.


we do the homeless shelter because it is direct

We are not very thrilled with all the goes on with larger charities - my DH did the helping at his work - they packed a truck with donations that were brought it, the plant facility was used and the banner was so pretty they got in return for their helping- a pretty costly looks nice feel good banner - REALLY? A non-profit like this had another corporate donor spend money to make banners- lovely

I know the power they can have to simply get money and buy what is need - the Red Cross is a very good example of this-IMO but some others are just not so good.


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I once gave a young mother what I thought were nice gently used clothing - she informed me that is what her DD's SS was for - *new* clothing - "I" never tried again.


this is really interesting to me. my mother is that way, she sees hand me downs or used clothing as an insult BECAUSE she grew up poor and was made fun of for having her older sisters clothing on (which was out of date/style). now she refuses all hand me downs/used stuff. in fact a friend gave her a hockey jersey that they found at a thrift store (our home team which my mom LOVES) and my mom was offened. which is just so dang weird to me, to be honest. because in my house (dh, the kids and i) LOVE LOVE LOVE the thrift store and hand me downs. in fact my youngest is totally clothed in used stuff. i have not had to buy her anything for 2 years. and my boys all LOVE to get their older brothers clothing, they argue over it. and they love anything they get from friends. i never let it seem like a bad thing, it was always seen as a cool awesome way to get clothing. in fact our home school group has a bi-annual clothing exchange and my kids about have a stroke of happiness.

maybe this mom had a crappy experience with used stuff, maybe it made her feel poor. i don't personally get it, like it doesn't make sense to me, BUT i can empathize.


----------



## mamaofthree

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> talk to someone who works directly is one way........but really talk to others, those who work in an ER, do medical billing, and I could tell you tons of what it was like when I staffed for a temp agency- there are many professions that you may not think of that know a lot about fraud/misuse, etc.


i am not sure someone who uses the ER for their medical care is committing fraud. it is usually because they can not afford to see a doctor in an office. i mean dang, some doctors charge $150- $200 a visit with no payment plan, at least in the hospital you can get payment plan.

i have worked as a nurse for 16 years and i have seen many many poor people come in for simple things like an ear infection, or a sore throat, BUT also come in with serious issues that had they been caught earlier would not be so much of an issue, but when you are poor, you suck it up, you don't see the doctor (because you can't afford to) and you can't afford to miss work, so you finally go to the ER and it is too late. very very sad stuff. i would love a system that didn't seem to force people in to this situation. i am all for universal healthcare.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I once gave a young mother what I thought were nice gently used clothing - she informed me that is what her DD's SS was for - *new* clothing - "I" never tried again.


I think it would have been politer for her to just say, "No thanks, but thanks for thinking of us!"

That said, I know at least one low income, single mama who told me that it can sometimes be overwhelming, dealing with all the people who think they're being helpful when they do their periodic housecleaning or decluttering and just bring all their old clothes, toys, and miscellaneous items for you to sort through, figure out what you need, and then find a way to dispose of the rest for them. Some of these mamas are sitting there in a tiny space, being forced to drop whatever else they'd hoped to accomplish that day and sort through it, or just be a little bit more crowded 'til they do get around to it.

If a poor mama is feeling overwhelmed dealing with others' donations, and maybe by other stuff in her life, too, it can be challenging to think of the best way to say no. I'm sorry this mama said it in a way that didn't set so well with you.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> MY step daughter was told a true story of how my parents had 6 children when they were growing up, ( my parents are now 62-64). Her reply shocked me " how did they survive on food stamps and welfare?" My step daughter is 10. my fiance and i dont recieve food stamps or assistance though her mother dose because she chooses to live on stamps and assistance and live in low income housing and chooses not to work with kids that are 17,14,10,and 9.
> Is this really what we want to teach our children?
> Also just a question and feel free to anwser, of there was no assistance and stamps available, would you choose to continue to stay at home or work ?


OK, I have a question about this story. Was your fiancé married to this woman for most of the years her children were growing up? Did she have a lot of education before she married and chose to stay home 17 years ago? When you say "chooses to live on stamps and assistance," to what extent are her choices in the present determined by her past choice to marry and have four children when she was younger? (I'm assuming this person is your boyfriend's ex-spouse, but maybe not.)

Because, see, I have a graduate degree and I've been having a hard time finding a full-time job. I'm doing the WAHM thing and just about making ends meet with a home business and a lot of part-time contract work. Are there lots of jobs for women who haven't been in the workforce for most of their lives? Can this woman "choose" to leave public housing and go buy a house somewhere? I'm just curious, since you're so intimately involved with this one. Is she really "choosing" to live on food stamps? (I'm assuming she's not receiving TANF if she isn't working because TANF has a work requirement.)


----------



## mammal_mama

In reference to my previous posts about Europe, I get the impression that many Europeans see the relationship between personal and societal responsibility a little differently than many Americans. As I've already mentioned, there is this emphasis on taking care of yourself and staying healthy -- and the universal healthcare systems would be seriously strained if there were as many Europeans as Americans suffering from lifestyle-related, and primarily obesity-related illnesses -- but their governments and city planners seem to be a lot smarter about protecting a way of life that has been so beneficial for so many generations. Maybe their focus is more on environmental sustainability than on human health -- but many of the results, such as high numbers of people continuing to use bicycles and walk a lot to meet their regular, day-to-day transportation needs, just as in the past, are wonderful for health.

In contrast, in the U.S., it seems like many of the same people who emphasize personal responsibility for health, are also really gun-ho about allowing the corporations total freedom to continue polluting the environment and structuring the food industry in an unhealthy and unsustainable way (one result of which is few people have affordable grocery stores in easy walking distance) . In this case, I'm not talking about anyone on this thread! Also, most conservatives in my city seem pretty unsupportive of public transportation.

I hate it that there's this strong thrust on individual responsibility that tends to divide people, when I feel like we really need to be coming together to change many of the structures that are contributing to our ill-health. And I speak as an obese woman with an obese husband who now needs periodic hospitalization, and occasionally in the ICU. We're costing the taxpayers a ton of money, and I'm not going to debate here about how much is our fault and how much is society's fault. I'm just saying that if we want to lower our nation's healthcare costs, we need to focus not just on individual responsibility but on making the structural changes that can help us all get healthier. We need to do this anyway for the Earth as a whole!


----------



## mamaofthree

i agree. it is easy to say "take responsiblity for yourself" but then what? what happens if you don't own a car, and you can't walk 2-4 miles to a grocery store and the city refuses mass transit? then what? just seems silly to me.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *journeymom*
> 
> *If you change all the 'you's in your statement for 'I's, it will be more accurate. I don't entirely share your perspective.*
> 
> Amen!
> 
> I'll share my own anecdotes. Ages ago I read an essay from this journalist whose mom was single, and was a house cleaner in a very exclusive neighborhood at the coast of Massachusetts, where the wealthiest people had summer homes and came to "Summer". Tradition was, at the end of the season when the wealthy home owners all went home they dropped off the remains of their cupboards at the food pantry in the next town over, where she grew up. Well, okay that's nice, but these people left behind a lot of non-standard, useless stuff. Like jars of capers and cocktail onions and rose hip jam and boxes of risotto rice. These aren't helpful or useful for a mom trying to feed her kids. The journalist, a woman, said while of course the people receiving these donations knew the wealthy donators didn't mean any harm, it still galled. It did serve to illustrate at best a cluelessness, *at worst an indifferent attitude that if you're poor you should be 100% grateful for whatever anyone can be bothered to give you. *
> 
> Absolutely, and I see a lot of evidence for that right here in this thread (thankfully not from the majority of posters, but STILL)
> 
> Anecdote number two, I participated in my church's service day at a women and children's homeless shelter. The gal heading our group bought bags and bags of potatoes and, I don't know, maybe 10 cans of ham. We cooked and served the food and these moms with their kids were very appreciative and thanked us sincerely. The potatoes were all eaten, but most of the ham was uneaten. Our group leader was shocked and baffled. Why in the world didn't these people eat up the ham? I talked to my husband about this later. His family was frequently on the edge and they did receive church food aid, including canned hams like that. He said he hates the sight of those cans now. Everyone knew that ham was far inferior to the whole hams you see on an Easter dinner table.
> 
> I've lost my train of thought here, sorry. Shouldn't have coffee on an empty stomach.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> MY step daughter was told a true story of how my parents had 6 children when they were growing up, ( my parents are now 62-64). Her reply shocked me " how did they survive on food stamps and welfare?" My step daughter is 10. my fiance and i dont recieve food stamps or assistance though her mother dose because she chooses to live on stamps and assistance and live in low income housing and chooses not to work with kids that are 17,14,10,and 9.
> Is this really what we want to teach our children?
> *Also just a question and feel free to anwser, of there was no assistance and stamps available, would you choose to continue to stay at home or work ?*


I DON'T stay home 100% of the time, and the amount that we receive from WIC is really small, so I'm not sure if my situation/opinion is one you are asking for, but the answer to it is yes. Although, we are lucky that we don't DEPEND on WIC (no one does, it's not that kind of program.) But we would not change our lifestyle choices if assistance wasn't available. And plenty of people simply do not even HAVE that choice to make. You can't choose to go to work if youdon't make enough to pay for childcare! What are you supposed to do with your kids?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> this is really interesting to me. my mother is that way, she sees hand me downs or used clothing as an insult BECAUSE she grew up poor and was made fun of for having her older sisters clothing on (which was out of date/style). now she refuses all hand me downs/used stuff. in fact a friend gave her a hockey jersey that they found at a thrift store (our home team which my mom LOVES) and my mom was offened. which is just so dang weird to me, to be honest. because *in my house (dh, the kids and i) LOVE LOVE LOVE the thrift store and hand me downs. in fact my youngest is totally clothed in used stuff. i have not had to buy her anything for 2 years.* and my boys all LOVE to get their older brothers clothing, they argue over it. and they love anything they get from friends. i never let it seem like a bad thing, it was always seen as a cool awesome way to get clothing. in fact our home school group has a bi-annual clothing exchange and my kids about have a stroke of happiness.
> 
> maybe this mom had a crappy experience with used stuff, maybe it made her feel poor. i don't personally get it, like it doesn't make sense to me, BUT i can empathize.


This is us. We have bought DD some new items here and there, but the vast majority of her wardrobe comes from hand-me-downs given to us by freinds and relatives. I feel so incredibly blessed for that (and happy to be having another GIRL so that we can get double-duty out of the stuff!)


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If a poor mama is feeling overwhelmed dealing with others' donations, and maybe by other stuff in her life, too, it can be challenging to think of the best way to say no. I'm sorry this mama said it in a way that didn't set so well with you.


That is not the case with this person - she is the one with the standing nail apt - and she uses the ER because she doesn't want to buy insurance- she wants ALL new items- she is not overwhelmed, she is living well above her means and wants to project a certain image- not even close to what you are thinking


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> That is not the case with this person - she is the one with the standing nail apt - and she uses the ER because she doesn't want to buy insurance- she wants ALL new items- she is not overwhelmed, she is living well above her means and wants to project a certain image- not even close to what you are thinking


Well, what an incredibly shallow person. Please don't extrapolate from her that everyone on public assistance is like her.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> That said, I know at least one low income, single mama who told me that it can sometimes be overwhelming, dealing with all the people who think they're being helpful when they do their periodic housecleaning or decluttering and just bring all their old clothes, toys, and miscellaneous items for you to sort through, figure out what you need, and then find a way to dispose of the rest for them. Some of these mamas are sitting there in a tiny space, being forced to drop whatever else they'd hoped to accomplish that day and sort through it, or just be a little bit more crowded 'til they do get around to it.


This happened to me! Our neighbors were moving and sent their daughter down to ask if we wanted some clothes for my daughter. Since one of their girls was bigger and a couple years older, i thought sure, i'll take free stuff...jeans or tshirts or whatever. Well. Their kids toted like ten garbage bags full of clothes over to our house (in full view of the entire neighborhood) and as i started going through it, there were baby girl clothes (i had two preschool age boys and my daughter who was 10), adult woman's clothes (not my size) teen girl stuff (waaay too big for my daughter)...bras and used tissues and a latex glove...ick! after the first two bags i stopped opening them. It was really kind of offensive. Its not like she carefully chose some stuff she thought we could use...she cleaned out her basement and instead of HER having to do the work of donating her stuff she dumped it off on ME to deal with. I had to find a place to store it and then eventually took it to the thrift store and made it their problem to sort. Not cool. But i didnt feel i could "complain" because someon was giving us stuff and you're supposed to be grateful right???

Shortly after that i came home to find someone had tossed a garbage bag full of girls clothes on our front porch, which had opened, the contents spilled out and it had been rained on. Nice. I think it was the people across the street, not sure. They were decent clothes but how embarrassing.

I love getting a bargain and i dont mind used stuff but #1) i'm kinda picky now about what i bring into my house, if you're a smoker or have shedding animals i kinda dont want it. Sorry. And not keen on possibly getting fleas or bedbugs or something like that from donated stuff from some random neighbor. and #2) my kids were foster kids. My daughter esp was used to always getting stuff "given" to her rather than her being able to go to the store and choose her own clothing. I really dont want her to be in the position of wearing some outfit and having a neighbor girl say 'oh yeah that used to be mine'...we already had a situation where a good friend's child made a big sarcastic point of "nice coat! haha!" to my daughter at a gathering, because it had been HER coat. And while we love the coat and really needed it, its not cool to rub it in someone's face that it used to be yours. Her mother cut her off/redirected her but still. It stings.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> That is not the case with this person - she is the one with the standing nail apt - and she uses the ER because she doesn't want to buy insurance- she wants ALL new items- she is not overwhelmed, she is living well above her means and wants to project a certain image- not even close to what you are thinking


I'm sure we all know assholes. Heck when my kids were in foster care (i was the foster parent, i've since adopted them) i was buying them stuff at walmart and once upon a child, and bmom was bringing brand new name brand clothing (rocawear? that kind of stuff) and brand new expensive shoes every month for them. I kinda felt like sheesh maybe your priorities are a little screwed up, the kids dont need air jordans they need a mom with an apartment who can hold down a job and not drink.

BUT....you seem to be saying that since you've had some negative experiences, that is the majority of people getting help. You do realize, dont you, that there are a lot of people who got recently laid off or who are the WORKING POOR who are making ends meet with things like food stamps, WIC etc. That food stamps actually might be the difference in being able to pay rent or having to go live in a subsidized apartment or even the shelter.

I think it was you that had said you make too much to qualify for help even though you struggle...i assume from this that you have actually applied for some kind of govt assistance? if you have....how are you different from most of the other people actually getting help?

you've repeatedly stated "its TEMPORARY not a LIFE STYLE" but as far as i can see have not defined what temporary means to you. Three months? Six? A year? two years? what do you expect someone to do in that time to change their situation? remember we arent just talking about someone getting TANF, food stamps, sub housing and medicaid. You seem to also have a problem with people working but getting WIC or subsidized daycare etc. So if a person holds down one full time job what should they do, in your eyes, to get totally free of assistance? work two jobs? three? what if they still cant make ends meet?

I know a nurse that complains about people going to the ER to get a pg test, when they can get one at the dollar store. I get that. i get being upset at the waste of valuable resources. At the same time i also get why a girl might do that instead of spend cash at the store. Medicaid pays for the trip to the ER...it doesnt pay for shampoo or bus money. Thats just HER reality. She makes the system work for her the best way she can in a crappy situation. She isnt defrauding the system...the govt could put restrictions on the use of medicaid. WIC could refuse to cover subsequent babies. They COULD do that, and they dont. Why fault people for working within the guidelines the govt has established? why assign some moral failing to that?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I'm sure we all know assholes.


I'm very well versed in the difference! I know all types.

This is not just because of this one person- we have a very large percentage in my area. I not making a list here of everyone and everything. I really do know the difference and have seen it for years, this is not new except in how brazen people are getting - that is new! Bold and no holding back on what they can get away with - bragging.

I spend years dealing with people that really didn't want job but wanted to say they were looking- I have dealt with all types.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I'm very well versed in the difference! I know all types.
> 
> This is not just because of this one person- we have a very large percentage in my area. I not making a list here of everyone and everything. I really do know the difference and have seen it for years, this is not new except in how brazen people are getting - that is new! Bold and no holding back on what they can get away with - bragging.
> 
> I spend years dealing with people that really didn't want job but wanted to say they were looking- I have dealt with all types.


So whats your solution?

Again, you keep saying temporary...what does that mean to you? how quickly can someone "better themselves" (your words)...what steps should they take? what does that look like to you, specifically?


----------



## 95191

I view temporary as just that temporary- not a life style - it's really very simple - if you have a child and don't go back to work with in 3 months because you want to be on assistance, I really feel you are making a life style choice because I have seen it happen over and over again- it's years if ever if you work again. If you were not getting any assistance you would have go work in most cases. When you grow up being on assistance and turn right around and do the same with a baby at 16 and you still are on again, off again come 30-i't s life style, if you are lucky you might do some part time here and there and if you get hurt you are in disability.

I know a lawyer who does nothing buy disability- he is doing wonderful, you wait weeks to get into him and it's all commission. That's a whole another story. Even short term disability, my DH is going 17 years where he works, he is only one of 8 that has never gone out on any disability or gotten a settlement from his company. I have been to houses to see settlements - pools, addition, hardwood floor- all legal but still abuse of a system.

If you are on three plus years, your life style is set in a pattern and most don't do much to change that. It's a great line to say when they go to school I will go back to work- that turns into another excuse and another, and this also happens often to mothers not getting assistance, they often never go back to work until they get a divorce. I have see no great successful stories in real life with those who receive assistance. I have seen family where it is a way of life because so many members are also on, you go on between husbands, you go off, it's a circle.

I worked years doing staffing-I dealt with illegal immigrants, false papers, and ton and tons of people on assistance - all kinds. I have seen my fair share, this isn't just something I have stumbled on in recent. Very little has changed in the last few decades, time frames of only being allowed on for a few months only mean more ways to get around it or going off and oh, I'm pregnant and back on.

What I really have seen is change as far what and how people get away with things and attitudes that personal responsibility is no longer needed.

The bar as been lowered for so many things- this also being one of them. 30 is considered being a kid and no need to grow up and take care of a child yet in many eyes.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> So whats your solution?
> 
> Again, you keep saying temporary...what does that mean to you? how quickly can someone "better themselves" (your words)...what steps should they take? what does that look like to you, specifically?


sorry I wasn't fast enough for you!


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> So whats your solution?


you must have missed the things I had said

Quote:


> Also just a question and feel free to anwser, of there was no assistance and stamps available, would you choose to continue to stay at home or work ?


I see few choose to answer this yet it's easier to not


----------



## pek64

The temporary question should be answered by all.

What does temporary mean to each person posting?


----------



## kathymuggle

I think they are interesting questions, so I will answer both.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> Also just a question and feel free to anwser, of there was no assistance and stamps available, would you choose to continue to stay at home or work ?


I am not on assistance and was only on it for about 18 months when I was a young adult. The following answer is speculative. It is impossible to place myself in the shoes of someone who is generationally poor. That being said:

At this point in my life, I would not bring a child into this world if I could not afford one without assistance. If I had a surprise, I would keep the baby. Birth control is the 90% + range though, so I think I can prevent a surprise.

I did indeed get pregnant on purpose at 23 with no real way of supporting the baby. The reasoning is complicated (or more long than complicated, so I won't get into it here). I don't feel bad about getting pregnant with no money (it is kind of hard to with my beloved







now 17 year old playing video games 15 feet away). He has not really wanted for anything in his life nor has he been raised in poverty. Sometimes welfare is a just blip on the road&#8230;.

I do not understand why people keep saying "choosing" to stay home. Sometimes it is not a choice - jobs can be hard to find. Many people do not have the resources to even try to find a job. If I were on welfare I would look for a job. Welfare and poverty sucks. If there was no welfare, and I was just broke I would look for a job. Poverty sucks. I do not think I would look harder whether welfare existed or not. Not being able to feed my children might cause me to do some drastic (perhaps illegal) things - surely having some safety net so people who cannot find work can feed their kids is a good thing?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *queenjane*
> 
> So whats your solution?
> 
> Again, you keep saying temporary...what does that mean to you? how quickly can someone "better themselves" (your words)...what steps should they take? what does that look like to you, specifically?


I don't think welfare should be temporary. I think it should be tiered. I think it should be generous for people who have never been on it before, or have not been on it in 10 years. It should be generous enough that they have the resources to look for work. I think it should cover health care and daycare (so they can look for work) and could involve job placement or retraining. If one is not making an honest attempt to find work, or it has been more than a certain amount of time (say 1 year, unless you luck into job retraining) I think welfare should drop down to a subsistence level. It should be enough to cover very basic expenses. I think everyone moving into the work world should have medical coverage for 3-6 months after leaving welfare. It takes time to sort out private insurance, and I do suspect people stay on welfare sometimes for the medical coverage. I think this because I am not overly interested in people starving in the streets or being homeless. Really, I do not care if my taxes (of which I pay a fair amount ) go to feed people or give them basic shelter.


----------



## kathymuggle

I just looked up the average time to find a job - and it was about 20 weeks for younger workers, and 30 for older/higher paid workers. This was 2012, USA.

I would hope temporary would cover this, at least.


----------



## queenjane

in my state welfare is 60 months maximum lifetime limit. where do people live that you can be on welfare from 16 to 30 as was posted upthread? And if your children are school age you have to go to school or get a job.


----------



## 95191

60 months is just a goal in my state


----------



## kitteh

You are in Florida, right serenbat? Even there TANF has a 60 month lifetime limit for applicants. So I guess you must be referring to just food stamps then.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> You are in Florida, right serenbat?


no I'm not and you mustn't know states do have flexibility


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> You are in Florida, right serenbat? Even there TANF has a 60 month lifetime limit for applicants. So I guess you must be referring to just food stamps then.


IIRC, Serenbat's definition of "public assistance" includes TANF, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, use of a food pantry, _unemployment_, and even _not having health insurance_. Serenbat, please do correct me if I've misunderstood...

To answer pek64's question, my definition of "temporary" would be "as long as the recipient is in school, working, actively looking for work, or has custody of a minor child." I know that's a lot broader than some other people's definitions.


----------



## kathymuggle

Having no safety net will not encourage people to work. If you have no food or safe place to sleep, you end up devoting a fair amount of time to finding food and finding a safe place to sleep. This would only be compounded with children.

Take a look at Maslov's Pyramid:

Food and sleep are more important that finding a job. People only move up the pyramid when lower levels have been met.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> IIRC, Serenbat's definition of "public assistance" includes TANF, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, use of a food pantry, _unemployment_, and even _not having health insurance_. Serenbat, please do correct me if I've misunderstood...
> 
> To answer pek64's question, my definition of "temporary" would be "as long as the recipient is in school, working, actively looking for work, or has custody of a minor child." I know that's a lot broader than some other people's definitions.


That would mean 'temporary' could be 18 or more years. That's how long a child is a minor.

If it goes beyond 10 years, is that temporary, or a lifestyle choice?


----------



## mamazee

I guess for me it depends on what the unemployment rate is. There are times where everyone who wants to work should be able to find a job, and during those times I'd think someone shouldn't be needing assistance for too long, though I'd still understand if a mom wanted to take care of her kids rather than take a job and hand all the money to someone to watch her kids rather than actually improving her home situation. But right now, there are fewer jobs than there are people wanting to work, so there will be people on and off various forms of assistance until there are more jobs available. I guess "temporary" would mean as temporary as the economic downturn is. And then of course there are people who find jobs but the jobs don't pay enough for them to be able to feed their families. If someone is working full time, they shouldn't need assistance, but that's an issue with how poorly some jobs pay and not with the people receiving assistance. I guess I don't have a quick and easy answer for how long is too long because it depends in part on the economy as a whole.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> If it goes beyond 10 years, is that temporary, or a lifestyle choice?


Maybe there is something between temporary and lifestyle choice?

There are so many people on welfare (particularly those who are not new to welfare) that have no idea on how to find or keep a job. They don't have the the clothes, the bus tickets, the daycare in place to look for work, the computer to apply for things on, some don't have phones, they do not have job experience or skills, they do not have many role models on people who escaped the poverty cycle&#8230;.it is hard (and maybe impossible) to find and keep a job in these circumstances. I am all for programs that help remove barriers to employment so people can work - but I think there needs to be some acknowledgment that people who are on welfare long term are not alway on it by choice&#8230;.It is a culture they are born into and it is very hard to get out of.

This is an international board, so I get programs vary from area to area.

I would say that in Canada at the moment, I suspect most provinces do a poor job at helping people to move out of generational welfare. There should be more assistance in removing barriers. It almost seems like the government is happy to give them just enough (or perhaps just less than enough) to feed and cloth people, and forget about them. I don't know if it is a penny wise but pound foolish move (which is what I suspect) or if people who are generationally poor are actually seen as unemployable, thus the government makes little effort&#8230;I just don't know.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Pek, "temporary" means "having a defined end point", doesn't it? I think my answer defined four different end points. Is there something else I can do to help clarify?

I was discussing this thread with my spouse, who made an interesting point - most public assistance / social welfare programs were created not to help the poor, but to protect the rich from getting carted off in tumbrels. What would our society look like if we *didn't* have these programs? (Sure, you could live in a gated community with all the weapons you could stockpile - and then you could hire Tyler Durden as your security guard, I guess...)

Just something for people who want to place more limits on government assistance to think about.


----------



## kathymuggle

OT but interesting.

These stats on the working poor are staggering:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/35-statistics-about-the-working-poor-in-america-that-will-blow-your-mind

For the past little bit, I have been trying (and perhaps failing) to figure out why people seem to lack compassion for the generational poor.

I do think being working poor might actually be harder than welfare poor, so, yeah, I might be ticked off if I were working my butt off for meagre pay and other people were bringing in similar amounts of money (perhaps a little less, but they did not work as hard as me) without working.

I think anger at generational poor is sometimes misplaced, though. Be ticked off at the government for its poor policies.

In addition to needing more programs to help people move out of the poverty cycle, we also need:

-universal healthcare (OK, I am Canadian, I have it, i love it, USA should get it!!!)

-decent minimum wage or low income supplement so people who do work really do earn a fair bit more than people on welfare.


----------



## sparklefairy

With regard to clothing: In order to move into the type of job that pays enough for self-sufficiency, one must project a certain image. Thrift store stuff is fine, but it really must fit, be in good repair, and be contemporary (though not necessarily cutting-edge trendy). Hair matters too.

I have been fortunate enough to find a few things at a local women's organization donation place, but a lot of it has been obviously dated and/or in poor repair. Where I live, self-sufficiency begins in the 40-50000/year range for a single parent with a couple of kids, and I'm not going to land a job making that if I'm wearing ill-fitting clothing that isn't in excellent shape and I haven't got a decent pair of shoes and a tidy hair cut.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Pek, "temporary" means "having a defined end point", doesn't it? I think my answer defined four different end points. Is there something else I can do to help clarify?
> I was discussing this thread with my spouse, who made an interesting point - most public assistance / social welfare programs were created not to help the poor, but to protect the rich from getting carted off in tumbrels. What would our society look like if we *didn't* have these programs? (Sure, you could live in a gated community with all the weapons you could stockpile - and then you could hire Tyler Durden as your security guard, I guess...)
> Just something for people who want to place more limits on government assistance to think about.


I am certainly not suggesting gated communities. That would not solve any of the problems mentioned throughout the thread.

I *am* asking clarifying questions to see if we are more in sync than the words and emotions imply.

I want to know if your definition of temporary assistance includes the child's whole lifetime, or if you hadn't thought about that.

There is no judgment or implying a right answer in my motives. I am gathering information that I hope can lead to a more respectful discussion.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

Ha, I keep getting sucked back into this thread.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> That would mean 'temporary' could be 18 or more years. That's how long a child is a minor.
> 
> If it goes beyond 10 years, is that temporary, or a lifestyle choice?


I think it's probably neither. Most people don't freely _choose_ to live in poverty their whole life. It's not like they have a set of wonderful choices available to them. They are choosing between welfare and homelessness, starvation, sickness, and death. What kind of choice is that?

And I guess I don't really feel that welfare needs to be temporary, though in most cases it does end up being short-term.

I'd define temporary as: as long as it takes a family to get back on their feet. For some that is a few months or a year or two while they're between jobs or dealing with medical/mental/family issues. For others it will be 3, 5, maybe even 10+ years while their children are young. And yes, maybe even 18+ years. Some might need 5-10 years while they go back to school and find a better-paying job. Some might need 20+ years of help before they are capable of rebuilding their lives. Even then though, they'd still have a good 30 years of being in the workforce. Temporary by definition means "not permanent." (You could have a "temp" job that lasts years & years, or a "temporary" foster child placement that lasts 'til the child is 18.) It doesn't necessarily mean "short-term," just "not permanent." So as long as someone eventually gets off welfare, I'd say it's temporary. And I trust people to know what they need and do their best to get it.

There is a subset of people on welfare who may never get off it. They may be facing generational poverty, poor support, insufficient resources, and/or a lack of education. They may have physical challenges, mental challenges, or psychological issues. For them, welfare can't really be temporary. They need, and will likely always need, long-term/permanent assistance. And I have absolutely no problem with that -- well, aside from hoping that we as a society can do more to help and support them than just toss a few dollars on an EBT card at them once a month. The permanence of their need doesn't make them any less deserving of that aid. It may be a failing of the system that we're not able to provide more for them, but it's not "fraud" or a "lifestyle choice" for these people to accept help that they simply can't live without.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Yes, I think temporary assistance should continue throughout childhood (I'm assuming you didn't mean an entire lifetime of 60-100 years...) 

This would be so the *child* is not punished for the situation she was born into. HTH!


----------



## pek64

Generational poor. I think this might be at the heart of the dispute.

Helping the generational poor is a complex issue. I think what is causing some concern is a *new* group of generational poor. Folks receiving assistance without caring to better their situation, and possibly teaching their children to do the same.

Are all receiving assistance guilty of not trying to make their lives better? Certainly NOT! I think, if we can put aside the emotions this discussion has raised, we might agree that, while assistance is needed, some abuse the system.

I think our main difference is how many we each believe may be abusing the system. I think another difference is whether or not the abuses are enough to take a critical look at the system to see if corrections can be made. And the biggest difference is probably that the assistance available is different for each of us, because we live in different places.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Yes, I think temporary assistance should continue throughout childhood (I'm assuming you didn't mean an entire lifetime of 60-100 years...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This would be so the *child* is not punished for the situation she was born into. HTH!


You understood my meaning. Thanks for the clarification.

No matter how well I think I've worded something, it seems there is always room for misunderstanding. Ah, well.


----------



## mamaofthree

i want to point out something(s):

1.) depending on what you see in your life, it can color your view of the whole picture. serenat has apparently seen LOADS of people abusing the "welfare" system and it has colored her view of all the people who use it. when i worked in hospitals i swear i thought old ages was a miserable. nasty, slow spiral into death with lots of pain and suffering; because honestly healthy people tend to NOT go to the hospital. and a lot of people in the hospital are old. it wasn't until i stepped away that i saw that HEY old age doesn't have to equal endless suffering. you can actually be healthy, strong,mentally there and be 90 years old.

2.) although it isn't always true... a large majority of generational poor are minorities. whether we like it or not, here in america there is a big problem with our history and our treatment of people who where not white. it can be hard to pull yourself out of your history. i mean how many of us here on mothering.com are working on our own person history? trying to over come abuse,bad choices our parents made, learning and growing and being better parents even though our history is not so hot. now imagine on top of that abuse by our government, that really was just dealt with about a generation ago. (and we expect the next generation to just be over it and just move on)


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> no I'm not and you mustn't know states do have flexibility


I assumed you were in Florida because earlier in this thread when you were complaining about the rampant abuse of welfare in your state, you linked to several stories about food stamp fraud in Florida.

I do realize that states have some flexibility when it comes to administering the federally-capped 60-month time limit on funds. States have their own, state-funded programs that may cover welfare recipients after they have exhausted their 60 months under the federally-funded program. The social workers also have the ability to grant exemptions and extensions to the 60-month mandate, but this is on a case-by-case basis. Extensions are shorter periods of continued benefits, but if an exemption is granted it can last much longer--depending upon the condition for which the exemption was granted. Exemptions are typically granted for reasons such as having to care for an ill or incapacitated family member, being the victim off domestic violence, being a minor parent (typically these parents have to be enrolled in school or a GED program to receive extensions.) Some states grant extensions to parents with newborn children, but CA can grant an extension to someone caring for a child 24 months old or younger! Most generous state of all of them, most of the others only grant extensions for caregivers of children 1-3 months old.) Extensions are only considered for something like 20% of welfare recipients.

Still, I don't see how anyone could think that the majority of welfare recipients are just riding the gravy train for 15+ years. That simply does not seem possible for the vast majority of recipients.

Additionally, many states have Family Capping policies, which "prevent or limit an increase in a family's benefit when another child is born. In these states, the benefit increase an assistance unit would otherwise receive for adding another member to the unit will be limited. Some states provide a percentage of the increase to the unit, while others provide no additional funds to the unit for the addition of a child." This is supposed to prevent the phenomenon that serenbat has referred to, in which welfare recipients who are nearing the end of their eligibility choose to have another child in order to extend their benefits.

http://anfdata.urban.org/databooks/Welfare%20Rules%20Databook%202011_final%20text.pdf


----------



## couldbebetter29

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> OK, I have a question about this story. Was your fiancé married to this woman for most of the years her children were growing up? Did she have a lot of education before she married and chose to stay home 17 years ago? When you say "chooses to live on stamps and assistance," to what extent are her choices in the present determined by her past choice to marry and have four children when she was younger? (I'm assuming this person is your boyfriend's ex-spouse, but maybe not.)
> 
> Because, see, I have a graduate degree and I've been having a hard time finding a full-time job. I'm doing the WAHM thing and just about making ends meet with a home business and a lot of part-time contract work. Are there lots of jobs for women who haven't been in the workforce for most of their lives? Can this woman "choose" to leave public housing and go buy a house somewhere? I'm just curious, since you're so intimately involved with this one. Is she really "choosing" to live on food stamps? (I'm assuming she's not receiving TANF if she isn't working because TANF has a work requirement.)


no he was married for 2 years to the children's mother before realizing it was not going to work due to her lack of wanting to work. he is only the father of the 9 and 10 year old.No education, dropped out of high school at 16 while pregnant, went back and did get her GED, but dose not wish to work, and she has said it herself, not just me assuming it. When I say chooses i mean chooses, she dose not want to work, her mother received assistance and such while she was growing up and she followed her suit.

I believe any one can choose to leave low income housing but you have to make the choice to make your life better. If you do not have the education already go to school while on assistance. In Michigan you can do this, but a lot do not.

Again yes she chooses to live on stamps she dose not want to work and has said so.

I also have 3 degrees, I have a daughter of my own, 2 step daughters that I care very much for, a house I pay for, food I pay for, bills I pay. I work a full time job and go to school to complete my bachelors degree. I have worked since i was 16 years old and paid and earned all that I have. My parents both worked when I was growing up and even though they were not with me every day all day I learned everyone has to work if they want a better life, if not you are where you are. But everyone can change their life and situation, you just have to do so.


----------



## sparklefairy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> I believe any one can choose to leave low income housing but you have to make the choice to make your life better. If you do not have the education already go to school while on assistance. In Michigan you can do this, but a lot do not.


Having worked for housing authority, I respectfully disagree. A great many of the clients I saw were genuinely disabled and either unable to work at all or unable to earn sufficient income to support themselves outside of subsidized housing. Not everyone lives close to a university or community college, and not everyone is capable of earning a higher education degree.

Subsidized housing is not pleasant and disability is not sufficient income for living well.

I agree that it is possible to move from subsidized housing and other benefits, but I disagree that anyone can.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> I also have 3 degrees, I have a daughter of my own, 2 step daughters that I care very much for, a house I pay for, food I pay for, bills I pay. I work a full time job and go to school to complete my bachelors degree. I have worked since i was 16 years old and paid and earned all that I have. My parents both worked when I was growing up and even though they were not with me every day all day I learned everyone has to work if they want a better life, if not you are where you are. But everyone can change their life and situation, you just have to do so.


I don't believe everyone can change their situation. Statistically, it does not hold. Some people do not have the first clue on how to change their life, some people really see no alternative but their way of life (and they might be right - the obstacles to leaving generational poverty (of which, by your own admission, you are not) are huge.). It isn't that they choose a welfare lifestyle. It would be like saying I choose not to be Prime Minister. I don't choose not to be it - I have no clue how to go about being prime minster, I have no resources to even try to make it happen&#8230;..it is not going to happen.

Have fun with that analogy, everyone









There is a lot to station in life that comes down to luck. I tend to believe in generous policy towards those less fortunate, as they often did not do anything to deserve their station in life. There but for the grace of you go I. The wiki article posted upthread said 50% of American born into poverty stay in poverty. Interestingly enough, both Canada and Britain (which have stronger social safety nets than the USA) have more movement between the classes: 30% of Canadians born into poverty remain in poverty and 40% of Brits

ETA: I am not sure what to do with those we know commit fraud. The kids still need eat. I think there are so many subthreads to this thread, but some of the disagreement might come from the fact some of us are focusing on the majority who do not commit fraud, and some of us are trying to say - fraud exists! How do we deal with it?

Food banks and school feeding programs are one way - they do not care that your parent/s committed welfare fraud.


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I would say that in Canada at the moment, I suspect most provinces do a poor job at helping people to move out of generational welfare. There should be more assistance in removing barriers. It almost seems like the government is happy to give them just enough (or perhaps just less than enough) to feed and cloth people, and forget about them. I don't know *if it is a penny wise but pound foolish move (which is what I suspect)* or if people who are generationally poor are actually seen as unemployable, thus the government makes little effort&#8230;I just don't know.


I think it's mostly the bolded. My ex's family was on welfare when I met him, and some aspects of the program blew my mind. They were allowed to earn $100/month (I believe that was the amount) without it affecting their benefits. After that, anything they earned was taken straight off their benefits, and there was a cutoff where they lost benefits entirely. That sounds really good - but it doesn't give people incentive to get off assistance. At some point, they're going to be taking in the same amount, but working full-time (or close to it). Some people will do that, because of a work ethic, sense of responsbility, or whatever. But, many won't. (Frankly, many people in the workforce have the same attitude of "do the bare minimum"- they're just not in the same situation.) My ex never lived with anyone getting up every morning and going to work, until he married me. He never really understood why people didn't just call in sick if there was something they wanted to do, because he didn't equate "get up and go to work" with "have money to survive". Why would he?

I always kind of felt that welfare should have cut benefits on a 2:1 ratio - earn $2.00, and lose $1.00 in benefits. That means people aren't getting an income and full assistance, but it also means there's some financial incentive to actually go out and earn some money. My ex-MIL got new glasses, paid for by welfare (universal healthcare doesn't cover eyeglassse, at least in BC - not sure about other provinces). If she'd had a job earning the same amount as she got on welfare, she'd have had to pay for them. It's really hard to sell someon on the idea that they should get up and drag themselves to work every day, and put up with all the crap involved in having (and keeping) a job, to end up with less than they've already got. And, no - I don't think that means that welfare is a cushy life, because it's not. They lived in dire financial straits. It's just that they would have lived in just as bad a situation if one of them had been working.

I don't have the answers, but I don't think penalizing people for getting a job is the answer. It saves a few dollars per cheque, sure - but it ultimately results in a lot more cheques being issued.

My ex's family didn't end up in full-on generational welfare. My ex has a job where he lives now (he left the city, because it was the only way he'd stay off crack). My ex-SIL has a job, but still lives in borderline poverty - more money than she grew up with, at least. My ex-FIL is still drinking himself to death, and living on welfare. My ex-MIL is still on welfare. But, ds1 probably won't be - at least not in the generational sense (we never know what will happen in the future). My nephew is working. I'm not sure how they ultimately dodged the generational bullet, but I didn't see anything in the policies they grew up under that helped them do it.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> I think it's mostly the bolded. My ex's family was on welfare when I met him, and some aspects of the program blew my mind. They were allowed to earn $100/month (I believe that was the amount) without it affecting their benefits. After that, anything they earned was taken straight off their benefits, and there was a cutoff where they lost benefits entirely. That sounds really good - *but it doesn't give people incentive to get off assistance.* At some point, they're going to be taking in the same amount, but working full-time (or close to it). Some people will do that, because of a work ethic, sense of responsbility, or whatever. But, many won't. (Frankly, many people in the workforce have the same attitude of "do the bare minimum"- they're just not in the same situation.) My ex never lived with anyone getting up every morning and going to work, until he married me. He never really understood why people didn't just call in sick if there was something they wanted to do, because he didn't equate "get up and go to work" with "have money to survive". Why would he?


Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should." At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs. One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.


----------



## Storm Bride

Everyone can change their situation in life...I'm not sure I agree. How much change are we talking about, anyway?

What about someone whose dad scammed welfare his entire childhood, as well as beating on him and his siblings? His mom wasn't in the picture, because when she ditched her husband, she didn't take the kids. These kids were smoking pot and drinking with their dad by 15, and none of them ever finished high school...nor were they encouraged to do so. He wanted them working and "paying their share".

What about the kid whose mom's boyfriend kicked him out of the house at 16, because he was sick of supporting "these brats"? This kid had an average intellect, at best. He was, imo, showing the effects of malnutrition (not severe, but present). By the time he was in his early 20s, he was deliberately dealing drugs (pot) to known narcotics officers, so that he could get a jail term over the winter...he mostly lived on the street, but it was cold.

These guys were both friends of mine in my youth. The first one sort of straightened out, and is paying his own way these days (at least, the last time I talked to him - it's been a few years). He's still quite happy to be paid under the table, has no interest in paing taxes, because that's "for suckers", and has a string of wrecked marriages and a couple of kids (no idea if he pays them support). He simply has no tools for living life - he's managed to bootstrap himself to a position that most people take for granted as a starting place...if that. The other guy? He's spent most of his adult life in jail. (He's First Nations, and I expect race has played its part, too.) He's out now. He's in his late 40s, just lost his wife, has no job...where does he start changing his situation? I strongly suspect he has an undiagnosed learning disability, on top of everything else. Maybe he could change his situation, but he doesn't "just have to do so". He has to have some kind of a clue where to start.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> 2.) although it isn't always true... a large majority of generational poor are minorities. whether we like it or not, here in america there is a big problem with our history and our treatment of people who where not white. it can be hard to pull yourself out of your history. i mean how many of us here on mothering.com are working on our own person history? trying to over come abuse,bad choices our parents made, learning and growing and being better parents even though our history is not so hot. now imagine on top of that abuse by our government, that really was just dealt with about a generation ago. (and we expect the next generation to just be over it and just move on)


Thank you so much for pointing this out! It's only recently that I've learned in greater depth about some of the horrendous practices that have been carried out against different minority groups! Some groups honestly are *entitled* to way more recompense from the government than they've received thus far, and I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign *gratitude* for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> &#8230;.and I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign *gratitude* for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.


Yes and no.

On a macro or governmental level, you are correct. Feigning gratitude when you are being thrown crumbs, treated callously or like a criminal is crap.

On a smaller level, a little respect and politeness just make for a better society. If I give someone something, I do expect to be thanked. It is polite. This is an expectation regardless of income level. If I donate a check to a charity or food to a food bank, I expect to be thanked from the organisation. I expect to be thanked when I give stuff to a person. In general, if you can offer thanks for a gift, you should not accept the gift.

I get that people are occasionally in a bitter mood, and just because you cannot show appreciation , does not mean the item is not going to be put to good use. Overall, we are all responsible for the energy we put out into the world.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign *gratitude* for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.


it this was meant at me, I certainly was not giving little crumbs by wanting to give the clothing to the mother I spoke about - I turned them into a thrift and made money off of them for me- they were in great shape

many states do time limit extensions- mine does!

and whites are almost equal to minorities in getting assistance

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend


----------



## mamaofthree

i don't know about the giving thanks. when i give i don't expect anything. if you give and expect something you are not truly giving from an honest place. at least that is what i think. i mean it is nice to have someone say thanks, but i don't demand it.

although i would not call myself a christian i do like that saying that goes something like "your left hand should not know what your right hand is doing".

and i do think we need to be respectful when we give. some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart... like i said no strings attached.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I certainly did not say only. You seem proud not to work and depend- many do not feel this way. They want to be proud to take care of their children, you seem to not see that- clearly not all of the 47% depend. You must also think all those who are part of the Occupy Movement don't have job either.


SERIOUSLY???? I do work. I have no idea what makes you say this.

I am proud of the work I do.


----------



## 95191

TANF reports that only 24% work and receive - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42768.pdf


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> i don't know about the giving thanks. when i give i don't expect anything. if you give and expect something you are not truly giving from an honest place. at least that is what i think. i mean it is nice to have someone say thanks, but i don't demand it.
> 
> I don't demand it - that is rude. I do like thanks to be freely given. That being said, I know that if I had two friends or organisations of equal needs, I would be more likely to be a repeat giver to the one who seemed to appreciate it and who expressed basic politeness when they received.
> 
> and i do think we need to be respectful when we give. some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart...
> 
> Agreed. Sometimes giving to food banks and thrift stores is not about giving something people will actually use, but really a way to unload crap you do not want. I have seen this a lot. Sometimes people can pick through stuff to find what is acceptable to them (thrift stores are an example) but other times food or clothes come in pre-packaged bags - in which case giving less than acceptable stuff is just unloading your useless junk onto others. This is a big problem in this area - we have limited garbage pick up (2 bags per week) and people unload all sorts of crap at thrift stores.


----------



## 95191

giving.......

instead of directly donation to a person you may feel needs it, you can donated to a charity, get a slip of proof to use to lower you taxes and a poverty person can buy it at cost


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:
Originally Posted by *serenbat* 

no I'm not and you mustn't know states do have flexibility

I'm not sure if you are talking about *all* kinds of "welfare", but I do know that at least in Indiana, there is a *strict* 24-month limit on receiving TANF. It doesn't matter if you got it for 24 months, then later you are homeless, and you want to get it again, they will *not* allow you to re-apply/receive more than that time limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29* 

I believe any one can choose to leave low income housing but you have to make the choice to make your life better. If you do not have the education already go to school while on assistance. In Michigan you can do this, but a lot do not.

It isn't always so easy. DF, for example, wanted to go to college *so* bad as soon as he graduated high school. His step-dad (who made, literally, $1 million/year), said as long as DF went to work 1 year in manual labor, his step-dad would pay for him to go to wherever college, for whatever he wanted. DF did, but as soon as he started talking about where he wanted to go/what he wanted to do, his step-dad changed his tune. He wasn't going to pay for DF to go "get smart." He wasn't going to "waste the money for DF to have his head in the clouds." etc. DF tried to apply for grants/loans, but... when your parents make that much money, I guess they figure you don't need the help to pay for school, so he didn't qualify for any help, not even loans. DF is on autism spectrum, and was never taught how to do even basic living skills, he had no job skills (for jobs he would qualify for w/o education, he's *very* smart in every religion I know about, and everyone who has ever talked to him (that I know of), has said he should do some sort of teaching of religion or something, but nothing he can do without "proper" education, even though he probably knows as much, if not more than someone who *does* have proper education), he never had support from his family to do anything, never taught anything about having a job, or finances. He lived with his family, rent free, as he didn't know anything about how to get/hold a job, when I met him. I taught him (the best I knew, since I never was taught, either, about working, or paying bills, or any essential life skills [Yay! Foster system!]), how to apply for jobs, helped him figure out how to fill them out, called him every day to make sure he was ready/leaving for work, etc. He has the strongest work ethic of just about anyone I know, and has gone in to work when he's sick more than anyone I know. (Not great, and he doesn't like it, and I think that maybe there should be more time allowed off for *true* sickness, because when he ended up in ER, and was so sick he could hardly leave bathroom, he used up his time off already, and it's only February.) But as soon as he was not tied to bathroom anymore, he was back at work, so he didn't lose his job. This is the best job he's had in his life, and it's still *very* low, compared to COL (which I believe our area is fairly low, compared to most.). So while I suppose *almost* anyone *might* could leave low income housing, it isn't always so easy as, "Oh, I'm going to go find me somewhere better." or even, "Oh, I'm just going to go back to school and get a better job." I know one of my professors when I was in school had 2 master's degrees, 2 bachelor's degrees, and was working on another master's, and was making just above minimum wage. I know that story personally, as we were talking about it when I was homeless and trying to figure out how to make up my finals when there was no public transportation and I had no way to just go and take them. So not just "heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend." While I would like to go back to school (and planning on getting certification either summer or fall semester to try and get a better job), stories like that make me realize that "better education" doesn't always end up being worth it. I can't imagine the amount of money my professor spent/amount of loans my professor had to spend/take out to get that much education, just to be making not even minimum wage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *TiredX2* 

Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should." At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs. *One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.*

That would be the first thing I think would help. If people *could* actually make it working, it would make it so much easier to work to make it. Being so tired at the end of the day you can't even prepare meal for your family, *if you even get to see them at all* PLUS not making enough money to make your bills is *very* discouraging. I understand why someone would not do it. (Even though I did, when I was working. I literally got to see my kids/DF one day a week, *if* that. Otherwise, they were staying at my mom's house. She got them up, got them dressed for school, got them on bus, they got off bus after school and went to my mom's, where they spent the afternoon, ate dinner, and went to bed. *IF* I got the weekend off, I would get to see them then, but... I was so exhausted that the most I could muster was sandwiches DD made for them, and watch a movie. If I worked 7 days/week, I wouldn't get to see them at all. It was *insanely* difficult on all of us, they were having behavior issues due to the inconsistency of my schedule and/or not getting to see mommy and daddy or knowing if they would get to, etc. I don't think it's fair that it should have to be that way, especially adding on not knowing if you'll be able to make the bills. If I weren't so dang embarrassed to ask for help to survive, I would have asked for it, but I hate(d) hearing how I/we should just be working, not relying on the system, or hearing crap from people at grocery store when I went and used EBT card to buy groceries, because no one believed I was working 50-60 hours/week, and still needed assistance. I don't begrudge anyone who would rather stay with their kids and get assistance. I think it's important to be able to see your kids, and get to spend time with them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 

What about the kid whose mom's boyfriend kicked him out of the house at 16, because he was sick of supporting "these brats"? This kid had an average intellect, at best. He was, imo, showing the effects of malnutrition (not severe, but present). By the time he was in his early 20s, he was deliberately dealing drugs (pot) to known narcotics officers, so that he could get a jail term over the winter...he mostly lived on the street, but it was cold.

That sounds a lot like DF's situation, when he was younger. He never ended up in jail, but he lived on the streets when his step-dad decided he was tired of "taking care of him" (if you can call it that.) Thankfully, he lived in Alabama at the time, so it wasn't usually terribly cold, but I guess he stayed with friend(s) when it did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *kathymuggle* 



> I expect to be thanked when I give stuff to a person. In general, if you can offer thanks for a gift, you should not accept the gift.


So what about when someone thinks they are "helping" you by giving you things that either are torn/horribly stained/obviously something that someone couldn't use (like infant/toddler clothing for an elementary-aged child, for example). I still say thank you, because I feel obligated to, but if someone brings me something, especially something to "help" me, I would hope that they offer me things that I could use, not things that are ill-fitting or don't fit at all, or clothes that aren't even acceptable to wear, say, to school. But I still say thank you, because it's expected, and because I should be thankful that someone gave me something. Even if I can't use it. But it hurts worse than not being given anything at all, sometimes.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
> 
> some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart... like i said no strings attached.


This is what I was trying to say, but I still feel obligated to say thank you. A few years ago, when we were homeless, someone at our church signed us up for angel tree/holiday helper type program. It was DD (5), DS (2) and me. When we got the gifts, there were newborn baby girl clothes, baby girl toys, baby girl accessories, etc, and nothing for DS. I don't know what happened, but it was all inappropriate stuff. I said thank you, because i did appreciate the thought, but... it left me with two boxes of newborn baby girl clothes, and DS was still wearing the same two pairs of pants/same 3 shirts over and over, with my not having a way to wash them with any regularity. The thought does count, I think, but it doesn't keep baby clothed and warm.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TiredX2*
> 
> Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should." At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs. One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.


If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!

It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!


----------



## sparklefairy

Another point to ponder regarding looking for work for 6 hours a day:

One cannot simply shoehorn into every job that is posted. Jobs have minimum qualifications regarding experience and education. Jobs for which the qualifications are very low often won't consider people who are "overqualified." It really isn't a matter of just applying for every job out there. There's no point: it just wastes everyone's time.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!
> 
> It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!


----------



## journeymom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmcneal*
> 
> The thought does count, I think, but it doesn't keep baby clothed and warm.


Ugh. I'm so sorry. In deed, it's the thought that counts. Clearly these people weren't thinking.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> it this was meant at me, I certainly was not giving little crumbs by wanting to give the clothing to the mother I spoke about - I turned them into a thrift and made money off of them for me- they were in great shape


I wasn't referring to the clothes you tried to give to the woman who didn't want them. However, much earlier in the thread, it did strike me as odd when I shared some about our situation, and you accused me of not showing enough gratitude to the taxpayers while I was sharing my story -- and yet, that's not what my last post was really about.

My more recent post was about minorities, and I'm not in a minority group and honestly don't feel society or the government owes me any more than it owes the next person. And the assistance we've received has been very helpful -- it's not "crumbs." My reference to "throwing crumbs" was not directed to you, but more to the general society in which many whites take exception to minorities whom they feel have an "attitude of entitlement."


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> TANF reports that only 24% work and receive - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42768.pdf


You told me directly that I personally seem proud to not work and to depend. Which is completely false. I do work. I don't depend. I've never even received TANF.

I never received TANF because the assistance I received was almost 20 years ago and it had another name then. I received it while working as a nanny as the single mother of a young child. I started college when she was 2yo and I received it for a short time while I was in college. I also had a work study job during that time.

Later I received food stamps for about 2 years as a SAHM of three young children over 10 years ago.

I have worked ever since at different things with a husband that worked full time as well.

And I indeed am proud of my life and I will never consent to being shamed for being a SAHM once upon a time while receiving food stamps. I did not go back to work by the time my infant twins were 3 months old and I will never feel guilty for that.

For the poor, being a SAHM is consistently a truly *temporary* "lifestyle choice". Generally it is extremely difficult to sustain being a SAHM on assistance. You might scrape by for a couple of years, but generally you will be looking for at least part-time opportunities as soon as you feel like you can maintain sanity for your family while doing the work. You do a community that includes many good, ethical, hardworking parents a disservice by painting all of them and all assistance ever received with the same brush and suggesting they shouldn't have the right to make lifestyle choices that offend you personally.

You told me I was included in this group of "takers" because I don't have insurance. My dh and I essentially work at five different occupations between us because of the different kinds of paid work we currently do. We work seven days a week. And we homeschool. It is my understanding based on your previous comments that because I homeschool, you think I should be working more at something different and sending my children to public school. Your criticism really puzzles me. I truly thought that by "meeting" some responsible moms' by reading their stories here you would in fact see that there can situations where such assistance is okay. I know it was for me.

I also already answered your question when I told you about being a SAHM when our twins were infants and our house falling apart etc. when my dh worked full time and we received food stamps. I would have stayed at home even without the food stamps. Our children would have suffered, I would have suffered, but employment was not an option for me at that time and also would not have lifted us out of poverty. Since I chose to SAHM and would not have budged on that: *Would you, Serenbat, have taken access to those food stamps away from me if you could?*


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!
> 
> It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!


In a way programs like food stamps allow more big companies to get away with paying lower wages. They pay starvation wages, but magically their employees don't starve, and they still get workers extra-cheap. If they had employees' children dying of malnutrition they would be forced to pay better wages. Thus, food stamps are really subsidizing Walmart and other corporations' bottom lines. And the employees get to feel ashamed of their failure in society because of their "dependence" --thus keeping the poor in their proper places--feeling terrible about themselves.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> *You told me I was included in this group of "takers"* because I don't have insurance.


I did not use the word taker-never did I say that.

Quote:



> We once did receive public assistance in food stamps and health care for a few years while I was at home with young children and I did not feel it was wrong. Those benefits didn't raise us out of poverty but took just a bit of the desperation out of our lives. For me to have been employed during that time would have been a far worse picture for everyone involved. We would have still been struggling except my children would not have had that one blessing--the continuity of care and my own stability. My child care would have been subsidized and cost the state MORE than it cost to have me at home with them in benefits. If I had been working in anything available, I would have made less than the cost of childcare. That is usually the case. I also think it is okay to use welfare to help provide greater stability for children in poorer families, and having moms home for a while usually does exactly that. The emotional struggles and anxiety create some major risks, and those children just might need moms at home the most, and may be the ones most likely to otherwise end up in substandard child care situations as well. Some families may be able to provide adequate internal stability while still managing 2 lower-income jobs as well, but some may not handle that adequately and those children can be really vulnerable.
> 
> Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system. We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that.


I think it speaks for it self in what you wrote.

Clearly when you *do* have to take the responsibility and take a job (in many cases one you don't like or don't want) in order to provide medical vs someone who does chose not to work but will take a govt run assistance for medical - there clearly is a choice being made.

You can call it what ever you want, some clearly do make the choice to work to provide and have feelings much like I do about someone who does not do this.

Quote:


> *Would you, Serenbat, have taken access to those food stamps away from me if you could?*


NO, I would not.

Unless you are elderly, disabled or have a child that you must care for that is disabled, and because of this it prevents you from working...... other wise, no. If you can work, why not!

Others in society (and we are not talking rich or even super rich) in fact DO have to work for food for their children. They have to work long hours, be away from their family- it's not some bed of roses going on with tons and tons of wiggle room.

You are making a choice not to work or not to work enough and still stay with your child.

How you do not see others are working and think this is fair (or even or what ever term you want to use to justify your situation) so that you can so do what you want?

Why can't food assistance go to those who are unable to work (disability) vs those who choose not?

It's very clear you are making a choice.

You seem to have no problem with the fact that those who do have to work and not take assistance have to do the same things as you and have children yet some how it's *OK* because it's right for you and everyone should just be fine with. Other people also have many jobs, work over time,work 3rd shift, 12+ hour days, have to find child care and pay their bills and not ask for help.

I really think you are looking for others to say it's just wonderful that you stay home because they system can work in your favor- no problem, no one up set, and those who work are just thrilled because they can't but can help you.


----------



## kitteh

I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children. You can say that this teaches the children the importance of hard work and a strong work ethic, but I think that the loudest message that children get when they are away from both parents for such a long time on a regular basis is that they don't matter.

And it is not in any way the fault of the parents who have to choose to make these really tough sacrifices either way--sacrificing income and material wealth, as well as possibly some dignity when accepting assistance, in order to have the ability to actually raise their own children (assuming this is even a choice they are able to make, as some don't even have the choice available to them) VS sacrificing the close parental relationship and ability to raise their own children in order to be financially self sufficient and not feel like a drain on society. It's really just sad that it comes down to this and that our society doesn't support families like it should. Which I suppose is the whole point of this thread. We ought to have a better system in place so that parents have better choices available to them.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I think it is really sad that some parents have to work


you can not also just up and quit and get assistance - I did state this earlier - if you don't take insurance via work, your child can not just go on CHIP in my state, all must take the coverage - same if you just quit - you don't qualify when you qualify for COBRA first

there are other things that prevent some from just quitting to get assistance- student loans and they don't go away with bankruptcy - they also garnish ALL wages if you ever have a real job again!

there are lots of factors

but when you say I am able (able-bodied) to work but choose not to and know you can just get assistance, others who work don't feel 100% supportive when they are doing a 12 hour- 3 day on 4 off shift


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*
> 
> In a way programs like food stamps allow more big companies to get away with paying lower wages. They pay starvation wages, but magically their employees don't starve, and they still get workers extra-cheap. If they had employees' children dying of malnutrition they would be forced to pay better wages. Thus, food stamps are really subsidizing Walmart and other corporations' bottom lines. And the employees get to feel ashamed of their failure in society because of their "dependence" --thus keeping the poor in their proper places--feeling terrible about themselves.


You're absolutely right, and if I were you, I wouldn't waste any more time or energy trying to explain your experience and point of view to Serenbat. Whenever I read threads where welfare recipients are being bashed, I usually end up feeling compelled to share our story -- but whereas in the past I actually hoped to change the perspectives of those doing the bashing, I am now focused almost solely on providing support for those who are feeling ripped to shreds by insensitive and disrespectful comments.

I've learned that in the eyes of some, a welfare recipient who shares her story is always going to be branded as someone who's "proud" to be in a dependent role, "proud" to be taking from the hardworking Americans, and the bashers will oftentimes ignore the testimonies of people who draw some sort of welfare assistance but also work (which, as others have pointed out, is the situation that the majority of welfare recipients are in). At one point earlier in this thread (I don't have time to go back and find it now), someone even put quotation marks around the word "assistance" that I had used, as if in using that word, I were trying to put a pretty face on something that was truly shameful and despicable.

It seems like there really are just always going to be some unhappy people who'd rather lay shame and blame on poor people than look at the big picture.


----------



## mammal_mama

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children.


Serenbat, I think it's misrepresentation to just snip off the above sentence after the word "work," as you did in one of your posts just a few minutes ago. I also think you've noticed that most or all of the welfare recipients that you've been bashing on this thread ARE employed.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> you can not also just up and quit and get assistance - I did state this earlier - if you don't take insurance via work, your child can not just go on CHIP in my state, all must take the coverage - same if you just quit - you don't qualify when you qualify for COBRA first
> 
> there are other things that prevent some from just quitting to get assistance- student loans and they don't go away with bankruptcy - they also garnish ALL wages if you ever have a real job again!
> 
> there are lots of factors
> 
> but when you say I am able (able-bodied) to work but choose not to and know you can just get assistance, others who work don't feel 100% supportive when they are doing a 12 hour- 3 day on 4 off shift


Serenbat, I really don't get the way that you selectively quote some people and then respond in a way that really doesn't have much of anything to do with the post you quoted.

I never said that it's sad that some parents have to work. You cut my sentence short in the middle, which changed the entire meaning of it! I said I think it is sad when parents have to work long 12+ hour dayss and holidays in order to make ends meet. I work at an elementary school where many of the children go to extended childcare both before and after school, and they suffer some real sadness and separation anxiety from the long long days away from their parents. It truly breaks my heart every day to see the ongoing pain suffered by some of these children, and it has strengthened my resolve to do whatever I am capable of in order to not put my own family through that sort of thing. If that means accepting the assistance that is available to me at the expense of suffering the ire and criticism of people like Serenbat, then I'm ok with that.

I never suggested that parents ought to up and quit their jobs and attempt to enroll their children in government-funded health insurance plans, I'm not really sure where you are going with that. I have student loans so I definitely understand the importance of being able to pay those back!

Personally, I'm not blaming the parents in either scenario--those who are unable to work a job that offers health insurance and pays a living wage and have NO CHOICE but to accept TANF and food stamps to support their families, OR the parents who do have access to slightly better jobs that offer health insurance but still not a high enough wage to make ends meet without them working really long hours and being away from their families for extended periods of time. I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I'm not at all dependent on the WIC that my family receives, but it helps and we greatly appreciate it. Even without it, though, I would not be able to work more than part time and still afford child care, nor do I want strangers raising my children. I think families need to have more choices available to them.


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> Whenever I read threads where welfare recipients are being bashed, I usually end up feeling compelled to share our story -- but whereas in the past I actually hoped to change the perspectives of those doing the bashing, I am now focused almost solely on providing support for those who are feeling ripped to shreds by insensitive and disrespectful comments.
> 
> I've learned that in the eyes of some, a welfare recipient who shares her story is always going to be branded as someone who's "proud" to be in a dependent role, "proud" to be taking from the hardworking Americans, and the bashers will oftentimes ignore the testimonies of people who draw some sort of welfare assistance but also work (which, as others have pointed out, is the situation that the majority of welfare recipients are in). At one point earlier in this thread (I don't have time to go back and find it now), someone even put quotation marks around the word "assistance" that I had used, as if in using that word, I were trying to put a pretty face on something that was truly shameful and despicable.
> 
> It seems like there really are just always going to be some unhappy people who'd rather lay shame and blame on poor people than look at the big picture.


Yeah, I'm also starting to feel like I'm just wasting my time and annoying the pig, here - and I'm not even receiving welfare!

But like I said to rightkindofme, please know that I really appreciate you being courageous enough to share your own experiences with us.


----------



## queenjane

serenbat where do you live that all jobs come with medical coverage?

You've stated several times if people choose not to work, choose not to take medical coverage but instead just take medicaid that that is wrong...but not all jobs have medical coverage and for those jobs that do offer it, its not always affordable. Try affording family medical coverage while working at a part time job (working at a part time job NOT because you "dont want to work" but because you cant find a fulltime one)....for many families, they simply cannot afford what the medical coverage would cost. Thats why programs like MIChild exist in my state (which allows a higher income cut off than regular medicaid and is for the working poor.) Personally i am fully employed and do not have medical coverage as part of my job. I also do not qualify for medicaid (well apparently i CAN, the letter they sent me was SO difficult to understand but i think if i spend like 200 dollars on medical care, THEN they will cover me after that? i dunno....) I rarely get sick and when i do need to see the doctor i go to the urgent care clinic and pay in cash. What else would you have me do? (Again, please let me stress i am fully employed.)


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *couldbebetter29*
> 
> I believe any one can choose to leave low income housing but you have to make the choice to make your life better. If you do not have the education already go to school while on assistance. *In Michigan you can do this, but a lot do not.*


why do you say this? I got the feeling a lot DO take advantage of enrolling in school. I am in MI also. This is a very very depressed economy and now you are seeing formerly middle class people getting aid. Lots of unemployment.

Recently here there was a RIOT when over 4000 people showed up to the local housing authority JUST TO GET ON A WAITLIST. Yep, thats right, you have to fight to get on a wait list for sec 8. Not to GET sec 8 but to get on the waitlist...which you can be on for YEARS before moving to the top. I dont blame someone for not moving out of low income housing after such a struggle to get IN.


----------



## queenjane

You know...the more i think about it maybe we SHOULD cut ALL forms of aid...no housing, no TANF, no food stamps, no govt cheese, no WIC, no daycare, no Head Start, no school grants....cut it ALL.

Let the revolution commence. People will do ALL sorts of things when they are hungry, desperate and watching their children starve or out in the cold.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## mamaofthree

> The thought does count, I think, but it doesn't keep baby clothed and warm.


see but they were not thinking. i think that is just plain arse rude to do to someone. here is my junk, you deal with it. here is my old outdated food, you eat it. i am not sure i would be saying thank you for that stuff. or at the very least i would never accept things from them again. of course then you the the risk of looking like a jerk because here you are poor and refusing someone else's junk. it is like it is a no win situation.


----------



## 95191

I live in the north east.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I live in the north east.


So all jobs up there come with insurance? (even entry level jobs? even part time jobs?) oh by "come with insurance" i mean insurance that a low-income mom could actually afford.

I'm really confused by this idea that a low income person who has medicaid is somehow taking advantage. or that someone "chooses not to" take insurance...if you are so low income that you as an adult qualify for medicaid, then you likely cannot afford any insurance you are able to obtain through your job unless you've got a job with GREAT benefits. I know people who pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance...i cant see that being doable for many low income people.

Also with many jobs you have to work there for a certain period of time before you even qualify for benefits.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> So all jobs up there come with insurance? (even entry level jobs? even part time jobs?) oh by "come with insurance" i mean insurance that a low-income mom could actually afford.


ALL do not, many do and cost is subjective but you really don't have that much choice not to take coverage if your employer offers it, you can't just say no and get state aid-even for a child, you can say no if you prove your spouse has insurance and you are covered- the state sets the rules

we have HIPP - the state does offer differential if they feel the employer cost is not correct, this is only if you have one member receiving employer insurance http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/hipp

some part time jobs do offer insurance within three months, some would let you buy in prior to having it offered at a reduced rate, some place pay 100%, temp jobs even offer insurance - depending on the industry and that can mean entry level at certain jobs-most let you know right up front with their ad

with general welfare - there is a law if you move from another state for 12 months you stay at the rate you were given if the cost is less than the state pay for welfare, it's designed to avoid people moving for benefits and also the state makes rules that do not apply for the whole state, only certain sections


----------



## erinmattsmom88

How would subsidized health insurance aka Obamacare fit into this thread? There are millions of people in the middle that are going to have to get insurance next year. These people make too much for medicaid, but don't earn enough to adequately afford private health insurance. Lots of people have full-time jobs and their employer doesn't offer health insurance. We are in this boat. DH is starting a new, full-time job next week. He will be making decent money, has a few benefits, but he won't be offered health insurance. So, we are too rich for medicaid, but too poor for BCBS. We will be one of those families who will have to get subsidized health insurance from our government. I can't predict the future, but we will need it indefinitely. Will we be considered abusers of the system? We'll still be paying for it... through taxes and monthly premiums, but these monthly premiums will be based on income. Someone who makes 30K a year won't have to pay as much as someone who makes 60K a year. Is that fair? Do I have to stress that I will be considered a fraud, or sucking off the system if I have the same insurance as someone who makes several tens of thousand dollars more than my family, but pays less money for it?


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I did not use the word taker-never did I say that.


It was NOT an exact quote. It is completely accurate as far as your meanings that you have repeated often. Isn't that what "other people provide for you while you're dependent and could be working more" means?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> NO, I would not.
> 
> Unless you are elderly, disabled or have a child that you must care for that is disabled, and because of this it prevents you from working...... other wise, no. If you can work, why not!


When people explain to you their perfectly good answers to your "why not" you still ask this question.

I don't really know what I--as a real person--do that you have a problem with. Since I work a lot, my husband works a lot, and I don't even use what assistance we are eligible for that seem like it would make us your favorite kind of poor people. When I stopped receiving food stamps, we were still eligible. We could have eaten nicer food if we had but we were scraping by and we managed. I really don't understand the things you say. Like some people have to suffer and do work they don't like and so on... What makes you think I have only done work I like? And if you aren't talking to me then who are you talking to?

I am glad people use the system. The system was made for people to use. It's SUPPOSED to work to their advantage. It's SUPPOSED to help them makes their lives better.

I might find this thread frustrating because I feel like I am in a useless debate, but it has so many thoughtful comments that have come out of it anyway.


----------



## LitMom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erinmattsmom88*
> 
> Do I have to stress that I will be considered a fraud, or sucking off the system if I have the same insurance as someone who makes several tens of thousand dollars more than my family, but pays less money for it?


I don't think you should feel bad at all, and I'm probably one of the people paying more for the exact same insurance policy. Self-employed/business owners always pay more, for the exact same insurance as big corporations because we lack the leverage to negotiate more appropriate rates. You'll probably be paying the same amount that a 3000 employee business does per employee. And while I think they should offer that rate to everyone, I'm certainly not angry with people who get the better rate!


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> I always kind of felt that welfare should have cut benefits on a 2:1 ratio - earn $2.00, and lose $1.00 in benefits. That means people aren't getting an income and full assistance, but it also means there's some financial incentive to actually go out and earn some money......
> 
> They lived in dire financial straits. It's just that they would have lived in just as bad a situation if one of them had been working.
> 
> I don't have the answers, but I don't think penalizing people for getting a job is the answer. It saves a few dollars per cheque, sure - but it ultimately results in a lot more cheques being issued.


Nail, on the head IMO!

Clearly there is a need for a safety net to protect children, I think we all agree to that.

What is galling to me is that we set people up to fail and stay on assistance as long as possible for the above reason. Stormbride's example about her ex-husbands family goes to the point that sometimes the government does need to teach even adults how to better themselves if they didn't have an example of such growing up. I like the incentive idea, as punishing people is usually less effective overall.

I've read most of this thread, and many times people have stated roughly that they were taking the benefits now and staying home because they didn't want to send their kid off to any old daycare just to make less, or even slightly more than they could on state aid. Or that it makes more sense to take the help now, have the kids they want and then they will work later. Or why work for slave labor, when I can stay home take care of my babies and get an education...and work later. I totally understand all these impulses.

What they are missing, and what the government is enabling, is that employers aren't keen on hiring people with long periods of unemployment. That's just a fact. There may be a good reason to drop out of the workforce, but to most employers hiring someone with a steady work history is a safer bet.

Also, in many careers you start at a fairly low rung and build up to a better salary over a matter of years. This can be jarring, when you've built your little family and suddenly need to work 40-60 hours a week at one or more jobs to bring home possibly less than you did before your assistance ran out. We should not build our safety net to allow this to happen.

If a persons prospects or skills or interests are such that you may be in a lowish income bracket for a very long time--working early and steadily is really the only way to break free. This is even more important for single mom's, regardless of what one may think of SAHM-ing.

**This is an anecdote, but I think helps explain the idea. My friend lost his job, just as the recession was hitting. Went on unemployment, got food stamps, WIC, etc. and started looking for work. All the jobs he found were for worse hours, and slightly lower pay than he was getting on unemployment and so he continued to look.

After, I believe 18 months on unemployment, (it was extended at that time) they were out of UE benefits and started to get desperate. Another 18 months later, he gladly took a job at slightly less than half his previous salary with truly terrible hours as it was the only place he could find that would hire a man who had been unemployed for so long. They lost their house and all savings in the meantime.

If there would have been some incentive to work as soon as possible, such as a tiered loss of benefits, I am sure he would have jumped at the idea. Living "on the dole" was not a fun experience for him, nor the rest of his family. Instead he did the smart thing, and kept the higher payout and held on to hope for a good job until it was too late. I can't imagine this is an isolated incident.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children. You can say that this teaches the children the importance of hard work and a strong work ethic, but I think that the loudest message that children get when they are away from both parents for such a long time on a regular basis is that they don't matter.
> 
> And it is not in any way the fault of the parents who have to choose to make these really tough sacrifices either way--sacrificing income and material wealth, as well as possibly some dignity when accepting assistance, in order to have the ability to actually raise their own children (assuming this is even a choice they are able to make, as some don't even have the choice available to them) VS sacrificing the close parental relationship and ability to raise their own children in order to be financially self sufficient and not feel like a drain on society. It's really just sad that it comes down to this and that our society doesn't support families like it should. Which I suppose is the whole point of this thread. We ought to have a better system in place so that parents have better choices available to them.


Wow. I've lived the life of a parent working a ton, actually 14 hours/day 6-7 days a week. I would in no way say that I ever thought that I didn't matter. My Momma taught me to be proud of my Daddy who worked had to work so very hard, because he chose manual labor rather than a college education and regular job.

It may be a matter of perspective, but none of us ever felt sorry for ourselves or not valued. And he did indeed raise me, even if it was only for a few hours each day.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> I've read most of this thread, and many times people have stated roughly that they were taking the benefits now and staying home because they didn't want to send their kid off to any old daycare just to make less, or even slightly more than they could on state aid. Or that it makes more sense to take the help now, have the kids they want and then they will work later. Or why work for slave labor, when I can stay home take care of my babies and get an education...and work later. I totally understand all these impulses.


Really? I haven't seen that here at all. One woman said she wasn't insured because she has a child on the autism spectrum who wasn't getting adequate education in the public school. Another said that she left a job because a coworker was threatening to kill her and the management refused to do anything about it. Another said her husband is disabled and she is working from home in order to be available to her children.

It struck me that we have laws to protect the parents of children with disabilities from having to quit their jobs to educate their children--or worse, having to watch their children go uneducated--but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money.

There are certainly laws and policies in place that should protect workers against workplace threats, but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money.

We have a special social safety net for adults with disabilities, but in order to get on it you have to sacrifice your right to work and you have to go through a long process of proving the disability. Also, disability ssi payments won't really support a family.

Essentially, we have people who have to make choices that we know they shouldn't have to make, that we even have laws to stop them from having to make. This is a social issue. If there were more federal funding for educating children with disabilities, or for EEOC enforcement, or even legal aid, those folks wouldn't have had to make those choices. Sometimes the things that make people poor are the repercussions of social policies you wouldn't expect to have that impact.

Your story about the family that chose to wait until unemployment insurance was about to expire to take a job that paid less--I don't know. You think people are rational enough to reject jobs that pay less than state aid but too irrational to realize that state aid is time-limited? That's nice. You must be an economist! Seriously.


----------



## sarafi

Okay, so I've read the whole thread--wowsers that took a few days!

I stated above my views on how assistance should work, so I won't again.

I just wanted to ask: What do you all think about this issue of an "entitlement mentality", and is this maybe truly the heart of the debate?

I am reading anything from "you should never take/need any help if you planned or carried through with a pregnancy" to "you should take all you can get, as you've paid your share and deserve it". It seems we are very divided at the extremes, and yet we all basically agree that kids should be fed!

As an American who has lived in Japan for seven years, and now in Germany for two years I feel a bit divorced from my home culture. We have one car, and DH bikes to work when there's no snow but I still almost never drive as we just walk or bike everywhere. And before you assume I am talking about a 5-10 minute walk in a magically planned out town, I will say that I haul three kids in a trailer and baby-seat and the eldest bikes alongside for 45 minute errands at least once/week. Most of our walks are 15-20 minutes and for the last two months we have been doing so in a foot of snow, and wind and rain sometimes. It would be much easier to drive, but it's great exercise and I don't believe in driving when you can walk. Even with public transportation, and fantastically laid out villages people do still need to venture a bit outside their wee little towns for shopping on occasion. So this idea of "food desserts" strikes me as a bit like the idea of welfare queens driving caddy's. I am sure it does happen, but it's not the norm for our country at large.

I am not a super fit woman, and yet biking with kids is still very doable. (My bike and baby-seat came from Goodwill, and I pieced the trailer together from some that were being trashed--so I spent $50 on my vehicle of choice). Before I had my bike the bigger kids walked and we had a stroller for the baby and groceries--I do remember crying on the way home sometimes, but that just made be shop more often and for less. I biked to town three years ago when on an extended trip to the states and almost everyone thought I was insane! I made hour-long weekly trips to town for about six weeks and had four hecklers, and at least a dozen people pull over to express awe at the idea of biking into town, it was very surreal. In Germany I have seen a woman who has to weigh around 400 lbs biking in the town over to get groceries, and the frailest looking old woman in my village walks everyday to do errands--I truly do think Americans have a skewed picture of what is "possible" to do.

Two generations ago, my maternal Grandma raised six kids and ran a business after her husband died with no insurance. She worked at least 60 hours a week for many years, and actually did at least the same before he died. She batched-cooked on the weekends and had the oldest look after the younger ones, they all turned out great and love each other and our proud of their parents. It was what you did back then, and I am very proud of them all. Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?

I guess I am just sad at what we are accepting as reality for people. Almost all people, save the severely handicapped or mentally ill, can do so many different things that would bring them self-confidence and self-sufficiency. Even if it's just working very hard at two menial jobs to provide for your family, there is a lot of pride in that if we give value to it. I personally find it very offensive to assume that the vast majority of people on aid just can't do any better--I think they can, but haven't been given the tools, or incentive, or even just moral imperative to do so.

I also would say, that unless we at MDC are just an over-paid section of society--it can't be true that most people who have posted on this thread have paid "their fair share" and should feel like they are drawing down from what they paid into assistance funds. TANF is not the same as unemployment insurance, unless you actually pay federal taxes you are not funding TANF. Look at our federal tax structure, also we don't spend 2/3 of the federal budget on defense as I saw go unchallenged many pages ago. My family makes over the median level and with four kids we get back all federal taxes plus $800 extra. Cha-ching, that's a form of income redistribution folks.

Our family doesn't pay federal taxes, much like 50% of the US population. It is federal taxes that make up almost all of these programs, so it truly doesn't matter if you paid sales taxes, or real estate taxes, or new car taxes, or boat docking taxes, or whatever else we get taxed for these days in the US--all that money is earmarked for other things and has nothing to do with TANF or WIC or food stamps.

Please take the time to digest the difference between a $20,000 tax write off and a $2,000 cash benefit....I will wait

One consists of money you worked for being exempted from taxation by law, and one is money other people earned being given to you--much like my family's $800 tax refund this year. The government isn't actually "giving" that horrid rich person $20,000, they are just letting them declare less taxable income and are therefore letting them keep more of the cash they worked hard to earn, because we as a society value fueling the real estate business. That's an entirely different debate, but letting people write things off their income does not in any way equate to whole-sale charity and I am sorry that some still insist on thinking so.

One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring. Minimum wage is a small amount for a very good reason. Please research it, on the surface it can seem so unfair, but the reality of paying an inflated wage for a job that could be effectively done by a part time 16 year-old cheaply, at a level needed to sustain a 2 person household, with 2.25 kids is staggering and a very serious job killer. We would have a few happy people, and even more pissed off un-employed folks. There would be no sixteen-year-olds slinging burgers to pay for their first cars ;-) No one is actually meant to live on minimum wage their entire lives, it should be a resume builder and a way to earn cash when you are young, or if you really only want to work part time. I find it incredibly demeaning to suggest that entry level work is all the "poor" should ever aspire to. If we keep pushing for this, we will end up with more people out of work with less chances to climb out of poverty and learn valuable skills.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> Really? I haven't seen that here at all. One woman said she wasn't insured because she has a child on the autism spectrum who wasn't getting adequate education in the public school. Another said that she left a job because a coworker was threatening to kill her and the management refused to do anything about it. Another said her husband is disabled and she is working from home in order to be available to her children.
> 
> It struck me that we have laws to protect the parents of children with disabilities from having to quit their jobs to educate their children--or worse, having to watch their children go uneducated--but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money.
> 
> There are certainly laws and policies in place that should protect workers against workplace threats, but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money.
> 
> We have a special social safety net for adults with disabilities, but in order to get on it you have to sacrifice your right to work and you have to go through a long process of proving the disability. Also, disability ssi payments won't really support a family.
> 
> Essentially, we have people who have to make choices that we know they shouldn't have to make, that we even have laws to stop them from having to make. This is a social issue. If there were more federal funding for educating children with disabilities, or for EEOC enforcement, or even legal aid, those folks wouldn't have had to make those choices. Sometimes the things that make people poor are the repercussions of social policies you wouldn't expect to have that impact.
> 
> Your story about the family that chose to wait until unemployment insurance was about to expire to take a job that paid less--I don't know. You think people are rational enough to reject jobs that pay less than state aid but too irrational to realize that state aid is time-limited? That's nice. You must be an economist! Seriously.


If you want me to go back and quote I will, I don't dispute what struck you, I remember them also. The ones you are referencing had outlying reasons, IMO. I was summarizing a number of different posts and opinions.

The woman who quit due to the threats, could have threatened to sue when her HR department didn't respond and I am sure she would have prevailed with just the threat--but I don't fault her for not doing so with the pregnancy and high blood pressure--I would have just walked as well in her place.

In regards to my friend, I think you are missing the point that taking a job that pays less that "state aid" should not cost you all the benefits you are getting--hence the idea of a graduated scale to lessen aid. It's entirely rational when you support your family to take all you can, and hope to earn at least that and to hold on until you find a job that will let you make the most you can. People tend to wish for the best, but perhaps we should encourage "good enough" and we will help with the difference in the meantime?


----------



## glassesgirlnj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> The woman who quit due to the threats, could have threatened to sue when her HR department didn't respond and I am sure she would have prevailed with just the threat--but I don't fault her for not doing so with the pregnancy and high blood pressure--I would have just walked as well in her place.


There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer. (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule.

Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again? It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process. If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> Two generations ago, my maternal Grandma raised six kids and ran a business after her husband died with no insurance. She worked at least 60 hours a week for many years, and actually did at least the same before he died. She batched-cooked on the weekends and had the oldest look after the younger ones, they all turned out great and love each other and our proud of their parents. It was what you did back then, and I am very proud of them all. Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?
> 
> I doubt her basic work ethics and values would have changed from being on welfare for a short term when her husband died. She still would have been a great person, and she would have rebuilt.
> 
> One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring. Minimum wage is a small amount for a very good reason. Please research it, on the surface it can seem so unfair, but the reality of paying an inflated wage for a job that could be effectively done by a part time 16 year-old cheaply, at a level needed to sustain a 2 person household, with 2.25 kids is staggering and a very serious job killer. We would have a few happy people, and even more pissed off un-employed folks. There would be no sixteen-year-olds slinging burgers to pay for their first cars ;-) No one is actually meant to live on minimum wage their entire lives, it should be a resume builder and a way to earn cash when you are young, or if you really only want to work part time. I find it incredibly demeaning to suggest that entry level work is all the "poor" should ever aspire to. If we keep pushing for this, we will end up with more people out of work with less chances to climb out of poverty and learn valuable skills.
> 
> That is the ideal. People make minimum wage as teens or then move on. That is not the reality.
> 
> A few stats from a link I posted upthread:
> 
> *#7* Half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
> 
> *#8* At this point, one out of every four American workers has a job that pays $10 an hour or less.
> 
> *#9* Today, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule.


this is OT - but if one only files a complaint with their company - they have *no chance of anything happening* - you must in 99% of all cases file with your employer, duel file with your state and the EEOC per their guidelines-within the mandated time frames and most cases many settlements are reached that are not via a law suite and this is often private, it's it illegal for the company to promote this and make it public, give a bad reference, etc You have no chance of suing and any reputable lawyer would tell you that (and MOST do consolations for free since they work on a percentage) unless you have won (meaning the state and or federal govt agency ruled in your favor- most lawyers will not take a case unless you have won) going through the state and federal system and that is not suing, it is filing paper work, attending arbitration and have a verdict rendered, in most cases. I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so.

how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do

I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!

Quote:


> How would subsidized health insurance aka Obamacare fit into this thread?


I see this as OT- I do know IRL- that those who I know who are denied insurance because of preexisting condition, are ones that are making payments vs those who are in the middle section you mentioned - with no insurance but not because of preexisting conditions. It seems only on here that what I have mentioned about this group that used ER's is just not really happening in most minds, but IRL I do see it. I see the ACA as mandating that those will have to pay towards their care unlike what is happening now. I understand the ACA as not all about the preexisting condition but the cost of ER care as _primary care_. I don't think that should be a factor as a SHAM regarding this thread. I see SHAM choice here.

Quote:


> That's an entirely different debate, but letting people write things off their income does not in any way equate to whole-sale charity and I am sorry that some still insist on thinking so.


and also my family does pay federal taxes and we just looked at what military goodie we contributed to this year

Quote:


> One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring.


I totally agree. I did also point out that some states pay welfare above minimum wage.

Quote:


> Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?


Quote:


> I've read most of this thread, and many times people have stated roughly that they were taking the benefits now and staying home because they didn't want to send their kid off to any old daycare just to make less, or even slightly more than they could on state aid. Or that it makes more sense to take the help now, have the kids they want and then they will work later. Or why work for slave labor, when I can stay home take care of my babies and get an education...and work later. I totally understand all these impulses.


you only mentioned two generations ago (your relative) - what about longer? Some of the spin justifications I have read here really make my head spin! Not only did past generations do it, the did it large numbers and in shorter time frames and some would argue with much harder conditions as well. Obstacles that I have read on here really make me wonder how others overcame -IMO much greater one, how could they have when now we don't seem to be able to? desire?

Quote:


> What do you all think about this issue of an "entitlement mentality", and is this maybe truly the heart of the debate?


Shouldn't it be!? But I don't see it here- how can it be when if you are not gung-ho, you just want children to starve?

We can't even broach that as a society (and in ALL wages brackets) we are getting lazier and lazier in many areas. So much here seem to be federal related when in facts states play a big role but we have low, super low voting in this country. Most have no clue who their local reps even are, let alone that they make the state laws that *greatly* effect them, regarding the issues discussed here. There are many other areas as well, even given not working most still do not want whole foods, they want easy. Easy in many ways.

I feel so much of what is missing is acknowledgement that *motivation* (and the dirty word responsibility) is a huge factor and there seems to be a lack their of. You have to keep a steady work history, you have to show up on time, you have to have the desire and I just see the opposite. I see many did not answer the question that was posed about if there was no safety net and I see that as very telling and so what, they don't have to because it's not a real possibility.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> At this point, one out of every four American workers has a job that pays $10 an hour or less.


there are many factors here as for the reason

I do know that MANY have no clue why all those papers hang up at work places (the ones that do say what the laws are, the ones required to be posted) or how they even became laws, I think this does factor into things-IMO


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> there are many factors here as for the reason
> 
> I do know that MANY have no clue why all those papers hang up at work places (the ones that do say what the laws are, the ones required to be posted) or how they even became laws, I think this does factor into things-IMO


I am a little confused - are you saying illiteracy plays a factor or being law abiding - or both?

I would certainly agree both can play a role in poverty - low literacy or education in particular.

Most people who are poor or on welfare are law abiding. One mistake can follow you for a long time, however. I was talking to a man yesterday who was looking for work driving a truck. I suggested school bus drivers, as they are always looking for them around here, and he could get in fairly quickly. It turns out he can't apply as a bus driver (or numerous other jobs) due to criminal record. He says he was gotten his act together since then (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) but according to him it would cost 3000-6000 to get have his criminal record removed. This is money he does not have.

The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> are you saying illiteracy


NO! more along the line of I just don't give a ____ (and many other words could be added here!!)

no desire to know, no desire to care, no idea this effects a person, not only lack of understanding as to what the work paper documents are but why we have the laws, *not knowing how they came into being and like who fought to get them to be laws* (I feel this is a major factor but not for this thread) - like YEARS ago when someone got their first paycheck (a real paper stub) and they would stare and have no idea why things were taken out- along those line if you know what I mean


----------



## 95191

again - years (long ago) many more people were not "educated" for having to have to drop out as in supporting a family, yet they still had the desire to be educated and literacy did work it's way in there regardless that they had to leave school and at a VERY young age, not even talking 16- my grandfather had to leave school at 11

I know someone who only went to 6th grade and managed to get a Ph.D - he also survived in two concentration camps along the way


----------



## kathymuggle

Serenbat&#8230;..I sense you are mad over the lack of personal responsibility and work ethic you see (as well as fraud, using the system, etc). That is Ok. You have undoubtably seen things I have not seen, and you have every right to your feelings.

That being said - anger at those on welfare who do not behave as you like is not going to move people off welfare (which I think everyone agrees is a good goal). Best practices around poverty management are the way to go. Truthfully, I would look at states and countries that have low amounts of people on welfare or living in poverty and figure out what they are doing right. I do not think we can eradicate all poverty - but I do believe the USA (and Canada for that matter) can do better than they are doing.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*


This didn't allow me to quote, but from what would my Grandmother, a single parent of six children, have rebuilt if she threw in the towel, and took welfare and then tried to rebuild? In what possible world would she have had had a better life five, ten or much less forty years now later if she gave up the family business when times got hard? She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.


----------



## Sharlla

in our state a low income family can get foodstamps if they have children under 6 living in the house, it only requires that one parent works. i have discovered that even if DH worked full time we would still get the same amount in foodstamps per month and if we both worked we would not only get foodstamps but hundreds a month in daycare assistance on top of that. it seems to me that it saves the state money having one of us stay home since being 2 income would still be poverty level.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Serenbat&#8230;..I sense you are mad over the lack of personal responsibility and work ethic you see (as well as fraud, using the system, etc). That is Ok. You have undoubtably seen things I have not seen, and you have every right to your feelings.
> 
> That being said - anger at those on welfare who do not behave as you like is not going to move people off welfare (which I think everyone agrees is a good goal). Best practices around poverty management are the way to go. Truthfully, I would look at states and countries that have low amounts of people on welfare or living in poverty and figure out what they are doing right. * I do not think we can eradicate all poverty - but I do believe the USA (and Canada for that matter) can do better than they are doing. *


I think it should serve as a reminder that others did have to overcome major obstacles in the past, given far less resources, some none, yet now, so many can't seem to do this- I see so much lack of desire to attempt it.

other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved? kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> This didn't allow me to quote, but from what would my Grandmother, a single parent of six children, have rebuilt if she threw in the towel, and took welfare and then tried to rebuild? In what possible world would she have had had a better life five, ten or much less forty years now later if she gave up the family business when times got hard? She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.


I have been on welfare. I was there for about 18 months when I had a new baby and the minimum wage jobs that DH was able to get gave us less money than welfare. I now work at a library, and DH works for the government. I have not been on welfare in about 15 years. There are numerous people on this thread who have been on welfare and are not on it now. Welfare is not a life sentence for many people. She is your grandma, though, and you know her better than I.

I would not have judged her one bit if she decided after her husband died and with 6 young children if she went on welfare for a bit. Oh, and as bad as it was - she had a business to take over. Most young widows with numerous children do not.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.


it's a mentality - keep on keep on saying how hard it is or how it doesn't pay to do it - in the end why bother?

we have sooooooooo many issue pressing in this country - we can't get our weight under control no matter how much it (info) is thrown out there (even if you take out the argument that it's the "fast" food causing it- we have stopped MOVING!) - we are going in the opposite direction, I see this issue (this thread) as the same, backwards not forward


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, *if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved?* kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it


I do not know.

Be specific - what do you want to talk about it?

I am usually up for blabbing on the internet, but I think people are going around in circles and not hearing each other clearly (which often happens on long, controversial threads)


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer. (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule.
> 
> Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again? It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process. If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer. (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule.
> 
> Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again? It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process. If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal.


If I recall correctly, this didn't seem like a huge mega corp she was dealing with, hence the very poor HR response to a potentially violent problem this Mama got. In almost all cases with small employers the "squeaky wheel" will prevail, which is why someone was allowed to bully, and why I think if the Mama had been healthy enough to deal with it, even just the threat of a lawsuit would have fixed things for her--as she was legally in the right.

Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so.
> 
> how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do
> 
> I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!


Wow. That is just amazing. You actually knew what this woman should do to get legal protection, and instead of telling her, right here right now, you went on for pages and pages about how she was choosing not to work. And NOW, you admit that this information is not perfectly easy to find, but you have no sympathy for people who can't find it because you found it when it was more difficult.

How do you do your job? I mean, you work with the public helping people find employment, correct? Do you give them the finger, literally or figuratively, if they don't know how to do some part of the job hunt? Are you angry with them that they could use a computer, and so don't show them how to send an application, because YOU used to have to send an actual LETTER?

What is UP with that?


----------



## kathymuggle

I thought this was a very interesting video (it is 4 minutes or so) where two experts from differing backgrounds talked about poverty in America.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/commentary/personal-responsibility-key-ending-poverty


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> fallout shouldn't just default to welfare


as with - you can lead a horse to water but .....

if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

Quote:


> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for


this is the situation for many and they don't rely on assistance and make it work-------planning... thinking of the future prior to acting


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.
> 
> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think we put a lot of people into situations where they don't have good choices, and we shouldn't complain that they make bad choices under those circumstances. A lot of those situations involve family members with disabilities, racial or gender discrimination in hiring or in the workplace, sexual harassment in the workplace, unplanned pregnancy and domestic violence and abuse. We also have a whole lot of people who don't finish school, I think in part because we don't accomodate learning disabilities very well.

If I had to throw money at any one problem, it would be education. I think that would make the biggest difference.

We DO have laws and policies in place to help people in these situations, but they are ineffective because they are underfunded, and because we are so freaking obsessed with personal responsibility that case workers regard every person's real life story as "a sob story" for which they have no human sympathy.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I think it should serve as a reminder that others did have to overcome major obstacles in the past, given far less resources, some none, yet now, so many can't seem to do this- I see so much lack of desire to attempt it.
> 
> other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved? kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it


Times are different now. I certainly think its "doable" to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but i think that there are far more obstacles now than there used to be.

My father grew up the oldest of like ten kids in W. Virginia, his father was killed in the coal mines and his mother got a settlement from the black lung fund. My mother grew up the oldest of like ten kids in W. Virginia as well, her father was also a coal miner. She came from a "broken home" as her abusive father kicked her mother out, married again and kept the kids. My mother started working as a waitress when she was very young. Met my father when she was 16 (he was 20 and working in the coal mine at the time) , she got pg, they got married. My father dropped out of the 9th grade, my mother dropped out of the 11th grade. Neither ever went back to finish their education. At some point they moved North when everyone was doing that (since there was promise of auto jobs in detroit) and went on to have several more kids (im the youngest of 8)...my father went through MANY periods of unemployment where he stayed home with the kids and my mom waitressed many hours a week (this was the 1950s and 60s...when everyone talks about Leave it to Beaver and SAHMs my older sibs remember an absent mom who worked ALL the time)...at some point my dad got into the auto plant as a janitor and worked his way up, all the way up eventually to skilled trades and by the time he died (in his 70s) he was a pipefitter. When my mom gave birth to her sixth child in the mid 60s she was able to stay home and be a SAHM (she wasnt very good at it though) for babies 6,7,8. They bought a nice shiny new ranch house in the 50s, lived in the suburbs, and sent their kids to good schools and many of them onto college.

Is that possible today? Sure....but young teen parents, no high school diploma having a union job and buying a nice house is NOT the norm here and i dont think its always for lack of trying. Try getting a job without a high school diploma. Good luck with that! There wasnt even any "credit report" stuff when my parents were trying to make it. Now if the local auto plant hires THOUSANDS of people show up begging for an application for a few jobs. How many of them will get hired without a high school diploma?? add in complications of things like being a single parent, living far from available jobs etc...

I also dont think we should discount the effect things like prenatal alcohol exposure, drug addiction issues etc, learning disabilities may have on a population....these are invisible disabilities. My daughter (who is adopted) has issues that i think will keep her from really being truly independent (in terms of being able to manage life...manage time, money, steer clear of bad influences etc) and yet to look at her she looks totally normal. But i can only imagine her showing up to her first job interview and filling out the app in some kid-like scrawl, everything misspelled, or giving someone odd answers to questions and being passed over even if she was capable of doing the actual work. Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle. I think a huge percentage of the prison population probably has undiagnosed cognitive issues, mental health issues etc.


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> Wow. I've lived the life of a parent working a ton, actually 14 hours/day 6-7 days a week. I would in no way say that I ever thought that I didn't matter. My Momma taught me to be proud of my Daddy who worked had to work so very hard, because he chose manual labor rather than a college education and regular job.
> 
> It may be a matter of perspective, but none of us ever felt sorry for ourselves or not valued. And he did indeed raise me, even if it was only for a few hours each day.


From that post, I get the impression that it was just your father who had to work long hours? (correct me if I'm wrong here, but you say "*a* parent working a ton" and "*daddy* worked so very hard") I'm not saying that people shouldn't work hard, or that people who have to make that choice are bad parents. But I'm also referring to the homes in which BOTH parents work those long, long hours and the children spend almost all of their day at school or daycare. In my experience, those are the ones who break my heart and I see the pain that they feel because of it every single day. I'm not blaming anyone, just empathizing with the little ones.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> Times are different now.


I am totally unaware that today's situation is more insurmountable!









so we just keep throwing money at it or starve it off?

Quote:



> Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle.


Since I am accused of being for all for starvation of children and this was also eluded to, does this mean that there should be a ramped up sterilization or a mass push for adoption? I realize this is a personal prospective but what conclusion is to be drawn from mentioning this?


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> If I recall correctly, this didn't seem like a huge mega corp she was dealing with, hence the very poor HR response to a potentially violent problem this Mama got. In almost all cases with small employers the "squeaky wheel" will prevail, which is why someone was allowed to bully, and why I think if the Mama had been healthy enough to deal with it, even just the threat of a lawsuit would have fixed things for her--as she was legally in the right.
> 
> Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.
> 
> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


I didn't just go straight to welfare, I was/am looking for any kind of work, but it's very hard to find, especially with my getting/being so close to my due date. I've even been advised that it would be detrimental to get work now, as I would have to quit in a few weeks/months anyway, and that would look especially bad on applications/resumes when I plan to go back to work after the baby is born, but I'm still looking. (Most of the jobs I would qualify don't offer maternity leave until you work "x" amount of time, and even at the job I quit from, I wouldn't have qualified yet, and I worked there almost a year.)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> as with - you can lead a horse to water but .....
> 
> if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)
> 
> this is the situation for many and they don't rely on assistance and make it work-------planning... thinking of the future prior to acting


So you say I should have stayed where my health, safety, and the health of my unborn child and my family until I found other work? And I (think) I already said I'm planning on going back to school (well, certification for a hopefully better/better paying job), but I have to wait until classes begin again, I can't just start halfway through, and I can't just make the schools start classes because I want/need to start...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> this is OT - but if one only files a complaint with their company - they have *no chance of anything happening* - you must in 99% of all cases file with your employer, duel file with your state and the EEOC per their guidelines-within the mandated time frames and most cases many settlements are reached that are not via a law suite and this is often private, it's it illegal for the company to promote this and make it public, give a bad reference, etc You have no chance of suing and any reputable lawyer would tell you that (and MOST do consolations for free since they work on a percentage) unless you have won (meaning the state and or federal govt agency ruled in your favor- most lawyers will not take a case unless you have won) going through the state and federal system and that is not suing, it is filing paper work, attending arbitration and have a verdict rendered, in most cases. I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so.
> 
> how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do
> 
> I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!


Thank you for letting me know when you first knew of what I should do. I have, in fact, been trying to get somewhere with this situation. I have read all the posters that hang on the walls. I knew I could (and should) do something, but just because you read something, doesn't mean you remember it automatically when you are stressed and need the information.

I was not in a situation where I could do that while I worked there. I hate(d) that I had to quit my job. I hate that they wouldn't help me. I hate not being able to help provide for my family. I hate that they looked at me, straight in the face, and said I would "get over it." I am still *well* within the time frame of the EEOC for filing, and after reading your (readily available, readily provided) information, am actually in the process of filing the way I need to. So thank you, very much, for *assuming* that I was just sitting on my fat butt, enjoying everything that everyone else is doing to take care of me and my family, that I so *willingly* *chose* to put in this lovely situation that I'm in, where I'm so scared of being targeted that every night when DF goes to work, I have panic attack and am scared to even go to the restroom for fear that he is out there, watching, waiting, for to find any way to hurt us more.


----------



## 95191

if you choose to *quit a job*, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

Quote:


> So you say I should have stayed where my health, safety, and the health of my unborn child and my family until I found other work?


I DID not say this poster should have done X,Y & Z - it was a general comment on quitting a job under those cirumstances

In general (for all), it is prudent to have a plan (as the other post also said) that doesn't mean you go to assistance when you quit a job.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I am totally unaware that today's situation is more insurmountable!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so we just keep throwing money at it or starve it off?
> 
> Since I am accused of being for all for starvation of children and this was also eluded to, does this mean that there should be a ramped up sterilization or a mass push for adoption? I realize this is a personal prospective but what conclusion is to be drawn from mentioning this?


serenbat...i feel like im wasting my time on this thread. i dont think you even want to gain understanding about other people's experiences. but sigh...i'll try.

"throw money at it" and "starve it off" (whatever that means) are not the only two options. Actually states try really hard to both provide assistance to needy families AND help families move off of assistance. To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.

I'm sorry that you failed to understand the point about my daughter. I thought it was pretty obvious but maybe not. You keep going on and on and ON about "generations of those who wont work...its a lifestyle choice!" and my point about my daughter is that sometimes its not so much a choice that keeps you in that cycle but actual real disabilities or challenges that might not be so obvious. Because she is no longer living in a dysfunctional family that has these deficits present, and is instead living with me she has a chance to actually get help for some of her issues and perhaps will learn the tools necessary to live with, if not overcome, those challenges. I am going to focus on real-life skills training and job training for her because i want her to be able to live independently as an adult. The solution isnt "ramped up sterilization or mass push for adoption" (wtf??







) but #1) recognizing that there are "invisible" issues that may greatly contribute to an individual's inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (that is, they may not just be "lazy" or "lack motivation" or "not want to work") and #2) finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.

I'm really not sure what else i can say. I guess i'm just one of those people that does not see the world in black and white but rather many many shades of gray and i've always seemed to understand that one's personal experiences inform ones opinions and choices in life...and i try to see that just because something is true for me, it doesnt mean its true for someone else. Just cuz someone else's grandma worked ten jobs while raising 20 kids walking uphill five miles each way to milk the cow or whatever....doesnt mean everyone else will thrive with those conditions. Just sayin'.


----------



## 95191

So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> if you choose to *quit a job*, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)
> 
> I DID not say this poster should have done X,Y & Z - it was a general comment on quitting a job under those cirumstances
> 
> In general (for all), it is prudent to have a plan (as the other post also said) that doesn't mean you go to assistance when you quit a job.


Under which circumstances? Because the circumstances I was under. Please clarify, I may have been wrong.

And like I already said, it wasn't automatically "Okay, I quit, now we can/should go to assistance." It was, "Okay, I've quit my job. I'm trying to find another job. But now what? Two months after I stopped working, we've gone through the savings we had *for when there was an emergency.* Okay, we'll be okay. *I'm still looking for work, but not finding*. Now, we have not enough food, and our kids are going hungry. Well, let's cut what we (adults) eat. Let's plan better. But still... they're hungry. *Still looking for work.* Damn it, we can't keep above water. I guess we'll have to suck it up, and *until I can find any kind of work,* we'll see what, if any, help we can get, so our kids can have 3 meals a day." So it wasn't the "plan" to go to food stamps. It was a last ditch, our kids are going to end up going hungry if something doesn't change. Judge me if you want. I'm doing the best I can. I know there's people out there that work the system (Living in low-income housing, didn't have a job, dealing drugs and stealing from anyone and everyone they could, including us when we allowed them to work with us to make some extra money [before we knew what they were up to], and giving them 50% of our income, because we knew they lived in low-income housing and thought they honestly needed help.), and I know there are people (not saying anyone here on MDC), that lie to get help. But I'm not one of them. We are in a *temporary* situation where we need a little help. I don't plan on being on food stamps or getting help forever. I would love to be completely self-sufficient, all the time. But shit happens. Things go wrong. People need help sometimes, to get back to routine (There's a different word I want to use, because "routine" isn't quite what I was looking for, but I can't think of it right now.) But (if I'm understanding what you're saying, and please, correct me if I'm wrong.), that is what welfare is for. To help *temporarily*. And that is how I have, am, and will use it, if I need to.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?


what are you talking about???


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so.


So, let me get this straight, again. I already noticed that you said this.

You quit a job without another job to go to because YOU were being harassed. Then YOU collected unemployment, because of your fabulousness in figuring out a way to pursue redress.

Leaving aside the number of times in this thread that you, personally, have seemed to be criticizing others for taking unemployment--again, not totally sure that you're saying what you mean all the time because of the way you write--

How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?

Is it different because you know that you were really being harassed, but you assume that anyone who wound up having to go on welfare was just being lazy?


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bmcneal*
> I'm so scared of being targeted that every night when DF goes to work, I have panic attack and am scared to even go to the restroom for fear that he is out there, watching, waiting, for to find any way to hurt us more.


I know this is off topic.

What are the statutes about stalking in your state? Can you get a restraining order on this person? You don't work with him anymore, you have no personal relationship, there's no conceivable reason why he should ever visit your house. I'm so sorry you're living with this kind of thing.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.


Quote:


> Actually states try really hard to both provide assistance to needy families AND help families move off of assistance. To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.


We have been doing this as a nation - job training program go back to the 1960's, GED programs go back to the 40's, this form of funding has been the approach for multiple generations, that is what is meant by keep throwing money at a issue/problem.

Quote:


> My daughter (who is adopted) has issues that i think will keep her from really being truly independent (in terms of being able to manage life...manage time, money, steer clear of bad influences etc) and yet to look at her she looks totally normal. But i can only imagine her showing up to her first job interview and filling out the app in some kid-like scrawl, everything misspelled, or giving someone odd answers to questions and being passed over even if she was capable of doing the actual work. Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle.


This sounds like *adoption* as a way out of the problem situation, where am I wrong here in what I am reading?

So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?

what I don't get is adoption in your case did this and that is OK because it's not being done in other communities??

Quote:


> *recognizing that there are "invisible" issues* that may greatly contribute to an individual's inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (that is, they may not just be "lazy" or "lack motivation" or "not want to work") and #2) *finding a way to identify these kids early on* so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.


again, we are doing this already -children receiving medical assistance, WIC,etc are already being seeing by professionals from birth or a very early age,* IEP can be done within the community* (as was pointed out when it was mentioned about the autism comment) without removing the child for adoption, and frankly even via adoption you can still end up in a bad school

Quote:


> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. *We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law.* There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


Are you only saying adopt these children out to better off parents in better school districts? this is how it is coming off - your child was removed for a better life so that seems like this is an option?

Quote:



> Under which circumstances?


under all circumstance should there be a plan that does not include going from quitting *a job* to assistance (this is a general comment) as I said prior a plan (in ANY case of harassment or similar - you have "a plan" - and I put more at the bottom here- you plan what to do)

Unemployment insurance is insurance in a very real sense, each state being unique, but you have to meet a criteria that always includes working prior and the reason for your leaving has to be legal.

If you quit a job and do not take another, go to a class, enter the army, leave to have a baby, etc - you have a gap- employers want to know why.

Your chances of getting a job greatly increase if you do not have gaps or a way of explaining for the gaps.

It is also not advisable to fabricate your reason(s) for leaving if that does not match with what they are going to say when a potential employer calls for a reference.

Your chances of getting a job are usually far better if you have a job- any job and take another, even if you don't plan on staying long at it.

Quote:


> How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?


I left and got lawful unemployment (you do know you pay into so that you can collect it back?) and took classes. I also made sure I secured a letter of reference for my resume as part of my settlement. I did not leave without a plan and I did not leave a gap to call into question. I did not go from a job to assistance because of my choice.

OT-I will say that unless your state has some really odd laws, you are required to file while still on the job over harassment with your employer (and some states if you don't dot your "i" right they throw it all out) or have proof via a police report, you will have little to no chance of pursuing it once you have left the job. It is not like the LL fair pay act. Without legal proof it's after the fact hearsay and it can cost you should the turn the table and sue you for deformation. (this is a general comment)

when you know you need to leave a job you should make a plan - if that means you have to contact who ever or do what ever prior you should do so, that's prudent - you plan what your next step is (to avoid a gap) you make a plan, I do not know that it is ever advised that one goes from quitting to public assistance as a plan-I have never heard of any career adviser that would say it


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Are you only saying adopt these children out to better off parents in better school districts? this is how it is coming off - your child was removed for a better life so that seems like this is an option?


This is insane. I'm not even sure how you are getting this. I am not sure why i bother but let me try to go slower and spell it out.

You have stated (i think it was you...this thread is really long) that the only legitimate reason someone should be getting welfare is if they are elderly, disabled, taking care of a disabled child. I was trying to show you that people can have REAL "legitimate" challenges in life without being obviously disabled. I used, as an example, my daughter. My daughter happens to have been adopted (at age 8) from foster care. My daughter has real challenges that will likely impact her ability to hold down a full time job, pay rent, keep it together in life as an adult. (Hopefully she WILL be able to do these things...but it will be more difficult for her than the average person i think.) But to look at her, you wouldnt think "disabled child"...not at ALL. And even though she does receive special ed services at school, even her teachers dont see what i see on a daily basis. I tried to explain to you how someone might have trouble holding down a job, even filling out an application, navigating getting TO a job, etc etc...without just being "lazy" "lacking motivation" etc...certainly this doesnt account for EVERYONE on long term welfare but i bet its a significant number.

My daughter likely will be able to stay out of the "welfare system" because she has a healthy family to fall back on....had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have us as a safety net. The safety net would be govt programs. I DID NOT TELL YOU THIS SO THAT YOU COULD EXTRAPOLATE THAT CHILDREN SHOULD THEN BE GIVEN TO OTHER PEOPLE TO AVOID THE GOVT SAFETY NET. Sheesh! i told you this so that you could perhaps have UNDERSTANDING and EMPATHY for why someone might NEED THE SAFETY NET for reasons other than being lazy, selfish, entitled, etc. I pointed out my daughter's access to IEP services, a good school district, a healthy functional parent etc not to say "LETS MOVE ALL THE POOR CHILDREN TO MY HOUSE!!!" but rather to point out that even WITH all of these positive things...my daughter likely will STILL have many struggles in life so i can only IMAGINE how hard the struggle is for a child growing up in more dire circumstances.

Within some families caught up in "generational welfare" there really may be more going on than just "learned helplessness" or lack of motivation to work or entitlement.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> If you quit a job and do not take another, go to a class, enter the army, leave to have a baby, etc - you have a gap- employers want to know why.
> 
> Your chances of getting a job greatly increase if you do not have gaps or a way of explaining for the gaps.
> 
> I am pregnant, and *will* have a baby, which is (second to the harassment) another reason I left. I could *not* have stayed at that job any longer than I did without serious risks to myself and my baby. So when they ask, that's what I'll tell them, because that is the truth. And honestly, I have *never* had a problem with saying "I was a stay at home mom, I took care of my kids." Because I guess what they say is true, "Honesty is the best policy." I have stayed at home more than I have worked since I became an adult, and have never had an issue with the gaps in my history, and those were for longer periods of time than this will be.
> 
> I have not, am not, and will not fabricate why I have gaps. I also am fairly confident that when I return to work, I will have no more issues with finding a job than I did previously. I have high recommendations from *all* of the employers I have had in the past, to the point of some prospective employers making a point to say they have not (often, if ever) had such recommendations from previous employers. So while I may end up in a lower-paying job than most with more physically demanding expectations, I'm confident I will have little to no issue getting a job, when the time comes. (In fact, I much prefer the manual labor/physical demands of warehouse/factory work to some of the higher education requiring jobs. I know I'm working for my money, and I will *not* be getting assistance once I start working. I will be "pulling my weight" so to speak.
> 
> OT-I will say that unless your state has some really odd laws, you are required to file while still on the job over harassment with your employer (and some states if you don't dot your "i" right they throw it all out) or have proof via a police report, you will have little to no chance of pursuing it once you have left the job. It is not like the LL fair pay act. Without legal proof it's after the fact hearsay and it can cost you should the turn the table and sue you for deformation. (this is a general comment)
> 
> when you know you need to leave a job you should make a plan - if that means you have to contact who ever or do what ever prior you should do so, that's prudent - you plan what your next step is (to avoid a gap) you make a plan, I do not know that it is ever advised that one goes from quitting to public assistance as a plan-I have never heard of any career adviser that would say it.
> 
> According to the EEOC, the time limit is 180 or 300 days from the time of the incident of harassment, so I am still *well* within that window. Again, the plan was never to quit my job and get on assistance, in fact, quite the contrary, as I stated in my previous post. I agree, there probably isn't a career advisor that would say that, but... that's moot, IMO, because *again* that was not the plan. The plan, in fact, was to *continue* with my job until the time came for me to have my baby. It became impossible for me to continue with the *plan* when I realized that there would be/were severe negative consequences with my continuing with said *plan*, like losing my child, or becoming incapacitated myself. Sometimes, the best laid *plans* can still come apart. Just because you can't follow through with a plan doesn't mean you didn't have one, and if you can't follow the plan, it doesn't negate the fact that you made one. When I learned I needed to leave the job was the day they told me I would "get over it." That doesn't leave much time to change plans.


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


Actually the mama with the autistic child is me. I do not only homeschool because he is autistic, but it is one of our more important reasons. I am not satisfied with the school's programing that did not meet his needs, he was complaining of bullying and they said nothing was happening, etc. HOWEVER!!! I have said repeatedly that I receive NO assistance. I am just working poor. As in mega-overtime working poor. I have worked while homeschooling for years. I run a small business with my husband and although I have multiple income streams I also have multiple financial commitments in my business that keep my income below poverty level.

I am almost shocked to be judged for homeschooling, told that it's those special educators' job, etc. So even the working poor shouldn't have a choice to homeschool? My choice to homeschool is none of your business, and even if you thought it would be if I received assistance--I don't.

I was criticized repeatedly ONLY because I do not have insurance. (I have actually qualified for some food stamp assistance at least for most of the past ten years and have not sought any during any of that time. If my kids were in school they would get free lunch. We qualify for some state medical assistance but instead of applying we have paid out of pocket.) During that time I have also rescued a local business with free sweat and careful strategy--one that happens to be very important to our community.

I was really surprised that I was criticized here. No one who knows me in real life would think I was "dependent" or anything like that, I have others who depend on me including a retirement income I pay via the business, and for now we just keep scraping by. I know a lot of people who have been there by my side through the years witnessing our work and appreciating it first hand. Judgment on the internet is a strange creature, and fortunately it isn't all that hurtful to me personally.

Sadly, for many mamas here who might be reading and not even commenting, these criticisms could be quite hurtful. Even though I chose to forgo food stamps, I don't resent someone else making a different choice. I choose to work really long hours (flexible, but long), homeschool, and barely survive but I made those choices and have to live with them. I try not to resent those who make a decent income and have a real weekend as well. But if those folks with their different lives, their reliable cars and their weekends, are now pointing their fingers at me, it's not fair at all.


----------



## crunchy_mommy

As much as the judgmental comments may be hurtful, just try to remember that it are really only one or two people judging here. Most of the other posters have been nothing but understanding & compassionate and are completely baffled by the negative comments.







to you & bmcneal.


----------



## 95191

> had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have us as a safety net


I don't understand this rational - you say she is better off with you, she would not have a "safety net" (yet it's repeated over and over here that welfare is suppose to be a "safety net") and this whole thread is about welfare mothers staying with their children, and your is better off removed? That is the complete opposite.









Quote:


> I have not, am not, and will not fabricate why I have gaps.


again, It is always advisable to have the reason you left match what was told to the previous employer- if you left due to being pregnant but put down a different reason on a resume that can be problematic, even if you left because of pregnancy and do not state why you were not offered another job or the reason you do not plan to go back after the baby - prospective employers will question this



Quote:


> According to the EEOC, the time limit is 180 or 300 days from the time of the incident of harassment, so I am still *well* within that window.


this really is OT- please contact a lawyer (most will do consultation for free) most states require dual filing to protect your rights- that is a much different time frame, unless you have contacted a lawyer just looking at the EEOC web site is not enough accurate information for your area-state laws can be very specific


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> again, It is always advisable to have the reason you left match what was told to the previous employer- if you left due to being pregnant but put down a different reason on a resume that can be problematic, even if you left because of pregnancy and do not state why you were not offered another job or the reason you do not plan to go back after the baby - prospective employers will question this.
> 
> What I put in my resignation will not contradict what I have, am, and will put on applications and in my resume. I have done this before.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*
> 
> Actually the mama with the autistic child is me. I do not only homeschool because he is autistic, but it is one of our more important reasons. I am not satisfied with the school's programing that did not meet his needs, he was complaining of bullying and they said nothing was happening, etc. HOWEVER!!! I have said repeatedly that I receive NO assistance. I am just working poor. As in mega-overtime working poor. I have worked while homeschooling for years. I run a small business with my husband and although I have multiple income streams I also have multiple financial commitments in my business that keep my income below poverty level.
> 
> I am almost shocked to be judged for homeschooling, told that it's those special educators' job, etc. So even the working poor shouldn't have a choice to homeschool? My choice to homeschool is none of your business, and even if you thought it would be if I received assistance--I don't.
> 
> I was criticized repeatedly ONLY because I do not have insurance. (I have actually qualified for some food stamp assistance at least for most of the past ten years and have not sought any during any of that time. If my kids were in school they would get free lunch. We qualify for some state medical assistance but instead of applying we have paid out of pocket.) During that time I have also rescued a local business with free sweat and careful strategy--one that happens to be very important to our community.
> 
> I was really surprised that I was criticized here. No one who knows me in real life would think I was "dependent" or anything like that, I have others who depend on me including a retirement income I pay via the business, and for now we just keep scraping by. I know a lot of people who have been there by my side through the years witnessing our work and appreciating it first hand. Judgment on the internet is a strange creature, and fortunately it isn't all that hurtful to me personally.
> 
> Sadly, for many mamas here who might be reading and not even commenting, these criticisms could be quite hurtful. Even though I chose to forgo food stamps, I don't resent someone else making a different choice. I choose to work really long hours (flexible, but long), homeschool, and barely survive but I made those choices and have to live with them. I try not to resent those who make a decent income and have a real weekend as well. But if those folks with their different lives, their reliable cars and their weekends, are now pointing their fingers at me, it's not fair at all.










I apologize, and was in no way trying to criticize you or belittle home schooling. This is a super-long thread I was responding to this from page 34:

Originally Posted by *captain optimism* 

Really? I haven't seen that here at all. One woman said she wasn't insured because she has a child on the autism spectrum who wasn't getting adequate education in the public school. ...

It struck me that we have laws to protect the parents of children with disabilities from having to quit their jobs to educate their children--or worse, having to watch their children go uneducated--but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money.

--------

I *think* your story was being used as an example of how hard it is for poor people to access the same rights as people with more money?

I would just like to formally dispute the idea that you would have to have tons of cash to force a school to provide an appropriate education plan. Federal laws exist, and all our kids have the right to be education in a "fair and appropriate manner". We should no longer have to sue any schools, this has been done years ago, by other parents.

You have the right to educate your own child. I am not judging you. I am also not assuming that if you are poor you are unable to understand how laws work, or work within said laws to get your needs met.

Going without insurance is no happy lark (as I am sure you know), I can't imagine the stress when you have children or how you would get a surgery scheduled should you need one. It's not fair or fun, but it's also a little off topic--I am sorry you got drug into this again!


----------



## Polliwog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this rational - you say she is better off with you, she would not have a "safety net" (yet it's repeated over and over here that welfare is suppose to be a "safety net") and this whole thread is about
> welfare mothers staying with their children,
> and your is better off removed? That is the complete opposite.


Welfare is "A" safety net not the only safety net. MY daughter's birthmother didn't lose custody of DD because she was poor. She's significantly mentally ill, developmentally delayed AND an alcoholic. She had all kinds of support to prevent disruption and later termination. It wasn't enough. DD wasn't safe enough even at a minimal standard. My DS's life path (my son's too,) will be different than her birth mother's because she will grow up in a stable home where she is safe and her needs are met. She still has the same genetics, but her opportunities will be completely different. My son's birth mother has overcome a lot of her challenges, and is parenting her youngest, but there's minimal chance that DD's birthmother will be able to survive without assistance. But, money was not the reason that any of my foster kids went into care.

I've worked with low-income families for years (in Head Start, supporting child care programs that provide subsidized child care, and teaching at an inner-city school in Philadelphia. Over time, I've come to understand generational poverty. Yes, there are people who are deliberately trying to work the system. But, many more are just trying to survive and do right for their children.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> Okay, so I've read the whole thread--wowsers that took a few days!
> 
> I stated above my views on how assistance should work, so I won't again.
> 
> I just wanted to ask: What do you all think about this issue of an "entitlement mentality", and is this maybe truly the heart of the debate?
> 
> I am reading anything from "you should never take/need any help if you planned or carried through with a pregnancy" to "you should take all you can get, as you've paid your share and deserve it". It seems we are very divided at the extremes, and yet we all basically agree that kids should be fed!
> 
> As an American who has lived in Japan for seven years, and now in Germany for two years I feel a bit divorced from my home culture. We have one car, and DH bikes to work when there's no snow but I still almost never drive as we just walk or bike everywhere. And before you assume I am talking about a 5-10 minute walk in a magically planned out town, I will say that I haul three kids in a trailer and baby-seat and the eldest bikes alongside for 45 minute errands at least once/week. Most of our walks are 15-20 minutes and for the last two months we have been doing so in a foot of snow, and wind and rain sometimes. It would be much easier to drive, but it's great exercise and I don't believe in driving when you can walk. Even with public transportation, and fantastically laid out villages people do still need to venture a bit outside their wee little towns for shopping on occasion. So this idea of "food desserts" strikes me as a bit like the idea of welfare queens driving caddy's. I am sure it does happen, but it's not the norm for our country at large.
> 
> I am not a super fit woman, and yet biking with kids is still very doable. (My bike and baby-seat came from Goodwill, and I pieced the trailer together from some that were being trashed--so I spent $50 on my vehicle of choice). Before I had my bike the bigger kids walked and we had a stroller for the baby and groceries--I do remember crying on the way home sometimes, but that just made be shop more often and for less. I biked to town three years ago when on an extended trip to the states and almost everyone thought I was insane! I made hour-long weekly trips to town for about six weeks and had four hecklers, and at least a dozen people pull over to express awe at the idea of biking into town, it was very surreal. In Germany I have seen a woman who has to weigh around 400 lbs biking in the town over to get groceries, and the frailest looking old woman in my village walks everyday to do errands--I truly do think Americans have a skewed picture of what is "possible" to do.
> 
> Two generations ago, my maternal Grandma raised six kids and ran a business after her husband died with no insurance. She worked at least 60 hours a week for many years, and actually did at least the same before he died. She batched-cooked on the weekends and had the oldest look after the younger ones, they all turned out great and love each other and our proud of their parents. It was what you did back then, and I am very proud of them all. Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?
> 
> I guess I am just sad at what we are accepting as reality for people. Almost all people, save the severely handicapped or mentally ill, can do so many different things that would bring them self-confidence and self-sufficiency. Even if it's just working very hard at two menial jobs to provide for your family, there is a lot of pride in that if we give value to it. I personally find it very offensive to assume that the vast majority of people on aid just can't do any better--I think they can, but haven't been given the tools, or incentive, or even just moral imperative to do so.
> 
> I also would say, that unless we at MDC are just an over-paid section of society--it can't be true that most people who have posted on this thread have paid "their fair share" and should feel like they are drawing down from what they paid into assistance funds. TANF is not the same as unemployment insurance, unless you actually pay federal taxes you are not funding TANF. Look at our federal tax structure, also we don't spend 2/3 of the federal budget on defense as I saw go unchallenged many pages ago. My family makes over the median level and with four kids we get back all federal taxes plus $800 extra. Cha-ching, that's a form of income redistribution folks.
> 
> Our family doesn't pay federal taxes, much like 50% of the US population. It is federal taxes that make up almost all of these programs, so it truly doesn't matter if you paid sales taxes, or real estate taxes, or new car taxes, or boat docking taxes, or whatever else we get taxed for these days in the US--all that money is earmarked for other things and has nothing to do with TANF or WIC or food stamps.
> 
> Please take the time to digest the difference between a $20,000 tax write off and a $2,000 cash benefit....I will wait
> 
> One consists of money you worked for being exempted from taxation
> by law
> , and one is money
> other people earned
> being given to you--much like my family's $800 tax refund this year. The government isn't actually "giving" that horrid rich person $20,000, they are just letting them declare less taxable income and are therefore letting them keep more of the cash they worked hard to earn, because we as a society value fueling the real estate business. That's an entirely different debate, but letting people write things off their income does not in any way equate to whole-sale charity and I am sorry that some still insist on thinking so.
> 
> One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring. Minimum wage is a small amount for a very good reason. Please research it, on the surface it can seem so unfair, but the reality of paying an inflated wage for a job that could be effectively done by a part time 16 year-old cheaply, at a level needed to sustain a 2 person household, with 2.25 kids is staggering and a very serious job killer. We would have a few happy people, and even more pissed off un-employed folks. There would be no sixteen-year-olds slinging burgers to pay for their first cars ;-) No one is actually meant to live on minimum wage their entire lives, it should be a resume builder and a way to earn cash when you are young, or if you really only want to work part time. I find it incredibly demeaning to suggest that entry level work is all the "poor" should ever aspire to. If we keep pushing for this, we will end up with more people out of work with less chances to climb out of poverty and learn valuable skills.


I'm probably repeating something already said, but the minimum wage has not increased in conjunction with the increase in the cost of living. Thus, it has lost much meaning. I suggest you research why there even *is* a minimum wage. In other words, find out the reason it is started.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> Wow. I've lived the life of a parent working a ton, actually 14 hours/day 6-7 days a week. I would in no way say that I ever thought that I didn't matter. My Momma taught me to be proud of my Daddy who worked had to work so very hard, because he chose manual labor rather than a college education and regular job.
> 
> It may be a matter of perspective, but none of us ever felt sorry for ourselves or not valued. And he did indeed raise me, even if it was only for a few hours each day.


It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?

The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.

I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!


----------



## pek64

It's not fair to compare two generations ago to now, because laws are different. Back then, an eight year old may have been left responsible for younger siblings unsupervised. Is that legal, now? I don't think so.

Then, there wasn't much in the way of insurance. Now, having an uninsured vehicle is illegal. Then, one could provide food without a license. Not so, now.

All the added laws makes it more difficult to start a business, nowadays.

Not everyone on welfare lacks motivation. And some are lacking motivation to change. There are no clear cut answers. Hence, frustration.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sarafi*
> 
> If I recall correctly, this didn't seem like a huge mega corp she was dealing with, hence the very poor HR response to a potentially violent problem this Mama got. In almost all cases with small employers the "squeaky wheel" will prevail, which is why someone was allowed to bully, and why I think if the Mama had been healthy enough to deal with it, even just the threat of a lawsuit would have fixed things for her--as she was legally in the right.
> 
> Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.
> 
> The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.


What do recommend when a special educator is assigned that is causing more problems, instead of helping. Sometimes taking the child out of school is what is best for the child. Would I go on welfare to do that? Maybe. If I truly believed it was best for the child. Other times, school and the parent working is best. There is no one answer to issues.


----------



## pek64

To comment about lawyers, there are not lawyers willing to work on contingency, in many cases. And $150 for a lawyers nowadays is cheap! I just recently needed to hire a lawyer who sent a few emails and made a few phone calls, and now I'm in debt! Don't compare even twenty years ago to now!! And legal aid is next to impossible to get!! I tried for four months! While trying to represent myself. It was a nightmare! I wouldn't want to endure that when pregnant!


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?
> 
> The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.
> 
> I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!


I'm not sure what is worse, parents working those long hours in order to buy fancy vacations and cars and STUFF, or the parents who have no choice but to work those long hours just in order to make ends meet. We have children from both types of family in our before and after-school childcare programs.


----------



## pek64

Initially, I was arguing that it is understandable that someone seeing others abuse the welfare system would feel frustrated. But implying that there are no obstacles to improving one's situation is flawed reasoning. And to say that there is no difference between past times and current is equally flawed. In the past, family members helped each other, as did neighbors. Yet when I asked my mother for help, having helped my sisters when they needed help and my parents couldn't give that help, I was told people don't do that anymore and to figure it out for myself. Times and attitudes change.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> To comment about lawyers, there are not lawyers willing to work on contingency, in many cases.


thhis would be regional - my state, it would be rare to be charged for a consultation - with a harassment (what ever the nature) case you usually have to go farther away to obtain one that would not have a conflict, again, if you did not report it, or file with the police (if that is really what is called for) you are going to have difficulties

Quote:


> It's not fair to compare two generations ago to now, because laws are different.


all types of laws have changed but the programs related to welfare have basically not differed in application between two generations, many principles have remained the same, many exist as original


----------



## mammal_mama

I agree with those who say that we can't always extrapolate from what was common in the past and apply it to today. For example, if I decided it was okay to raise my kids with just one outfit for everyday wear, and one outfit for Sundays, and send them to school barefoot or stuff cardboard in old shoes to cover the holes when we couldn't afford new shoes, just because that's how many of our ancestors managed, I think CPS would beg to differ. For one thing, it's a lot easier now to get clothes at low prices, and even for free, than it was in the past..

Also, life in the past was simply more labor intensive and working 14 or more hours per day used to be the norm for many Americans. Now this is no longer the norm. With this in mind, I'd like to look at one comment that's been made on this thread from the reverse angle. One argument against welfare is that nobody's children are any more or less worthy of parental time and attention than anybody else's. If this is true, then if some economically privileged couples can easily afford to have one parent at home with the children, why would we say that the children of poor parents are any less worthy?


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> I'm probably repeating something already said, but the minimum wage has not increased in conjunction with the increase in the cost of living. Thus, it has lost much meaning. I suggest you research why there even *is* a minimum wage. In other words, find out the reason it is started.


If I recall correctly, the minimum wage was championed as a Progressive measure, meant to raise the wages of "deserving" workers. It was intended to raise wages so much that people simply would not hire children, childbearing woman, or any other less desirable worker if they had to pay the same wages to these types as they would have paid a healthy white male.

FDR did use it politically as a platform, because women could vote and all. Interestingly all the original court challenges to the law had to do with paying woman the same as men, it seems that wasn't the popular part of the bill--and those pesky ladies kept trying to work.

When I studied this we had to use only original documents. All of this information is on the net--or you could use a library and get the source documents yourself. Here is a pretty thorough paper in the Princeton archives if you care to read it.

I doubt that was what you were trying to say when you brought this up--and I don't think today's proponents of a "living wage" are trying to practice eugenics in case that needed to be said.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> If this is true, then if some economically privileged couples can easily afford to have one parent at home with the children, why would we say that the children of poor parents are any less worthy?


because there are not just two types of people - there are those who a still in the middle!

What happens to those children?

It's not equal or fair as I have said- right now we have one group that can easily afford it, one that (what ever way you want to view it) does it and a whole other group not. And somehow making it work (and yes abusing it) is going to somehow make it right for all?


----------



## captain optimism

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> all types of laws have changed but the programs related to welfare have basically not differed in application between two generations, many principles have remained the same, many exist as original


The welfare reform law happened in 1996. That is 17 years ago. Usually a generation is 20 years. The changes to the law in 1996 changed the name of the program, imposed a limit on the number of years any individual could be on it during her lifetime, and imposed work requirements. It also turned the program into federal block grants to the states. AFDC, the previous program, was administered by the federal government, and TANF, the program after 1996, had to be administered by the states.

It is manifestly and ridiculously incorrect, wrong, and untrue to assert that the programs related to welfare have not differed between two generations. The principles are not the same, the administration is not the same, the rules are not the same.

We have experienced a change in policy in our lifetimes. If you read a newspaper, or the website of a newspaper, or Wikipedia, or the websites of the federal government, or what--THIS THREAD--you would know that.

If you are trying once again to assert that other social welfare programs are the same as welfare, that is misleading. It's also untrue that those programs have remained unchanged. We are embarking on the beginning of healthcare reform, and that is going to mark a very big change in how we administer a major social benefit program.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> It is manifestly and ridiculously incorrect, wrong, and untrue to assert that the programs related to welfare have not differed between two generations. The principles are not the same, the administration is not the same, the rules are not the same.


we are still doing the same

the basic principles are still there - we are giving medical, food assistance, job training, housing, addictions support and the like and we have even increase programs in the private sector too and somehow in 3 years unicorns and pixie dust makes it work?

this is like pretending that abuse and generational welfare isn't happening

healthcare will impact the uninsured the most - many are not getting any assistance right now - you can make 60 thousand and not be able to have health insurance due to a preexisting condition and not get a dime in any aid


----------



## captain optimism

I got way too close to an ad hominem attack with spelling flames in that response, so I'm deleting it. I'm done.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Initially, I was arguing that it is understandable that someone seeing others abuse the welfare system would feel frustrated. But implying that there are no obstacles to improving one's situation is flawed reasoning. And to say that there is no difference between past times and current is equally flawed. In the past, family members helped each other, as did neighbors. Yet when I asked my mother for help, having helped my sisters when they needed help and my parents couldn't give that help, I was told people don't do that anymore and to figure it out for myself. Times and attitudes change.


I am sorry your family would not help you, it sounds like a pattern for them and it sucks that they would not help you when you needed it.







There's no worse feeling, IMO when those who are supposed to love you can't be put out to help you when you need it. My in-laws are not super helpful--and yet tend to take a lot from us-, maybe it's just that generation? And maybe you and I will be better for it, as we will know how hard it is to need family support and be denied just out of hand.

My family has been helped so much by strangers, acquaintances and friends and we try our very best to pay-it-forward. Three other neighbors offered their services as translators to help me adjust with the kids in German schools this year. Just the other day a woman a few streets down came out to ask if all the kids where really mine, and ran inside to grab homemade jam and bless us with it. We just gave all our air-miles to my brother-in-law b/c his mom is dying and he was stressed about how many times he could afford to go see her. I recently spent weeks baby-sitting an adorable, but very, very busy toddler b/c my neighbor went into labour early while her husband was deployed. Five years ago, I babysat two days a week for almost three years so a single mom could study and build a better life--while I was paying to send my two to private school. Other people have done similar things for me as well. Helping people out makes us better people, IMO and teaches us a lot about ourselves.

I am not actually a heartless or greedy person, I just don't think the way we *kinda* support people on assistance is good for them or anyone else. People do get upset when they can't access the same benefits, and yet work tons of hours and perhaps have a less fulfilling home life than what they suppose the people who get aid are getting. I fail to see how it's out of bounds to express that opinion, but that's not actually my problem with the way we run aid in the US.

Have you noticed the stress people are expressing, having to worry about if their funding gets cut or if they start to make a bit more and actual get to take home less due to restrictions? I would argue that they way we do assistance is not kind, nor is it really effective for the majority of people who need it. For the people who need it a few months to jump-start something a safety net is a wonderful thing--which we should have. For the people who are looking at needing help for a number of years, we are doing them a disservice by making them rely on aid that may change, or may not always exist. Quite frankly, if my husband died I would be able to adjust and support the kids, with our insurance. If he left me with the kids and took all the cash, I would for sure need help having not worked in almost eight years with four young children. We are all susceptible to needing help at one point or another, I am not ignorant of that fact.

Helping people overcome obstacles (which everyone who has every lived has faced in one form or another) is kinder than pretending that these obstacles are so hard that the better choice is to not try. Especially in those cases where we have laws in place to protect people! Everyone should have the knowledge, and maybe even help to overcome any obstacle, if someone deems it too hard after being given help and tools, should we still just say they are doing their best? (Not talking about anyone in particular, this is just a hypothetical) We all have our individual stories, but what would happen if we had counselors who actually worked to get people independent ASAP and empowered people instead of the cookie-cutter-let-this-drag-on-for-years, method we use now?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" All things don't have to be equal to be able to draw lessons from those who were successful in the past. Older generations have a lot of wisdom to impart, and actually lived on our planet as humans so their lives were not in fact completely different.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*


Arggh, I messaged you "good call" for the deleting, not for being done! I think you add so much to this discussion, hate to see you leave


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?
> 
> The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.
> 
> I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!


Sorry for the confusion. Yes my Mom had to work for many years also, just "normal hours". I remember some pretty lonely day cares, but I really never felt like my parents didn't value or love me. I really think kids get what we project, and my parents really were trying to do their best by us and I always understand that.

I have known people who keep their babies (like from the age of three months old) in day care six days a week while working a regular 9-5 job M-F. I also know people work the bare minimum, in order to go home early for family time every single day. Both sets of kids seem equally secure in their parents' love and are wonderful children. The eldest of each set is twelve at this point, so I can't say what they will think later--but they seem like very happy children. I don't think there is a direct correlation between time spent and quality of attention given. And I say this as a SAHM.

I am not here to judge what you need to do to make life work for your family. We are all very different. I don't think we should always default to the idea that kids need a SAHM and a daddy who works a steady 40 hour job, or else they will be ruined. Many families are happy and healthy in many other situations.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I thought this was a very interesting video (it is 4 minutes or so) where two experts from differing backgrounds talked about poverty in America.
> 
> http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/commentary/personal-responsibility-key-ending-poverty


I think this thread has been going in circles for a while.

I posted this a few posts back (like 50). Did anybody watch it?

I am actually more interested in what the man has to say than the woman. I agree with the woman - nothing new to me there.

The man (whom I do necessarily agree with) said some interesting things. He said this:

"&#8230;.three rules must be met to not end up in poverty:


Finish high school.
If you're a woman, don't have a baby if you don't have a husband.
Get into the labor force and stay there.

&#8230;.. "Why is it that middle class and upper middle class kids have much higher rates of getting into the labor market, such lower rates of having babies without husbands? They have been told this is the way you're supposed to live your life" said Murray.

Murray argues that society should do a better job of telling kids from disadvantaged backgrounds that certain decisions have to be made in order to obtain a better life."

He also said that America has a new creed, which is "thou shall not judge." The result is middle and upper middle class people know the above rules, but do not share them as they do not think they have any right to tell other people how to live their lives. Do you think this is true - do you think we avoid giving messages out to society at large that perhaps single motherhood is not a great idea (for example and in terms of poverty) because we fear being judgemental?

To his list of rules for avoiding poverty I will add 2 of my own. They seem a given, but I think many teens and young adults do not know them and they can lead down the poverty path.

a. You will probably not make large amounts of money straight out of high school or university.

b. Do hard things. Doing hard things=empowering.

I think the school system (in addition to parents) does have a fair bit to answer for. I know I was never ever taught by the school system how to avoid poverty, or that income was frequently low once people graduated. No one ever sat me down when I was taking out students loans and explained to me the difficulty of paying back such loans and how long it would take. No one tells young mothers that entering the work world after raising kids is not easy, and that in this world keeping a toe in the work world might be a good idea for when you need to re-enter the work world.

As per doing hard things. I would say the culture I am in actively encourages people to take it easy - and not do hard things. This might be a repercussion of a bunch of adults over working and not taking it easy&#8230;but I some kids are raised to "take it easy". The high school my kids attend has a goal of a 90% graduation rate. Sounds good, right? In order to achieve this goal they stream many kids into the easiest classes they can offer - can't have people failing. The kids that are streamed into classes that are too easy for them do not really learn to work or do hard thing.


----------



## 95191

IMO- in the US (and especially in certain non-cultural groups .... I think crunchy is one of them) we have a difficult understand of the word hard, many take it to mean "pushing"

is see this use reflected in many parenting issues

certain *HARD* decisions have to be made in order to obtain a better life


----------



## kathymuggle

A little OT, but I have always wanted to plug this book.

FYI : It is a Christian read.

The book is called Do Hard Things and it is about teenagers rebelling against low expectations of teenagers and youth.

http://www.amazon.ca/Do-Hard-Things-Rebellion-Expectations/dp/1601421125

(as an aside - I am not saying those on welfare do not work hard. I am sure that is individual. Indeed, I bet it is harder to be at home with 2 small kids on welfare than at home with 2 small kids and a decent income from a spouse, inheritance, etc. I do think there is a fear of hard work, and maybe it is fear of the unknown&#8230;and that might keep some people stuck? It does for me, sometimes. As stated above, I think some schools do not do a good job at setting up environments where kids are challenged to do hard work.


----------



## pek64

So our children *have to* have more than two outfits; they *have to* have shoes with soles and not cardboard; we *have to* have proper licenses and insurance ; we *have to* have proper permits and zoning to raise our own chickens; we *have to* have a car, live in the city where there's no garden possibility, or spend *coutless* hours traveling by bus ; and yet we are somehow supposed to pull ourselves up out of poverty, "just like our ancestors did". I know I'd be imprisoned if I committed all the violations my grandparents did!

And regarding my family, it's more personal, as my parents helped my sisters, and asked me to help them, too, then changed the rules when I needed help.

I am also through with this thread. I have learned one thing I'd like to share, before I go.

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.


----------



## bmcneal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> So our children *have to* have more than two outfits; they *have to* have shoes with soles and not cardboard; we *have to* have proper licenses and insurance ; we *have to* have proper permits and zoning to raise our own chickens; we *have to* have a car, live in the city where there's no garden possibility, or spend *coutless* hours traveling by bus ; and yet we are somehow supposed to pull ourselves up out of poverty, "just like our ancestors did". I know I'd be imprisoned if I committed all the violations my grandparents did!
> 
> And regarding my family, it's more personal, as my parents helped my sisters, and asked me to help them, too, then changed the rules when I needed help.
> 
> *I am also through with this thread. I have learned one thing I'd like to share, before I go.
> 
> Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.*


Pretty sure I'm bowing out too, after this. I agree about that, although in this thread, I was attempting to show that I (think) I'm "using" the system as it was intended to be used, short-term, temporarily. I may be wrong, and I may be abusing the system. If so, that isn't/wasn't my intention at all. I agree with a lot of the people saying that there is abuse of the system, and I do think there should be a way to discourage/end that, but I'm not sure how to go about that. I also think that they (system) should be more helpful in helping getting employment and/or schooling. I know when I was trying to get "help" from them, they literally gave me the web address of a job search website I had already accessed, and had qualified for *very* few of the positions available, as you had to have for most of them, higher education.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to *have a less adversarial conversation*.


I would very much like that. It might have to saved for another thread, as this one has a lot of baggage.

I am fairly firmly in the "government needs to provide basic services so kids do not starve" group as well as "help remove barriers to transitioning back to work" group&#8230;&#8230;however, I do not think this thread has taken a good look at the role personal responsibility plays in getting out of poverty. Personal responsibility is almost treated like a dirty word - and yet I think most of us agree no one gets out of poverty without personal responsibility. How do we as a culture foster it? Will fostering it help lower the welfare and poverty rate?


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> How do we as a culture foster it? Will fostering it help lower the welfare and poverty rate?


you just do it

a good analogy was recently made by some regarding our nations "conversation" on guns - we had a "conversation" about smoking a few years back and how we could not remove it from certain places, business would go out of business, the sky would fall....and now we have smoking out of many places, we also did this with "disabilities " (adding entrances,ramps, it was going to cost too much, etc) we were also able to do that, if we keep saying how hard it is going to be we won't change it-IMO

Quote:


> *Personal responsibility is almost treated like a dirty word* - and yet I think most of us agree no one gets out of poverty without personal responsibility.


you got it!


----------



## glassesgirlnj

_Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation._

Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about. If you do come back to this thread, would you clarify whether that's what you meant?

Also, haven't there been multiple posters on here who were "vocal" about using the system for a short time only? Where would they fit into your observations?


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> _Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation._
> 
> Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, *I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about.* If you do come back to this thread, would you clarify whether that's what you meant?
> 
> Also, *haven't there been multiple posters on here who were "vocal" about using the system for a short time only? Where would they fit into your observations?*


I agree with pek64, but don't think she is saying that poverty is SUPPOSED to be a shameful thing, but that it often feels shameful for those who are in it. I agree that the people who need it and use it without committing fraud tend to be quiet about it IN REAL LIFE, and those who abuse the system and commit fraud tend to be more vocal, because they also tend to have an entitlement complex and are proud of "getting away with it."

My family definitely isn't in poverty, but we do qualify for and accept WIC. Very few of my acquaintances in real life know that we get WIC, or that we live in affordable housing provided by a non-profit community corporation, or that we are living in a one bedroom apartment with a toddler and a baby on the way. We aren't in poverty, and yet many of those things feel shameful to me, because I know how people judge those they see as "poor." I have been more vocal in this thread about our situation because it is really the only place that I can talk about these things, I feel.


----------



## seraf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glassesgirlnj*
> 
> Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about.


Poverty is frequently seen as shameful.

The initial question is laughable from where I stand. I work full time and we would qualify for food stamps if my income doubled. Something like 50% of my county falls below the poverty line.

Someone posted up thread about how her family would continue to qualify for food stamps and also qualify for free childcare if she didn't stay home. My family is in the same boat.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kitteh*
> 
> I agree with pek64, but don't think she is saying that poverty is SUPPOSED to be a shameful thing, but that it often feels shameful for those who are in it. I agree that the people who need it and use it without committing fraud tend to be quiet about it IN REAL LIFE, and those who abuse the system and commit fraud tend to be more vocal, because they also tend to have an entitlement complex and are proud of "getting away with it."


I think the media likes to portray the fraud side of poverty, too. It sells.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand this rational - you say she is better off with you, *she would not have a "safety net" (*yet it's repeated over and over here that welfare is suppose to be a "safety net") and this whole thread is about welfare mothers staying with their children, and your is better off removed? That is the complete opposite.


(bolding mine)

serenbat if you are going to quote people can you make SOME attempt to keep it in context and to do so accurately? Please? I did NOT say my daughter "would not have a safety net" what i said was:

Quote:


> had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have *us* as a safety net


(added the bold so it would be more obvious to you since you didnt see it the first time)

i immediately followed THAT sentence with this one:

Quote:


> The safety net would be *govt programs*.


(again, added the bolding this time around)

I'm really not sure how to make this more clear so you will understand....for many people, esp children, they do NOT have what many others have...the safety net of a functional family therefore they often depend on welfare as the safety net. And i think this is a GOOD THING. Better than having no safety net at all!

My point, unless you missed it the first SEVERAL times i tried to make it...was that i believe that a GOOD USE of govt assistance is so that a mom CAN stay with her children (not be adopted out to better-off families...still not sure how you're making that leap??) instead of being forced by finances to make choices such as adoption. Personally, i think the only reason a mom should feel compelled to place a child for adoption is if she truly does not feel ready to PARENT. But that may be a topic for another thread entirely.

And FYI....my daughter was not removed from her mother for reasons of poverty...it was for neglect. and in inability to parent or benefit from the many many services offered. Children are NOT (or are not *supposed* to be) removed for financial/poverty reasons. That wasnt at all the purpose of my post. Sigh.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *captain optimism*
> 
> So, let me get this straight, again. I already noticed that you said this.
> 
> You quit a job without another job to go to because YOU were being harassed. Then YOU collected unemployment, because of your fabulousness in figuring out a way to pursue redress.
> 
> Leaving aside the number of times in this thread that you, personally, have seemed to be criticizing others for taking unemployment--again, not totally sure that you're saying what you mean all the time because of the way you write--
> 
> How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?
> 
> Is it different because you know that you were really being harassed, but you assume that anyone who wound up having to go on welfare was just being lazy?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pek64*
> 
> Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I think the media likes to portray the fraud side of poverty, too. It sells.


I agree with this and would like to add one more group of people (of which there are a vast number). Those who are convinced that THEY are using the programs as you are supposed to but everyone else is a fraud AND those who don't even recognize "government assistance programs" for what they are (people who say things like, "Keep the government out of my medicare" are firmly in that camp). I have a sibling who is on disability (and should be). His family relies on that income and his oldest daughter is actually using the SSDI payment *she* gets to go to college. But he would *NEVER* identify himself as someone using a government assitance program. This article is an example:

Half of Americans Who Get Government Aid Say They Don't

http://www.care2.com/causes/half-americans-who-get-govt-aid-say-they-dont.html

Many people are obviously living in this ficticious world where *their* government aid is earned and everyone elses is not. Where they're not taking advantage, but those "other" people obviously are.


----------



## 95191

queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you

seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available

not the place here to say if it is correct to remove or not, but there is much to be said for removal of a child from a natural community to a more affluent (better off) one, when all should have access and by law do, to the same educational help that you state you are able to provide, at least some ethnic groups fall under protection where removal is not done

I know many seem to think things are different now with assistance program and how things are run differently, but in my state low income (or what ever term you want to use for this segment of the population) adoption still do occurs (we don't say it has anything to do with poverty) and we also said that years ago too when my friend was adopted out, when she got her records unsealed it was stated as neglect for the reason in her's, she found she had another sister (neglect also) but when she found her bio mother (and two other sister that she kept by the mother) the story was not at all that and given she was given for adoption, other sister as well in the hospitable right after the birth - and I am not saying this in your case -her parents were told very little vs what were on her state records- this took place in the early 70's and all four lived with in 30 miles of each other, it was deemed by the state as "safe" because they were of the same sex

some good things have come in our state, the children adopted out from low income mothers are no longer tracked (a program the state once did to access IQ and emotional development)

it should be noted that if you work and pay your taxes a percentage is taken out for unemployment, your employer also pays into your unemployment, in the way they contribute towards your other benefits, if you ever draw - like once in over 20 years (as in my case) my percentage paid in was not even close to the total I had personally paid into the program over the time frame and the amount received in unemployment was also taxed and than I later went on to continued to pay into the tax- my state also has some reciprocal agreements but that was not a factor for me because I have always worked within my state


----------



## kitteh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you
> 
> *seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available *


I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall.

The system has nothing to do with this particular biological parent's inability to mother her child, nor was her economic status the cause for the adoption of queenjane's daughter. The birth mother was neglectful and also just happened to be poor. It's offensive to imply that all mothers in poverty ought to have their children adopted out into more affluent families. Queenjane most certainly was not making that suggestion, but it sounds like you are!


----------



## kitteh

Also, I thought this was an interesting excerpt from TiredX2's link

&#8230;the point isn't really whether or not these people [who benefit from various government assistance programs or subsidies but don't recognize themselves among those who "rely on the government" for help] are hypocrites or uneducated or ungrateful; more compelling is why they'd see themselves as exceptions. *Shame about government help is ingrained into our culture, and so is the narrative of the "culture of dependence."* It's not only rightwingers and deficit hawks who feel this way. When my contract position ended temporarily, it didn't even occur to me to apply for unemployment to fill the gap until my father suggested it to me. When I waved him off, feeling embarrassed, he balked. "Are you kidding?" he replied. "That's what those deductions on your paychecks were for."

We're on the verge of forgetting (if we haven't already) that our government isn't just taking our tax dollars for "its own" purposes. "Its own" purposes are ours - we just prefer not to remember until we're really in need.


----------



## Drummer's Wife

There is so much reading comprehension fail in this thread, I don't even know why you all are bothering to try to re-explain things. It's giving me a headache just reading it, and I'm not even bashing my head on anything.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you
> 
> seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available


the first sentence doesnt even make sense to me "better because of service she has with you"...but anyway...

the second part....quite the contrary, the system worked EXACTLY how it was supposed to work. She was removed as a baby, mother got parenting classes, baby went back after a very short time. Removed again as a toddler, this time for a couple of years while mother was given extensive services. Went back for less than two years, removed again...this time mother was given extensive services again but it was recognized that despite being given these services mother was not able to benefit from them and thus rights were terminated after a long trial process in which everyone involved went over backwards to make sure all of mom's legal rights were protected. Some people are simply not able to parent a child no matter how many supports they have. I wont go into detail here about WHY this is true in my daughter's specific case but it was not "the system" that failed. In fact it was "the system" that saved my daughter from further trauma (though the damage has been done) and probably saved the life of my son (not to mention my other son, but thats a different case entirely...)


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> the first sentence doesnt even make sense to me "better because of service she has with you"...but anyway...


Quote:


> finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done.*..my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school* and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.


those were your words and that is how it comes off -better as in because she is with me (not where she was)

Quote:


> It's offensive to imply that all mothers in poverty ought to have their children adopted out into more affluent families.


I do too- that's why I said about *removing* children from their community to really nice, suburban well funded schools (that means to me... better life-not what they would have had and I find it offensive to read!) and no one puts down poverty as the reason, that's not done. Adoptions are happening- that is real, not in numbers they once were but still occurring.


----------



## mammal_mama

kathymuggle, I'm not sure who in this thread has given you the impression that they are treating personal responsibility like a dirty word?

As I've pointed out before, most of the people getting some form of public assistance are also working. I, for one, love my work and take a lot of pride in a job well done. I don't feel any aversion to hard work. I'd say most or all of the people on this thread feel the same way.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> kathymuggle, I'm not sure who in this thread has given you the impression that they are treating personal responsibility like a dirty word?


No one.

I am trying to explore the issue from the other side. Sometimes trying to figure out if the other side has any validity and what that is can be useful.

This thread has been dominated by a liberal/socialistPOV (which I have said repeatedly I agree with) , however I don't think this view is reflected in society at large in the USA. I am not submitting this as proof (because goodness knows how many people answered the poll, and they were all self selected) but take a look at this:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-government-end-welfare-in-the-us

The boiled down message I am getting from the other side is "personal responsibility" and I think it is worth exploring so we understand each other better and can move forward. It is about communication. If the words "..personal responsibility are almost treated like a dirty word&#8230;" are a bit inflammatory (and on second read, they are) my apologies. I still think exploring what the other side has to say without getting caught up in anger is useful.


----------



## mamazee

"Personal responsibility" isn't a dirty word (or even words lol), but it seems unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to lift themselves out of poverty with personal responsibility in an economy like ours. There aren't enough jobs for everyone. Some people are going to be out of work, and not for lack of trying. And the jobs we do have largely pay worse than those in the past, and often have fewer hours so people have to try to get two or three to get by - and again there aren't jobs for everyone, let alone two or three for everyone.

So given the reality of the world, it feels dismissive of people's real struggles to say they just need to take "personal responsibility." I think there are tons of people struggling and relying on assistance who would love to take personal responsibility but are unable.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> "Personal responsibility" isn't a dirty word (or even words lol), but it seems unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to lift themselves out of poverty with personal responsibility in an economy like ours.


*yes, you can* use personal responsibility and not tie it into the economy

personal responsibility in self - as in it's not great to not take the responsibility in getting pregnant when you don't have a job because you have not even finished high school, no means of additional support (a spouse/family to watch a child), no housing, not having another child while already receiving assistance - those are factors that personal responsibility can and should be a part of and that is being missed- we are not sending that part of the message


----------



## mamazee

That comes from good and complete sex education, but sadly we don't have that in the schools as much as we did. Also, we need greater access to birth control. I agree completely that we should encourage kids to put off having kids until they're in a better financial situation, but our country seems to be moving in a contrary direction to that.

I'm glad to find someplace we agree though!


----------



## mammal_mama

kathymuggle, thank you for clarifying! I see now that you're just trying to balance things by exploring the conservative point of view more thoroughly.

I do agree that we all need to find that balance in our own lives, between seeing how societal structures need to be improved in order to facilitate everyone's access to all the resources and opportunities that provide for optimal health and wellbeing, and seeing how we can still succeed and create good and happy lives for ourselves and our children right now.

If I just keep focusing on the structural problems and pointing my finger at all those in power who seem (to me to be) intent on blocking our evolution into an economically and environmentally sustainable society, then I run the risk of settling into the role of victim. For example, I previously shared my frustration about living in a city where there's not enough public support for initiatives that could make our city more human-scale and enhance everyone's ability to walk or use bicycles more to get from place to place, and where we still don't have enough public support to enable tons of neighbor-owned stores to pop up all over the place selling *affordably-priced*, locally-grown/produced, organic foods (if big government can subsidize big agriculture, why can't it subsidize the healthier options?)

On the other side, I'd be a fool if I said, "I have no choice but to remain morbidly obese and inactive, because that's how my society is structured right now." It's crucial for me to be creative and find ways to move myself into an increasingly active lifestyle, and into increasingly healthy and environmentally-friendly food choices. These are things I am doing -- but I'll admit I still feel frustrated with people who complain about those like my dh who suffer from lifestyle-induced diseases (he has type 2 diabetes with neuropathy and non-alcoholic cirrhosis) and can't pay for their own health insurance or healthcare, thereby costing the taxpayers a lot of money...

I'm frustrated because many of the complainers just focus on the personal responsibility (and yes, my husband and I both do have the responsibility to develop good habits and make good choices) -- but they seem not to see the basic, common-sense reality that if we want to reduce healthcare costs, we should be smart enough to see what other developed nations with much lower rates of obesity, and the related illnesses, are doing differently.

I also think we'll eventually have the evidence to support my belief (and the belief of many) that a lot of cancers are caused by unsustainable practices such as pesticide use. I actually think there already IS enough evidence to support this, but I wonder if our public policies will ever support this knowledge.

Developing a more environmentally sustainable society could greatly reduce healthcare costs related to BOTH obesity and cancer. And moving in this direction makes a whole lot more sense than scapegoating the many poor people who are sick due to "lifestyle choices" or whatever term people want to use.


----------



## seraf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> *yes, you can* use personal responsibility and _not_ tie it into the economy
> 
> personal responsibility in _self_ - as in it's not great to not take the responsibility in getting pregnant when you don't have a job because you have not even finished high school, no means of additional support (a spouse/family to watch a child), no housing, not having another child while already receiving assistance - those are factors that _personal responsibility_ can and should be a part of and that is being missed- we are not sending that part of the message


Wait, people are all on welfare because they started off with no education, no job, no house, no family? No one is in the system who works 1, 2 or 3 jobs? Had kids when they had plenty of money and the future looked great but something happened along the way?


----------



## philomom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seraf*
> 
> Wait, people are all on welfare because they started off with no education, no job, no house, no family? No one is in the system who works 1, 2 or 3 jobs? Had kids when they had plenty of money and the future looked great but something happened along the way?


I had a friend who was a social worker in south Georgia. I won't name the town, things can get around... but she worked with teens in a housing project and most of the young girls couldn't wait to get pregnant so they could "start getting their checks" like their momma did.







I can't tell you how depressed that makes me feel on so many levels.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> That comes from good and complete sex education, but sadly we don't have that in the schools as much as we did.


not just here - school should play many roles but society has a greater impact!

the part kathy made about judgement is this too (a few have seemed to agree with it)

if we (society) find expectable (by means of non-judgement) we open up all areas - is it expectable to shoot someone you disagree with? should felony convictions prevent you from getting certain jobs? is the alcoholic the best one to be a bus driver?, etc

this nation has not had a serious conversation on family planning (we did try several decades ago) but most JUMP quickly to a discussion on size, not planning!

not what is involved for the good of the child-it been done here and pointed out, it's right for me, now- it's your problem if you have a problem with it attitude

if we support this by means of not judging it becomes OK

we (nation) don't even do -IMO near enough for the drop out rate

Quote:


> but she worked with teens in a housing project and most of the young girls couldn't wait to get pregnant so they could "start getting their checks" like their momma did.


yea and it's not happening any place else


----------



## mamazee

It sounds like you're saying teen mothers need to face more judging from society. What form would this judgment look like? Kids still have to eat whether their parents (it isn't just the moms) made bad choices or not. I'm not sure what effective judgment there would be.

I mentioned schools because I see this as an education issue. Kids aren't learning the benefit of putting off having children. They have to learn it somewhere, and they apparently aren't learning it at home.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> What form would this judgment look like?


like what you see right here- are these all teen moms? I don't think so

society messages are just that - verbal and hey how about a ad campaign thrown in there too? we can't even get sex ed as a national policy for schools let alone talking about planning

and like lots and lots of talk about it all over

I do see People magazine and what a MTV baby show can buy in the way of new boobs & tattoos (and we also have one of those teen mom's right near me)- the family has made the local paper

you are never going to learn it unless it's out there, look what bringing it up here is like -IRL most don't want to hear anything about it- it's not easy--it's judgement, it's you want babies to starve

there are all types of people receiving assistance/welfare (start of the thread), not all are teen moms, some are older and still do not know they should have planned, we can't even do what should be simple - getting the message out prior to having the baby and when you are on your second (or more) and you are still on assistance, how well does it go over?


----------



## mamazee

I agree that those teen mom shows aren't helping anyone. They just make having a baby as a teen look glamorous. They should show women actually giving birth and then working on taking th weight off afterward, staying up all night with screaming babies, and stretchmarks. That would be a more accurate picture of having a baby and wouldn't make it look glamorous and fun.

Really though I truly don't know what society would do to judge. I don't know how to make private companies stop creaeting shows that advertise for kids to have babies. I am not saying you want babies to starve - I just know that having babies go hungry isn't an option. I only want to know what options there are. What can be done differently? What solutions are there? I'm not sure but it sounds like you have ideas. I'm just curious what the ideas are.

I wonder if some people here are agreeing more on the specifics but focusing more on different parts of it - like you're focused on abuse, and we're focused on not punishing the babies who were born into this, but we might actually agree on the overall problem of people having babies before they're prepared. And we might agree about some ways of responding to that - I don't know.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamazee*
> 
> It sounds like you're saying teen mothers need to face more judging from society. What form would this judgment look like? Kids still have to eat whether their parents (it isn't just the moms) made bad choices or not. I'm not sure what effective judgment there would be.


Not serenbat&#8230;but I am going to give my opinion anyways.

I don't think judging individuals gets us very far. For starters, it can come across as mean, we do not know their circumstances, it can be a slipperly slope to policy that does not respect individuals etc. I believe in treating individuals with decency and respect, unless they have done something where they do not deserve it (and that does not include getting pregnant at 17).

We can judge actions without judging the person as a whole. I judge smoking (it is unhealthy, it cost lots of money, it is addictive, parents who smoke are more likely to have kids who smoke). I have friends who smoke. We never discuss it, but if they brought it up (ha!) I would be honest and say that it isn't one of their better choices. I certainly have the right (obligation?) to tell young people that smoking is a poor life choice. I remember times when we were afraid to talk about smoking for fear of making kids of parents who smoke ( and the parents themselves) feel bad. Yet we did talk about it, and in this area at least, smoking is way down from 20-30 years ago.

There are ways to lower your chances of falling into poverty, and one of them is to have some financial security before getting pregnant. We can and should talk about that, and we should be able to do so without worrying that we are offending those who did have a child when they were not financially stable.

WRT to teen and very young adult pregnancy - I do not think it is only lack of sex ed and birth control that is a problem. I remember visiting my cousin when I was 19. A whole lot of her friends (who were 19-22) were pregnant or had babies. I think most of them did it on purpose because they were overwhelmed with thoughts of "what do I do with my life?" Having a baby gets you out of those worries - you now have a purpose, a job, and yes - a check. The transition to adulthood is difficult for some of us.


----------



## seraf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> I had a friend who was a social worker in south Georgia. I won't name the town, things can get around... but she worked with teens in a housing project and most of the young girls couldn't wait to get pregnant so they could "start getting their checks" like their momma did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how depressed that makes me feel on so many levels.


These girls' math teachers clearly failed them. If they get a check for $400 a month, they're making 55 cents an hour to care for that baby. If they took care of someone else's baby for $3 an hour/ 7 hours a day / 5 days a week, they would get the same check but get nights and weekends off.


----------



## sarafi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mammal_mama*
> 
> On the other side, I'd be a fool if I said, "I have no choice but to remain morbidly obese and inactive, because that's how my society is structured right now." It's crucial for me to be creative and find ways to move myself into an increasingly active lifestyle, and into increasingly healthy and environmentally-friendly food choices. These are things I am doing -- but I'll admit I still feel frustrated with people who complain about those like my dh who suffer from lifestyle-induced diseases (he has type 2 diabetes with neuropathy and non-alcoholic cirrhosis) and can't pay for their own health insurance or healthcare, thereby costing the taxpayers a lot of money...
> 
> I'm frustrated because many of the complainers just focus on the personal responsibility (and yes, my husband and I both do have the responsibility to develop good habits and make good choices) -- but they seem not to see the basic, common-sense reality that if we want to reduce healthcare costs, we should be smart enough to see what other developed nations with much lower rates of obesity, and the related illnesses, are doing differently.


If it makes you feel any better, outside of the US people are vastly harder on people who are overweight. Yes, a lot of our cities are built around the idea of cars as many of them evolved around the same time. Lack of neighbourhood stores may seem to correlate, but this has been a problem for a few generations and our weight gains have really only been a problem on a large scale in the current generation. And even in our very walk-able village, most people drive to shop once or twice a week, and they are still in good health.

I think we Americans, just got out of the habit of walking for exercise or pleasure as a society. It's always something we can do individually if we care to, for myself it does help to have an errand to attach to the walk.

In Japan, people are full on ruthless and shaming towards the overweight and employers can be fined if their employees don't fit basic (very slim) health requirements. They even tried to institute weekly public weigh-ins a few years ago to stem the problem.

I am literally full-body-felt up at least once a week by three different people who have made it their personal duty to see me lose my (albeit shocking 70 lb. pregnancy weight gain in the time they knew me). One man and two woman, and only one I would consider a friend, and yet she still does it also no matter how many times I beg her not to. One of these people is just my mail-man, the other is our local butcher--it's like they know I don't want to drive to do business elsewhere. At the same time, it is a fairly effective weight-loss motivation







I'll give them that


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> I don't think judging individuals gets us very far.


It does if you look at other subjects.

Some (and using the loosely here) do judge people by crimes they commit.

We do send messages that certain behavior is not acceptable in our society (pedophiles, etc)- we send messages that society does not look favorable on certain personal behaviors as well. So I would say it is more easy for certain things vs simply acknowledging and keeping quiet on others.

It's easy to say don't kill someone vs now think, wait, plan and have that baby later or now get your life better before you have another.

Also in other parts of society - a job, you are judged, by showing up (at the basic level job) long term commitment, experience, corporation, etc - you get judged and some even get advanced based on other's judgement of you.

ETA- I would take it a step further and say if you have spent your life not being judged and understanding that others to that, you will have a difficult time in the work force and keeping a job. Ability and who you are, how you conduct your life plays a big role in a job. I see that as judgement and like or not are judged.

Quote:


> The transition to adulthood is difficult for some of us.


it can also be when you don't have to move there at any pace and can take years and years and no one say anything negative about it to you

Quote:


> I don't know how to make private companies stop creaeting shows that advertise for kids to have babies.


I certainly feel many parents find it EASY to allow the easy way in so many aspects of their child's life (again Kathy made this point with what she had posted about how certain segments of society rear children with different values and expectations) - easy is just that easy! Not having a hard talk and wondering when they are 30 why they are hanging with 20 year olds and acting like a "kid" and the grandparent is home watching the grand-chidlren all weekend.

Also if there was no one watching these show, but we love this crap! If we (general society) see some over-weight (or morbid) it makes us look thin- again, it's easy- it's an easy mindset, no one is demanding seeing shows about a family committed to growing/living organically - change comes from demand and we are taking the easy way out on many topics.

OT-

Quote:


> If it makes you feel any better, outside of the US people are vastly harder on people who are overweight.


I can think of some real good that would come of it if we did deal more with this and the trend is going the opposite, certainly it is not helping, I feel we are taking some non-judging and making dangerous mistakes-IMO

http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/our-america-lisa-ling.html beyond tragic - IMO and hard to watch!


----------



## mammal_mama

I have heard that Europeans are much more direct than Americans when it comes to letting their friends know that they're putting on too much weight, as well as letting them know about other problems such as body odor.

It probably depends a lot on the spirit in which the criticism is given and received. I know that overweight American schoolchildren are still subjected to lots of bullying and teasing, and it seems like it can actually make the problem worse by making some children so depressed that they end up eating for comfort even more.

I guess I'd need to actually be able to spend some time in European society to see if the way in which they're hard on obese people is similar to schoolyard bullying, or what. It is rather hard for me to picture a culture where friends and even mere acquaintances -- even those I only know in a professional capacity, such as a postal worker or grocer -- would think it was okay to feel me up just to see how much fat I had on me.

I guess if that's the price I'd have to pay in order to have better public transportation and affordable stores in easy walking distance, I'd happily accept the situation in my own city where life is seriously inconvenient if you don't have a car. Because being routinely felt up just because I was fat would be so completely unacceptable to me. But I don't think that necessarily has to be the tradeoff. I think we can make our cities more human-scale and still not have to deal with strange men feeling us up.

Back to my comment about the American schoolchildren who end up overeating even more because of the bullying -- I think bullying the poor can, and does, have a similarly negative effect. There's a reason why so many people in our society are striving to be more open and accepting of others and less judgmental. In most cases, I think it's because they didn't find others' judgmental attitudes very helpful to them in their own lives.


----------



## contactmaya

Are we just talking about teenage moms now?


----------



## mamaofthree

i agree, i say we just judge everyone and shame them into behaving the way we see fit. i am sure that will work wonders in having a society of little automotrans that do not do anything different or act different. if it means i don't have to see someone who is overweight or i don't have to pay for someone else's kid or food for the poor, then i say LET'S DO IT! because you know back when we shamed and hid teen from the public and forced them into adopting out their children or forcing them into marriage we had a much happier/better/less dependent society. i mean my MIL grew up in the 30's/40's and there were NO teen moms and not much safety net, and wow, so much better society. and two of my aunties had babies while they were teens, and the shame, oh the shame. they were shipped off and had their babies taken from them. see so much better then now a days where those silly teens go about having babies and keeping them.

(note the sarcasm here)


----------



## contactmaya

Yes, take the babies from those wayward sinful girls.


----------



## queenjane

I know...it kinda cracks me up that people would say "hey maybe we should try NOT supporting teen moms! maybe there should be more shame!!" its not like we've ever tried THAT right???

isnt the teen birth rate the lowest its been in ages anyway??


----------



## kathymuggle

I don't think that is what is being said by most posters. What is being said is that maybe we should impart the knowledge to young people that some choices are more likely to lead towards poverty than others.


----------



## queenjane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> I don't think that is what is being said by most posters. What is being said is that maybe we should impart the knowledge to young people that some choices are more likely to lead towards poverty than others.


I think this message is being given to girls on a regular basis. I think its pretty damn natural to want to have a baby in your prime childbearing years, despite our current economic and political climate not really supporting that choice. I had wanted a baby for years and years before i finally had one (was 23 when my oldest was born) and it was very painful to walk through baby clothes aisles and be desperately longing for a child and not having one. I think that too much of the emphasis though on having girls wait is on "look how AWFUL and HARD it is to have a baby, they cry, they poop, they cry some more!! and did you know a pair of shoes cost fifty collars and a crib $500??" (they always take these girls to expensive boutiques on these shows to point out how expensive babies are, they never mention thrift stores and garage sales!) and not enough emphasis on real financial education,


----------



## cynthia mosher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> OT-
> 
> I can think of some real good that would come of it if we did deal more with this and the trend is going the opposite, certainly it is not helping, I feel we are taking some non-judging and making dangerous mistakes-IMO
> 
> http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/our-america-lisa-ling.html beyond tragic - IMO and hard to watch!


serenbat, what exactly are you linking to? That URL takes me to the "Our America with Lisa Ling" landing page, not a topic specific page or a specific video.


----------



## Polliwog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *serenbat*
> 
> those were your words and that is how it comes off -_better_ as in because she is with me (not where she was)
> 
> I do too- that's why I said about *removing* children from their community to _really nice, suburban well funded schools_ (that means to me... better life-not what they would have had and I find it offensive to read!) and no one puts down poverty as the reason, that's not done. Adoptions are happening- that is real, not in numbers they once were but still occurring.


I know what Katharine is saying. I've taught in both kinds of public school systems. Better funded districts typically have more resources to meet the needs of children with disabilities, have staff who are more likely to stay in a school and not leave after a year or two, and often have a better teacher/child ratio and smaller class size. It's a lot harder to diagnose, treat, and/or effectively teach a child with "hidden disabilities." Queenjane and I are friends. We know a lot about the backgrounds of each other's children. We also know quite a bit about the lasting effects of child abuse and neglect. Some of it is irreversable. In our children's cases, the system worked as it should. Money wouldn't have fixed anything. In fact, my daughter's mother would have had to have someone LIVING WITH HER 24/7 to keep DD safe and healthy. We're not talking about shoes and clothes. Or even food, water, or electricity.

I wish my children's birth parents could have parented them. At a conference, the keynote speaker (a family court judge and adoptive parent herself)referred to adoption as "the least worst option for a child." I love my kids to death, but I wish their birth families hadn't broken in the first place.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> serenbat, what exactly are you linking to? That URL takes me to the "Our America with Lisa Ling" landing page, not a topic specific page or a specific video.


it had been linking directly to the show - now it goes to all of them, since this has passed - it is called "Generation XXL-morbid Obesity" - it talks about one 4 year old who is 101lbs. My point being, no one (family, friends, doctors, neighbors, etc) gave judgment to this mother prior to now on how she was raising this child? - this link might work better - http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Generation-XXL-4-Years-Old-101-Pounds-Video

Polliwog - the whole point is we have laws that to combat this (in place and fought for) - actually in my state with TANF you could not stay home and homeschool you child, (there was a mentioned about child with autism and the need for the parent to stay home)

we should be able to do this and not have a child moved to a different school, we also should not (IMO) move children from a community (*my comments were general* *comment for the whole system*, not just for one parent like on here)

Quote:


> I think this message is being given to girls on a regular basis.


This isn't just for girls!

I also do not support support a biological urge as a justification for welfare - not all young women hurry to have a baby, most young men want lots of sex, is it good for the child (children) to also not have a structure unit for care? That is a big part of the message, not only do they cry and poop, you need to provide other things for them.


----------



## mamaofthree

i keep wanting to know EXACTLY WHAT sort of things should we be telling people that we don't already tell them? and how is increased shame going to stop people from doing what they are doing? it does feel very degrading to have to ask for help, some people won't ask even though they could have a better life if they had a bit of help. does anyone truly want to go back to the days of taking children from their teen mothers just because we don't like that 15 years are occasionally having a child? or how about just not having a safety net at all, no food stamps, no welfare of any kind. forget SS, let the old die hungry and alone, no health care for those blasted lazy poor,no food for children. just stop all aid at all and HOPE that all those people who say they would help if all those bagillions in tax dollars that went to feed and house the poor, was actually still in their pocket, that they would, you know ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE?!


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> that we don't already tell them?


where is this grand message you are talking about?

we are not getting a message out there

child development / preparation classes simply are not happening all over - my state doesn't mandate them and very few schools even run the program, *we don't even mandate sex ed!*

some feel we are promoting having babies (TV programs, making teen mom celebrities) not the opposite

we are not sending a message to mom's with children (already on assistance) -it is part of the goal of TANF, along with marriage- but implication is up to the states- I can tell you where I live there is no message getting out

when was the last time you head any talk about birth spacing from the government for all citizens?

this nation does not talk or promote family planning yet in any real way, some are hoping that changes with the ACA, at least for contraceptions occurs, but so far we (as a nation) have not done much at all with FP/RH here at home yet spent the money overseas

where do you see that it's happening?


----------



## mamaofthree

what exactly do YOU see as a way to do this and then HOW do you see it happening and WHAT do you see as the outcome? how do you tell people... you can only have X number of kids X number of years apart? how do you do that? and to what end? some people prefer to have 3 or more kids really close together, other prefer 3 or more kids years a part, some only want one, some none, some 10? do we need sex ed? YES! family planning? possibly. home ec classes? i don't know. probably would be a good idea.

you want the government nosing around in this area, spending your hard earned money to tell people how to have kids, when to have them, how to space them... but in the end, stuff happens. all the planning in the world won't always keep someone from being poor/sick/homeless. does it help, yes. but it isn't a 100%.

this thread is making me nutty. i think the lovely people here who have been so brave to share their personal stories have gotten the shaft very often.

i think i am done.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> what exactly do YOU see as a way to do this and then HOW do you see it happening and WHAT do you see as the outcome? how do you tell people... you can only have X number of kids X number of years apart? how do you do that? and to what end? some people prefer to have 3 or more kids really close together, other prefer 3 or more kids years a part, some only want one, some none, some 10? do we need sex ed? YES! family planning? possibly. home ec classes? i don't know. probably would be a good idea.
> 
> you want the government nosing around in this area, spending your hard earned money to tell people how to have kids, when to have them, how to space them... but in the end, stuff happens. all the planning in the world won't always keep someone from being poor/sick/homeless. does it help, yes. but it isn't a 100%.
> 
> this thread is making me nutty. i think the lovely people here who have been so brave to share their personal stories have gotten the shaft very often.
> 
> i think i am done.


knowledge is powerful, I never understand this type of fear

why have it be so wrong to be told simple facts, take that and apply them-it would be helpful to so many who do not have the family recourses to understand and guide them

a bit of history on the prosperous societies and how they were able to feed their children is always helpful too

I see it as nothing but sheer good


----------



## littlest birds

So the solution that will lower the use of welfare is to provide facts? So first provide information, then are the people still free to choose or do you have new rules for welfare?

I think there are already a lot of active educational efforts of this kind that aim to help women create better futures for themselves. These include educational programs and job skills as well as family planning help. Implementing more is expensive, so I am not sure how much more we should pursue when funding is scarce.

The key to helping people help themselves is anything that helps them believe they have real power to get beyond mere survival. The people who get stuck receiving assistance for long periods either have major problems or simply have no pathways to success that appear walkable. Those who believe in a better future will generally take that path, but those who feel crushed by their failures will often balk. Those who are broken have a hard time seeing hope.

Most of the moms that posted here are not stuck in such a cycle of hopelessness. Most people who post on Mothering.com are actively building a good life for their children, which is why they are interested in learning about nurturing natural parenting methods. That doesn't match up much with "generational" welfare recipients. While you may think fraud is common, or you may think even that bad character or laziness is common, I doubt it is common here. However, there are many members who do receive some kind of assistance.

To go way way back to the original post topic, if I were to meet a woman who is a SAHM and also receives some kind of assistance I would have no reason in the world to think she has been an abuser of the system, that she has or will be in the system for many years, or that she is making a bad decision that takes advantage of others. While there may be people who "ought to" bring more personal responsibility into their lives so they need less help, I have no reason to think that anyone who is a SAHM is that kind of a person.


----------



## stacyann21

You can't be on welfare and stay at home. TANF requires parents to work or attend school or job classes for at least 30 hours/week to obtain benefits. If you're talking about Calfresh (food stamps), then yes I think anyone eligible should be provided with benefits. With the amount of money we spend on military in this country, there is no justification for children going hungry. i also agree there should definitely be a better parental leave system. But like others have pointed out, many people can't even find a living wage job so I don't see that happening in our lifetime.


----------



## kathymuggle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littlest birds*
> 
> So the solution that will lower the use of welfare is to provide facts?


It might help - or not.

I don't think much harm comes from discussing how to prevent poverty in the first place. I don't think all poverty can be prevented, but some might be. Isn't discussing poverty prevention worth a shot?

Welfare and food banks and the like offer help to people in poverty. That is great - but they do not seem to do much to prevent it. It would be nice to be able to talk about poverty prevention without resorting to (and I know you did not say this) "&#8230;so you want to shame and take babies away from teen moms?"


----------



## littlest birds

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kathymuggle*
> 
> It might help - or not.
> 
> I don't think much harm comes from discussing how to prevent poverty in the first place. I don't think all poverty can be prevented, but some might be. Isn't discussing poverty prevention worth a shot?
> 
> Welfare and food banks and the like offer help to people in poverty. That is great - but they do not seem to do much to prevent it. It would be nice to be able to talk about poverty prevention without resorting to (and I know you did not say this) "&#8230;so you want to shame and take babies away from teen moms?"


Yes. I think poverty reduction and prevention are excellent subjects. I'm not sure who is helped and when, though. It's not helpful for people who are already there in a low income situation. Those folks need strategies and hope and power, and unfortunately most low wage jobs help people feel powerless and hopeless.

Who are the folks who engage with such a discussion? Are the ones who are interested the ones who need it?

Life coaching, maybe... But not by obligation!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stacyann21*
> 
> You can't be on welfare and stay at home. TANF requires parents to work or attend school or job classes for at least 30 hours/week to obtain benefits. If you're talking about Calfresh (food stamps), then yes I think anyone eligible should be provided with benefits. With the amount of money we spend on military in this country, there is no justification for children going hungry. i also agree there should definitely be a better parental leave system. But like others have pointed out, many people can't even find a living wage job so I don't see that happening in our lifetime.


Most of the debate lately here has been about receiving anything at all as a SAHM, generally with a partner working at a lower salary and qualifying for food stamps and/or medical assistance while the mother is at home with babies/preschool children.

I agree there are already many rules. It may be that at the beginning the thread was intended to be about hypothetical family leave but it did descend into mythical "welfare queen" territory.


----------



## 95191

Quote:


> You can't be on welfare and stay at home. TANF requires parents to work or attend school or job classes for at least 30 hours/week to obtain benefits.


you can stay home and be on TANF (at least you can in my state)- if the child is under 6 and you have no child care, or under a year, as well as if you are unable to work (mentally or physically), lack of transportation also can exempt you


----------

