or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 6

post #101 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife View Post


 


 

This isn't judgmental at all.  eyesroll.gif  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.

 

post #102 of 792

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. 

post #103 of 792

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'.

post #104 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post





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? 
 

 

post #105 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by t2009 View Post

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.).
 

 

post #106 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post





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.  

post #107 of 792

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?


Edited by moonfirefaery - 6/6/11 at 1:25pm
post #108 of 792

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.

post #109 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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.

 

 

post #110 of 792

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.

post #111 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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. 

 

 

post #112 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post





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. 

 

post #113 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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.

 

 

post #114 of 792

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.

post #115 of 792

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.

post #116 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post
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

 

 

 

 

 

post #117 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

 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. 
 

 

post #118 of 792

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.

post #119 of 792



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 View Post

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.



 

post #120 of 792

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 View Post

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.



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?