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 7

post #121 of 792

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.

post #122 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post


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?

post #123 of 792

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?

post #124 of 792

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?

post #125 of 792
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.
post #126 of 792

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.

post #127 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes View Post

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 lol.gif ...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...
post #128 of 792

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.

post #129 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post

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.

 

post #130 of 792

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.

post #131 of 792

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?

post #132 of 792



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 View Post




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.

 



 

post #133 of 792

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!

post #134 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

 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.

 

post #135 of 792

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!

post #136 of 792


 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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! 

post #137 of 792

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. 

post #138 of 792

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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.

post #139 of 792

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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?

post #140 of 792

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.

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?