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 8

post #141 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

 



 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? 

 

post #142 of 792



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

 



 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.

post #143 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife View Post


 


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.

post #144 of 792
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.

 



 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.

post #145 of 792

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

post #146 of 792

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.

post #147 of 792

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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...

post #148 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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.

post #149 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post



 



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.

post #150 of 792



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 View Post



 



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

post #151 of 792

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.

post #152 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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. 
 

 

post #153 of 792

$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!

post #154 of 792

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.

post #155 of 792

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)   

post #156 of 792

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

post #157 of 792

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?

post #158 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2this View Post

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.

 

post #159 of 792

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.

post #160 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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. 
 

 

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?