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 9

post #161 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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?

 

post #162 of 792

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...

post #163 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife View Post

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?

post #164 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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. 

 

post #165 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post





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.  

 

post #166 of 792

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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.

post #167 of 792

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.

post #168 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

 


 

 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.

 

post #169 of 792

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.

 

post #170 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3xMama View Post

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.

 

yeahthat.gif 
 

 

post #171 of 792

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.

post #172 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post





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?

 


Edited by Dandelionkid - 6/7/11 at 2:12pm
post #173 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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.

post #174 of 792
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.
post #175 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynnesg View Post

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. 

post #176 of 792

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.

post #177 of 792

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".

 

post #178 of 792

 

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.

post #179 of 792

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.

post #180 of 792




 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife View Post

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.  

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 6/7/11 at 6:48pm
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?