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 10

post #181 of 792

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

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

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

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

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

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

post #182 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaktreemama View Post

 

 

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

 

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

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

 

post #183 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamayogibear View Post

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

post #184 of 792

 

Quote:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

post #185 of 792

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

post #186 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaktreemama View Post

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

post #187 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by waiting2bemommy View Post

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

 


 

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

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

 

post #188 of 792

 

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

 



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

 

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

post #189 of 792

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

post #190 of 792

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

post #191 of 792

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

 

Quote:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

post #192 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.



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

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

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

post #193 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ldavis24 View Post

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

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

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


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

post #194 of 792

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

post #195 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamayogibear View Post

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

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

 

 

 

post #196 of 792

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

post #197 of 792

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

post #198 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2this View Post

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


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

As an unemployed person, my DH really appreciates having DS here. It helps him structure his day. It gives him something to do all day instead of just be depressed about not having a job. I can't even imagine the state he'd be in right now if DS weren't here with him. It does not interfere with his job search (I WAH so it all works out -- though I think having daycare as an OPTION for jobseekers who need it would make sense!!) and if anything makes him more productive -- he's not trying to waste away 8 hours a day searching for non-existent jobs; instead, he gets up early, does several hours of job-seeking, and spends the rest of the day with me & DS, or working on the house/cleaning/etc., and just checking in with his email and answering phone calls as necessary. OK this is getting into the realm of too much personal info I guess, but I just really have such a different perspective on unemployment now that my family is in this position!!
Edited by crunchy_mommy - 6/8/11 at 9:12am
post #199 of 792


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

 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by new2this View Post

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




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


 

post #200 of 792
Yeah I don't think many will disagree with you that the programs are indeed flawed & need a major revamp...
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?