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 15

post #281 of 792
She's gone, anyway - asked to have her account removed, so I doubt she'll be back.

Plenty of people take issue with welfare; there is, however, a way to argue your point respectfully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
post #282 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillitu View Post

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Can you define classist for me? I found the posts slightly offensive due to the aggressive style, but I didn't find them bigoted or classist. I'm not being argumentative or snarky, I want to understand your point of view. Could you point me to specific words or phrases that you feel where bigoted or classist?
post #283 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joensally View Post
I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control.  Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada?  Those can off-set some of the tax burden.

 

 


yes, it is. It's one of the reasons it annoys me when people say "Canada does X" because so many things are at the provincial level. There isn't a "Canadian Health Care System," there's one system in Ontario, and one in Quebec, and one in Manitoba, etc. And they really differ in quality.  Americans tend to be very ignorant about Canada -- half of them don't know the capitol and couldn't tell you which provinces border the US, but they think they understand the health care system.

 

Canadians, though, are often ignorant about key aspects of what social supports to exist in the US, such as charity hospitals, clinics with sliding scales, etc. Some of the things people said to me when I was up there were pretty out there. We really aren't as barbaric as many Canadians have been led to believe.

 

However, Quebec is an excellence example of more social support, higher taxes, and more social control.

 

When we were living Quebec, the leading cause of death for adults under 45 was suicide. I don't know if that's related, but there seems to be a belief in the US that "if only the government did x, everyone could be happy," and that's clearly not the case. Quebec does everything, and a lot of people there are miserable.

 

We HATED living in Quebec. We ended up moving to Ontario and my DH commuted to his job in Quebec, which really screwed us up because we didn't qualify for anything from either province, and we paid Quebec taxes.

 

I would far rather the government let me keep my money and decide how to spend, than to take it away and then decide whether or not I can have it back. I like a capitalist system with floor. No one should go hungry. Everyone should receive basic medical care.

 

I am OK with the two tire system. The health care system in Quebec is similar to what poor people in the states get. I went to Canada a fan of universal health care, and came up thinking it meant "equally crappy care for all."  (Ontario's was better, but not in line with what we get in the US. Our providers in Ontario -- doctors and dentists -- were EXCELLENT. But the system isn't adequate for the number of people it serves. It just isn't.

 

We've lived in the UK as well as Canada, and we prefer living in the US.

 

 

 

post #284 of 792

Quebec is different in many way than other provinces (I lived there for many years).  I do not like Quebec - much of what Linda said is very true.  I think the suicide rate is multi factorial.  

 

I have seen people on welfare in Quebec - and it is not pretty.  The government is so worried about fraud and people getting it when they do not need it that they are a total pain in the ass.  Lots of paperwork and rules.  People end up fighting with the government constantly.  Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption if you are on welfare that you are not very capable.  (My positive experience with welfare was in BC.  I have heard it is a little less positive now, but still. Yeah, B.C !.) The resources welfare offers are often borderline insulting - how to cook, how to budget, literacy.  I do know some people do not know these things - but there was no real retraining or anything similar for those that needed help finding a job, but actually know the food groups, thank you very much.  I also think it is common for governments to give people enough to survive (just) but hardly thrive.  Sadly I doubt this attitude is unique to Quebec.  

 

For individuals, I think it is a better to be off welfare.  It is not a great way of life and people who are not on welfare seem happier than those I have seen on welfare (although does welfare cause this, or are the issues that cause people to need welfare at the root?  Both, I think)

 

However, individual needs are not the same as provincial or state policy.  We need to feed and shelter people while they figure out how to get off welfare.  We need programs that support people in getting off welfare.  We need to figure out ways to break the poverty cycle/generational poverty.  To a degree we need to accept that poverty is always going to be with us.  We should not punish children for their parents being on welfare (no matter how they ended up on welfare).

 

OT - I have also had great medical care across the board in Ontario.  There can be long wait times, but I have never had trouble getting timely care in an emergency.  Quebec can be good or bad - but it is much less consistent in its care.  Whenever we visit Quebec we joke that if anyone gets sick we are driving to the nearest town over the Ontario border.   

 

And lastly, I think much of Canadians and Americans ignorance of each is thanks to the media, and extremists on issues, who paint the other country and their ideas as demonic.    

 

 

post #285 of 792

Yesterday I had a great time reading John Stuart MIll's essay "On Liberty." (You can read it online here http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm if you want).

 

It really got me thinking about the different views we all have about the role of government in the life of the inidividual. I realize Mill would probably be appalled that there are now families, such as my own, receiving government assistance with things like food and medical care.

 

I think we are all really different in terms of where we draw the line on these things. For example, I've developed a personal code wherein, if I decide to help someone, I just help them and I no longer attach myself to what that person does with my help or whether that person is living as I think he or she should be living. It's so much less stressful that way, and I feel so much freer now that i realize I really do have a choice about whether to do things for people.

 

Of course, in the case of welfare, I realize the individual taxpayers don't have that moment by moment choice about where their money goes. If I were in a higher tax bracket, maybe I'd be better to understand the angst that some people feel about  their hard-earned taxes going to help families like mine. As it is, I've paid relatively little in taxes and, well, dh and I are usually in a big hurry to file our returns because of the huge chunk we currently get back every year...

 

So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides  (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.

 

But, about Mill, the thing that really impressed me was what he had to say about determining the extent to which the opinion of the majority should be allowed to constrain the individual. He felt that this should just be limited to cases of self-defense or defense of people who are being harmed and can't defend themselves.

 

And, of course, we all draw the line differently when it comes to defining harm and determining who we think is being harmed. For example, some in my family think that dh and I are harming our girls by unschooling them. Thankfully, the government in our area does not currently have much jurisdiction over homeschooling families, save for those cases in which social workers feel that there are signs of possble abuse or neglect. But then, I imagine social workers are individuals, too, and though they have some guidelines, there probably are some cases where one social worker might see a need to get involved with a family but another social worker wouldn't.

 

I just hope that all social workers have read Mill. :)

post #286 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillitu View Post

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.



 

The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post. 

post #287 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shantimama View Post





 

The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post. 



In this case, I've handled the situation.  I felt like the earlier offensive comments added too much to the conversation to pull it easily, so I left it.  If I had seen in in the first few minutes, I would have pulled it, but since many people put thoughtful posts afterwards, it didn't seem fair to remove it all.  A lot of it has actually been removed.

post #288 of 792


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

 

 

So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides  (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.

 

Yes.  I have felt a lack of empathy for whining (judging perhaps, but it is how I felt) from wealthy folk on taxation, welfare, etc.  I have mellowed a bit as I age, but I still have no issues with any of my tax dollars going to social spending.  Sometimes I wish the money was spent differently within certain social spending programs, but I have no issues with it in general.  

 

Someone up tread mentioned classism and I wonder if this plays into it? Painting in very broad strokes - but different classes complaining about the other classes and how the government spends on it does look like classism.  

 

I think it is the governments job to try and meet the needs of its people - of all classes.  I do tend to think that because a) rich people have more power and influence and b) most government officials come from wealthy-ish backgrounds, that policy might sway slightly in favour of the rich.  Add in that some policy that helps the wealthy helps everybody (example - low taxes attracting businesses) and it is a whole big ball of wax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #289 of 792

I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.

 

 

post #290 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.

 

 



You can whine if you want to orngbiggrin.gif  Indeed, me whining about wealthy whining is still whining.

 

I think mammal mama hit it on the head that empathy is what is needed.

 

I agree the middle class (particularly the lower middle class) has it rougher  financially than many others.  

 

 

post #291 of 792

 

   I feel that as the other children of the world will

be my children's friends, countrymen, coworkers

and world citizens then my parenting should embody

a concern for all the world's children and if any parent

has a situation that allows them more time with

their children or less financial stress which lets

them parent more effectively than that's great.

I hope that efforts would be made so that more

and more parents are freed to focus on the next

generation as we all focus not on the gross national

product (GNP) but more and more on great national

parenting.

post #292 of 792

If someone lacks skills or opportunities in their region to get a job that pays a wage that will cove living expenses and day care, I am happy to cover welfare costs for them so they can stay home and not starve.

 

However,ifis someones has skills, education and job available that will cover their living expenses and day care.... I am not interested in paying for their lifestyle while I am  working, paying day care and then doing all that mother do at home. I  my eyes it is a  fraud.

 

If you do not feel like working, but actually could, then stay home on your own dime. It is not my job to subsidize you lifestyle. 

post #293 of 792

Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.

 

Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.

 

I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.

 

It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.

post #294 of 792

I don't mind.  There is not enough welfare available for it to be "milking the system" or anything.  It's a very uncomfortable lifestyle, and welfare will not truly pay your way enough for a mom to just stay home.  If it's a couple and one is working, I am glad to help the other stay home because I think that they are doing enough if the child(ren) are young and one parent is fully employed--the investment is usually worth it--worth it often enough for me to gamble on it anyhow.

 

And having children with moms when young is valuable to society.  I hop they are being nurturing moms, anyway.  But it's not my business to judge.  I just think that taking good care of young children benefits society.  Being a mom is very important work, and I hate poverty to take away from a young vulnerable mom her feelings of connection with a young baby when it is maybe the only thing of value in her life t that time.

 

I was once a single mom and worked as a nanny five days a week part time to pay rent, my young (1yo) daughter was with me, and I also received welfare at that time without which I could not have made it work or been with my daughter.  It would have destroyed me to be forced out of that situation that preserved our relationship.  I would have been stretched near or beyond my breaking point and become a much worse parent without that temporary safety net.  It has been years since I received any public assistance, and for much of that period we've still qualified with our low income.

 

I make it a habit not to judge people who receive public assistance.  I have no idea how long they have received or will receive it, what their options are, and how well they would manage or how their children would do under the pressure of a different situation where that assistance weren't available.

 

I fully value a mother's work in caring for her own children.  That means I find it heartbreaking that so many mothers struggle with poverty and the shame of receiving public assistance in order to do what they know is right.  Money is only one ingredient of family stability.  Time and attention are essential and I know that I fall apart with a 40-hrs schedule plus parenting responsibilities--during the time I have I end up a terrible mom just trying to recover from that exhaustion.  I really don't mind contributing to the livelihoods of families in tenuous situations.  A stay at home mom brings a great deal of stability to a family on the edge of survival, and that means a better future for everyone. 

 

Her labor is NOT more valuable to society as an employee than with her children.  Employment is an acceptable choice as well.  Her choice.  There is no incentive money-wise really to stay on welfare for most people.  That means she is doing it as a compromise, and it is not easy to choose it either.

 

And to the PP who said that she doesn't think nonparents should have to contribute I think that is tragic.  When we are elderly we will be cared for by other people's children who have become doctors and farmers and service providers of all sorts.  If you haven't faced the work (UNPAID WORK) of contributing to the childrearing burden thus doing your part in raising future citizens, maybe you even owe those who are doing it a little bit more.  :)  Because our children will take care of you.

post #295 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post

I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help." 

 

I refuse to play that game. I support paid parental leave for all and a better social safety net for all, including single-payer health care. 

 

I agree. I'm to the point where when I hear someone middle-class complaining about how people getting assistance are so "lucky" or "lazy" and "why can't *everyone* get help?" I want to say, "Okay, let's do it this way. The $100/month that I am/was *so* lucky/lazy to get, that is limited to 24 months in a lifetime, go ahead and use it. You can have it, right now. But when you lose your $32/hour job, and you are too "lazy" to be able to make your bills or whatever, *sorry* you wanted your help right then. Used it up. Never, in my entire *working* adult life, even with DF and I both working, have we even come *close* to $32/hour, even combined.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

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.

 

bow.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post

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...

 

So what you're saying is, if you get assistance, you don't deserve anything nice, and every bit of money you *do* have should *only* go to necessities? Now don't get me wrong, I think that $100 for a pair of jeans is frivolous, and I would never do it, but I don't think it's fair that if you are needing assistance, you should only have the bare minimum, and never anything nice. When you are having hard times, that is *especially* the time when I think you should do a little bit of something nice for yourself/your family. It keeps you from falling apart.

 

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.

 

How do you know the iPhone wasn't a gift? How do you know it wasn't acquired before whatever happened that they needed the assistance?

 

 

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!

 

It must be different in different states, mamayogibear. I didn't have to send my kids to daycare, they stayed home with my mom. I didn't have to go to worksource program every day, I just had to go in every week and turn in my paper from filling out applications. I agree, though, that worksource didn't do anything for me with regards to finding a job. Their "assistance" at least from my experience, was directing me to indianacareerconnect.com and me, by myself, going through and filling out applications, which was the exact. same. thing. I was doing at home, from the exact. same. website...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

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*

 
This is a *very* common attitude I have come across. To the extent of, "You shouldn't be able to buy certain foods with food stamps! If you want that, get off your arse and get a job, just like I did!"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamayogibear View Post

Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...
 



 

 

I don't know what state you are in, mamayogibear, but in Indiana, I did not have to put my children in daycare at all when I looked for work. I just had to spend 20 hours/week filling out applications, and either print out the "congratulations, you've completed the application" page if it was online, or copy the application (if it was paper copy), and turn that in with a paper that said what day I looked for work, from when to when did I work on what application, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.

 

Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.

 

I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.

 

It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.

 

The limits here (Indiana) for TANF were for 24 months in a lifetime. It wasn't/isn't just for women. I'm not sure what the requirements/regulations are, but we were DH, DD, DS, and I.

 

We have used assistance before, and while I didn't feel guilty when we started using it (We were homeless, DH, DD, and I, after DH and I both lost our jobs), between the case workers "And how long has your husband been laz- I mean, unemployed for?" and the looks and comments we got from people at the grocery store... sometimes I felt like the scum of the earth. We are receiving food stamps now, and the kids and I get medicaid, but that wasn't how we wanted/planned for it to be. I was working a *very* nice job, albeit very physically demanding, and was planning to work until at least middle or end of February before going on leave for pregnancy, but I was being harassed at work, and when I went to Human Resources to get it resolved, they pretty much told me I should have expected it, and that it was my fault, and I would "get used to it in time." When I realized it was affecting not only my mental health (I was having anxiety attacks almost every day while getting ready and driving to work), but also my physical health (my blood pressure was reading around 160/110 the entire time I was dealing with the harassment), I realized I couldn't work there anymore. I have been looking for part-time work, something short-term, that would supplement what DF makes until April, but no such luck thus far, and we're struggling. While he is making more than he ever has in his life, I was the primary income, making almost twice as much as he does, so now, we're down to less than half of what our income was. I don't feel quite as guilty getting the assistance now, but I still do. I'm really only doing it for the kids. After the baby is born, I am going to go back to school, to get my CNA certification, then when the baby is old enough to not need me all the time, I'm going to look for work doing in-home care. I don't intend to be on assistance forever. I didn't even want to be now.

 

This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.

post #296 of 792

bmcneal, worrying over other people's opinions is so totally not worth it! Please do yourself and your little ones a favor and quit fretting over what people who obviously have too much time on their hands are saying about things they really know nothing about!

post #297 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcneal View Post

This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.

hug.gif

Some people live very fortunate lives. How lucky for them, how wonderful, that they will never need to know what it's like to make the choices you've had to make. I don't wish anything bad on anyone but I know it's really hard to read some of the posts here & just look past the ignorance & assumptions. And sometimes I wish I could live in that same bubble they do. But we are stronger, more understanding, more compassionate people because we've had to make these tough choices, because we've had to humble ourselves & let go of our pride, because we've had to ask for help. This thread makes me so sad too, and I actually just typed up a lot of my (sad) story but then erased it, because mammal_mama is right, other people's opinions are not worth it, why open myself up to more criticism here? You did what you knew you needed to do for your health, your family, and the baby you are carrying. You deserve better than the hand you've been dealt, and I hope you can let go of any guilt or shame because it's not your fault. If your family is surviving, and you are all doing the best that you can given your circumstances, then you made the right choice.
post #298 of 792

You know, I've just realized that the initial theme of this thread was whether WE (meaning collective society) should be doing more to support mothers so that they can stay home (I know the original title didn't say "more;" however, in the U.S. at least, there really isn't enough support available to provide for a stay at home mom and her kids, so for it to be that kind of support, we'd have to be doing something "more" than we are now)...

 

Anyhow the theme is what WE (collective society) should be doing to help those less fortunate who are raising families, but we have somehow managed to turn it into a thread of judgment, for or against, people in poverty.

 

None of us is really in a position to judge another human being. We can only look at our own actions (as an individual and as a society) and determine whether we can and should be doing more for others. it's not about whether other people are living as we think they should. It's about whether WE are living and behaving towards others as our hearts tell us we should. 

 

And crunchy_momm -- great post!

post #299 of 792

The support on this thread is beautiful. I agree with mammal_mama and crunchy_mommy. bmcneal, be glad that you are not so prideful as to reject help that is needed for your family to make life a little easier. I think it's a sign of strength and courage to  accept help despite the backlash received when you get assistance. You are choosing what is best for your family, that is what is important. Thank you for speaking up. I left this thread a long time ago after basically being told it was my own fault I was in the situation I am in because the poster looked at my signature and decided I had too many kids. I know what people think, and I have finally gotten to the point where I don't care because they don't know me. They don't know my situation, or what the details of my life were before I got divorced. I think thier judgement of me only reflects thier own ignorance and intolerance. Good luck mama!

post #300 of 792

I had jobs I did not like but they paid the bills  and medical insurance and I stuck with them. Yes, I feel good about doing that, and being a role model for my kids and not taking money for taxpayers that can be sued for someone who has not  job available. So, I stand my my words. I support welfare when it is a necessity but not when it is lifestyle choice.

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?