Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 16

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by Alenushka 

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.

If you are responding to my post about quitting an otherwise good job, it wasn't because I didn't *like* the job. It was because I was being harassed on a daily basis by someone, and Human Resources wouldn't do anything about it but blame me. I was getting threatened, and from what I knew of the person, and from what others told me about the person, he was very likely to act on his threats. It was affecting my health. It wasn't because I didn't like it, I *loved* the job. I planned on going back to the job after the baby was born. But when I was being threatened on a daily basis, with a *very* high risk that it would become an action, and no longer a threat, to me, my fiance, and my children, it wasn't worth it. I guess were we all dead, it would have been okay, because I would have been paying my way all along, and then murdered, and not needed assistance, but I chose not to take that path. Was I wrong? I don't think so. But maybe I was. If I was, I'm sure Karma, the universe, God, or whatever higher power is in charge will make sure that it "gets the job done" or whatever, in some other way, and I hope and pray it would not be with me worrying every day I'm going to wake up to someone having broken into my house and murdered us. Just sayin'.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by bmcneal 

If you are responding to my post about quitting an otherwise good job, it wasn't because I didn't *like* the job. It was because I was being harassed on a daily basis by someone, and Human Resources wouldn't do anything about it but blame me. I was getting threatened, and from what I knew of the person, and from what others told me about the person, he was very likely to act on his threats. It was affecting my health. It wasn't because I didn't like it, I *loved* the job. I planned on going back to the job after the baby was born. But when I was being threatened on a daily basis, with a *very* high risk that it would become an action, and no longer a threat, to me, my fiance, and my children, it wasn't worth it. I guess were we all dead, it would have been okay, because I would have been paying my way all along, and then murdered, and not needed assistance, but I chose not to take that path. Was I wrong? I don't think so. But maybe I was. If I was, I'm sure Karma, the universe, God, or whatever higher power is in charge will make sure that it "gets the job done" or whatever, in some other way, and I hope and pray it would not be with me worrying every day I'm going to wake up to someone having broken into my house and murdered us. Just sayin'.

I hope you're in a better place, emotionally, now. I remember your story from another thread.

[pek64]

Each person has a different story, and we shouldn't judge each other.

Would I stay in a job that was adversely affecting my health? No.
Would I work where I didn't feel safe? No.
Would I stay in a marriage where I felt I or my children were in danger? No.

Welfare is needed so people have the ability to protect themselves.

Still, I do make choices that someone else might not make. My choices are based on my priorities, which are unique to me. It's too easy to take a cursory look at a situation and jump to conclusions.

Should we support welfare? I think we should. I also think there should be some changes to the system. I know people who take advantage of the system and others who need assistance and don't qualify unless they quit working. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to legislate a perfect system. So I guess we have to work with the one we've got.

[littlest birds]

I stand by not judging people too.  Who defines the difference between a "necessity" and a "lifestyle choice" ?  I don't really care to hear the differences because judging this is really mean and people always think they can judge the poor and people on welfare.  You lose your privacy and the assumption that you have the right to choose when you get public assistance--at least in the eyes of many.

Welfare is not generous enough for it to matter one bit to me why another person is making the compromises they've chosen because if your employment choices are keeping you that poor those choices were not made lightly or for "non-necessity" reasons.  Or at least I would not assume that they were.  I would assume they were choices made with care and mostly none of my business.

I do not believe my tax dollars give me the right to invade others business in ways I otherwise would not think I had any right to do.

[mammal_mama]

Well said, littlest birds!

[serenbat]

I do judge people because we are all being judged.

I personally have a real problem with mothers on assistance and feel there should be major changes.

I don't feel they deserve to be with their children any more than a mother who is not getting assistance- all children should be equal and both should be able to be with their mothers. Until all are equal I will continue to have this issue. Until this country pays all mothers I feel none should be receive assistance to be with their children. I did not qualify for any assistance and got nothing (and this was prior to when you could and they did fire you for not returning to work right away) to help because at the time I made a little less than $50.00 a week over the max for assistance. There still are many mothers that get no paid time off, no help at all with WIC or anything and must return quickly to work so that others do not- I see it as unequal.

[meemee]

how is that unequal. they had a cutoff. if you made less than that then you get support. 

so because you didnt get support, others shouldnt?!!! is that your reasoning?

[serenbat]

Quote:

how is that unequal. they had a cutoff. if you made less than that then you get support. 

so because you didnt get support, others shouldnt?!!! is that your reasoning?

children are not worth the same nor are the mothers

you are no more deserving to be with your child vs another mother are you? Other countries do not value a mother based on poverty-they let all be paid for the worth of the child, not here

we don't do it when children are born we don't do it as they age

right now my child is not equal to another's - in my state we don't even value education they same  - we don't allot X dollars for each child we pick and choose=unequal  

[contactmaya]

Should mothers be supported by welfare  to escape dire poverty? Or should mothers be supported so they can be with their children because that is in the best interests of the child? Two different questions.

Most  industrialized countries in the world place the working childless adult individual at the center and  the economy and political system revolve around them. Children are not at the center. Some countries do a better job than others and finding a balance between conflicting interests  (dare i mention Sweden), in the US, the welfare system actively separates mother and child. (or primary caregiver and child).   

[crunchy_mommy]

This thread is absolutely crazy.

In the U.S., moms on welfare do NOT get assistance to stay home with their kids. They get assistance because they don't have enough income to make ends meet.

Do you know how expensive it can be to be a working parent?!

In my state, daycare for ONE kid is over $800/month. Someone working a full-time minimum-wage job makes about $1300/month. Once you deduct taxes, childcare, transportation, uniforms, and other work-related costs, there is virtually nothing left. If she has 2+ kids, she'd be spending more on childcare than she makes in a month.

Add in the fact that (at least where I live) you cannot buy private health insurance if you are eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, and the issues magnify. Employee-sponsored insurance for a family costs an employee up to $800 a month, plus copays/coinsurance/deductibles. This is not possible if you are only making $10/hr. You'd be in the negative and unable to survive. Quitting that job would save childcare costs, make this person eligible for medicaid, cut out transportation & other work-related expenses... and they'd still be living in poverty, still barely able to make ends meet, but at least they'd have a fighting chance.

[serenbat]

sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math - 

Quote:

In my state, daycare for ONE kid is over $800/month. Someone working a full-time minimum-wage job makes about $1300/month. Once you deduct taxes, childcare, transportation, uniforms, and other work-related costs, there is virtually nothing left. If she has 2+ kids, she'd be spending more on childcare than she makes in a month.

Add in the fact that (at least where I live) you cannot buy private health insurance if you are eligible for employer-sponsored insurance, and the issues magnify. Employee-sponsored insurance for a family costs an employee up to $800 a month, plus copays/coinsurance/deductibles. This is not possible if you are only making $10/hr. You'd be in the negative and unable to survive. Quitting that job would save childcare costs, make this person eligible for medicaid, cut out transportation & other work-related expenses... and they'd still be living in poverty, still barely able to make ends meet, but at least they'd have a fighting chance.

they find it better to not work and have to pay

actually $800.00 in my area is very cheap- if you could even find it

I know for our income if we had more kids we would qualify for things- depends on family size around here.

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math - 

they find it better to not work and have to pay

actually $800.00 in my area is very cheap- if you could even find it

I know for our income if we had more kids we would qualify for things- depends on family size around here.

It's not just that they find it to be better or preferable to not work, the sad reality is that some parents find that they absolutely cannot SURVIVE while working a minimum-wage (or even slightly above that) job.

This thread is really interesting, and one that hits home for me. My first child was a surprise and at first I thought it was such bad timing that I actually considered abortion because I wasn't sure we could afford her. How terrible and tragic is that? Looking back now I can't believe I ever entertained the idea, but that was my reality.

My husband is a Chilean immigrant and had just arrived in the US when I unexpectedly became pregnant (immediately!) He was not legally authorized to work, and I was just finishing up my last semester at UCLA and was working lunch shifts as a waitress. We were sharing a 2 bedroom apartment with an alcoholic relative of mine (certainly did not plan to bring a child into THAT living situation--we'd only intended to live there for a year until DH could find a job.) The first few months of my prenatal care were covered by my university insurance, but after I graduated (with $25k in student loans and another 25k in credit card debt!!) I was dropped from that insurance plan. Luckily the nurse-midwives over at UCLA accept Medi-Cal and urged me to apply. Since we were only living on my income, which was definitely less than 30k/year, I qualified for pregnancy-related Medi-Cal and WIC.

DH got a job through my workplace, but he was making minimum wage and wasn't given full-time hours. With no work history in the US that was the best he could get. I continued to waitress through my entire pregnancy. After the baby was born DH was able to find a much better job making $10/hr with a full-time schedule and I went back to waitressing. We knew we had to find our own place, but also knew that we would probably not be able to afford anything near our jobs, and we didn't own a car. Then one day I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment. Around that time my DH heard about a non-profit organization in our area that offered affordable housing to moderate- and low-income people, so we applied.

I found a part-time job at an elementary school, but I only make $14/hour and I get less than 20 hours a week. I still receive partial unemployment, but won't for much longer as my claim runs out in March. It certainly isn't an ideal situation, but It works for us because I am able to be at home with my DD for most of the day. DH has also received a promotion and a small raise at his job. We still get WIC and still live in the subsidized housing. We both got insurance from DH's job, but DD is on Healthy Families. Earlier this year we decided to have another baby, and I am currently 18.5 weeks along. This one was totally planned, and we knew that doing so would mean continuing WIC. Sometimes I feel guilty for planning a pregnancy when we live in subsidized housing, but the truth is that this is a temporary lifestyle choice that we have made in order to parent/raise our children OURSELVES. Before we ever got married we talked about wanting two children, so the thought of just having one because of our current financial situation is not something we are willing to do. I do not see us staying in this tax-bracket forever, and I know that if we chose not to have another because of money, I would undoubtedly regret that decision down the road.

The way I see it, I want to have my kids close in age so that I can continue to work part-time while they are little. We make sacrifices so that is possible. We have no car. I cut DD and Dh's hair (and my own, sometimes!) We live in a tiny 1-bedroom apartment and plan to stay here until we are absolutely bursting at the seams. We don't take vacations (unless family members invite/pay for us to come visit.) We maintain a very tight budget and live frugally. Even so, we have managed to entirely pay off the credit card debt and a lot of the student loans, and now have thousands in savings.  Once both of our kids are in school, I plan to increase my hours and eventually start teaching full-time, and when that happens our financial situation will change significantly and I'm sure we will no longer qualify for WIC or the affordable housing that we currently have.

[kitteh]

Also--as others in this thread have said--I don't think that parents should HAVE to accept this sort of welfare to stay home with their kids. I think that we need to re-think our maternity and paternity leave laws and adopt legislation that allows for a year of paid leave for each parent. At the very least, mothers should get 6 months to be at home with baby without having to worry that they will be replaced in the workforce.

[crunchy_mommy]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

sadly there are those who are staying home- I know of one! because when you do the math - 

they find it better to not work and have to pay

That's exactly my point though! People work to make money. What person in their right mind will pay money to work?!?!?

[serenbat]

Quote:

At the very least, mothers should get 6 months to be at home with baby without having to worry that they will be replaced in the workforce.

I don't see us (US) moving towards this and time soon!

In my state we can't even fund education equally- it would save a ton of money if we did and there is NO desire to even do this.

Until mothers are treated equally, children will not be.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I do judge people because we are all being judged.

I personally have a real problem with mothers on assistance and feel there should be major changes.

I don't feel they deserve to be with their children any more than a mother who is not getting assistance- all children should be equal and both should be able to be with their mothers. Until all are equal I will continue to have this issue. Until this country pays all mothers I feel none should be receive assistance to be with their children. I did not qualify for any assistance and got nothing (and this was prior to when you could and they did fire you for not returning to work right away) to help because at the time I made a little less than $50.00 a week over the max for assistance. There still are many mothers that get no paid time off, no help at all with WIC or anything and must return quickly to work so that others do not- I see it as unequal.

serenbat, while I see your point that our government should be more supportive of policies that enable ALL parents to spend more time with their children, it seems really unfair for you to direct your judgment towards those families that need help and are availing themselves of whatever help is available. Struggling parents can't really be expected to say, "Well, until the system is perfectly fair for everyone, I won't get any help for my kids and me!"

I can also understand that the people who are most resentful of families like mine -- where one parent is bringing in an income but they still qualify for and receive assistance with food and medical care -- tend to be the people in a slightly higher income bracket that just barely disqualifies them from getting as much help as families like mine are getting. If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too. A while back, I had an increase in income that basically cut our food stamp payment in half. The increase in income wasn't enough to totally make up for the cut in food stamps, so it's been tough.

But this doesn't mean I should become resentful of families in even more dire circumstances than ours -- such as those headed by single mothers with little education who have to work minimum wage jobs. Those mothers need and should get a lot more help than my family is getting.

In response to the other poster who talked about her children getting a good example by seeing her work so hard. I agree that she is a good example to her children -- but I want to point out that families that get some assistance are also working very hard and taking pride in a job well done. Everything we do to help ourselves, our families, and our communities is worthwhile work that we and our kids should take pride in. Getting assistance doesn't prevent any parent from being a good example to her or his children.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I can also understand that the people who are most resentful of families like mine -- where one parent is bringing in an income but they still qualify for and receive assistance with food and medical care -- tend to be the people in a slightly higher income bracket that just barely disqualifies them from getting as much help as families like mine are getting. If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too. A while back, I had an increase in income that basically cut our food stamp payment in half. The increase in income wasn't enough to totally make up for the cut in food stamps, so it's been tough.

you don't come off as grateful to the families that are struggling to pay so that you don't

I have to pay a co-pay, and deductible and YES it comes out of our food too. I get ONE well visit a year- every sick I pay plus the cost of meds- we need to eat too and pay taxes.....this seems to get forgotten by most.

[pek64]

In the US you should be able to get free insurance through CHIP. I don't know if there are co-pays, though. And it leaves parents uninsured, which is stupid.

I agree there are problems, but that doesn't mean we should be against all welfare. My family didn't qualify when my husband was working only part time, and struggled. We are still struggling. But until you've been in someone else's situation, you can't judge fairly.

[serenbat]

Quote:

 If I made a little more money, I'd have to start paying a copay for my girls' Medicaid and I'm sure we'd get less food stamps, too.

In response to the other poster who talked about her children getting a good example by seeing her work so hard. I agree that she is a good example to her children -- but I want to point out that families that get some assistance are also working very hard and taking pride in a job well done. Everything we do to help ourselves, our families, and our communities is worthwhile work that we and our kids should take pride in. Getting assistance doesn't prevent any parent from being a good example to her or his children.

and in your case - do you teach that is it good not to do that extra work so you can get more food stamps and that's if OK to do this and it's just fine that others pay for it?

and I should be understanding that I have to cut back and you don't do the extra because it cost you and some how it free for me!

I feel the way I do when I read things like this.

You don't walk in my shoes.

ETA - there are lots that struggle so that other's don't- I know a family with 3 kid (that $75.00 just to walk into the Dr- upfront) not to mention the med cost and the weekly deduction from the paycheck------it does add up

[mamazee]

The average tax payer pays 10 cents a day for the existence of the whole food stamp program.