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 18

post #341 of 792
Quote:
Where is that $200 supposed to come from?

where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?

how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it

 

You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so other don't 

 

 

 

Quote:
That being said, I have no idea how to make that happen, or even if the "powers that be" would want that...

the tide is turning and many are starting to want it changed-my state is starting, only wish more was done

post #342 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?
how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it
I don't really understand the second half of what you wrote, typos or something? But as to the first part, people can't just "do without" food and basic medical care. That's why we have welfare. So that people who have "done without" every other thing can still survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so other don't 
I get that it's hard when you see others getting $100/mo toward food while you're struggling to pay for your own groceries but if you are in that position then chances are you aren't actually paying much (if anything) in taxes.

And yes, sometimes we have to all pitch in to make sure everyone is fed, even if it means we end up eating a little less ourselves.
post #343 of 792

I never meant to give anyone the impression that I am holding myself back from advancing in my career because of some desire to hold onto all the public assistance I can, and I didn't literally mean that if I made just a tiny bit more each pay period, I'd be in an entirely different income bracket and not qualify for any assistance. It's seriously not like I'm saying, "Oh, I better take a little time off this week or I'll make too much and -- gasp -- have to pay a copay."

 

I guess I can see how my statements might have been misunderstood, but I was honestly trying to show understanding for both sides -- the side I am obviously living right now and the side I haven't lived on for quite a while but can still understand.

 

I'm honestly not "gasping" in horror at the wonderful reality that as my income increases, my family will need, and therefore qualify for, less and less public assistance. It's exciting to see us gradually coming out of the tunnel. But, as I mentioned earlier, it is kind of an adjustment when the reduction in food or medical assistance is greater than the increase in income. But adjusting is just part of life.

 

Eventually we will be that family that still has it really tight but doesn't qualify for anything and has to pay tons of copays. As long as I know I'm doing the best I can for my family, I can live with the added stress of having to figure out how much to pay of each bill and how to work it all out. I've actually never been one to stress much over finances as long as I know I'm doing my best with what I have.

post #344 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?

how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it

 

I think what other people are trying to say, is that, at some point, there *isn't* any more room to wiggle. At some point, you're saying, "Okay, I have... $1000 this month (for example). I have to pay $600/month for rent, so that leaves us with $400. Gasoline, another $200, now we're at $200. Gas/electric/water (let's say they're combined. again, just example) is $200, now, we have no money. And that's counting only some of what most people (at least I) consider necessities. I guess you could try and forfeit paying your rent/mortgage, or your utilities, but you're liable to get eviction notice, and your utilities cut off. I guess one could say, "Well, go find a better job." or "Find a cheaper house." but a lot of times, that's not a feasible thing to do. And that's not counting things that a lot of people consider necessities, like some kind of phone service, either cell phone or house phone. We have one cell phone, that if one of us leaves the house, they take it with them. I hate having 2 kids, and no way to contact anyone and stay near my kids if there was an emergency. But that is something that, at least for now, has to be done. Thank God, Buddha, higher power of your choice that we live right next door to my mom, so if something happened, I could at least run over there to get help, or send DD or DS, but that is not preferable.

 

I did not mean to insult you, serenbat, if I have. If that is your situation, as well, I'm very sorry. It's a horrible, demeaning, embarrassing place to be (at least for me), and I would never wish it on another, ever.

post #345 of 792
Quote:
I think what other people are trying to say, is that, at some point, there *isn't* any more room to wiggle.

exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end

 

I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.

post #346 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end

 

I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.

 

If I'm not mistaken, at least on most welfare, there isn't extended long term assistance. I know, at least in Indiana, and I think Tennessee it's the same (but no firsthand experience there, so not 100% sure), the longest you can get TANF is 24 months, and that's in a lifetime. To me, 2 years doesn't seem like extended long-term, but it might be objective. With WIC, it's pregnancy + 5 years for child(ren), but from what I understand (from what they said), majority of people qualify for WIC. (That might not be everywhere, maybe just majority of people in my area, I don't know.) That seems a bit extended, to me, but if what the woman at the WIC office said is correct, and most people do/would qualify... maybe it's not so bad? I don't know. I am not terribly familiar with food stamps, or SNAP, so I don't know what, if any, kind of regulations there are on that.

 

I do agree that there should be more strict limits, but at the same time, I think that equal effort should be put into making sure that when the limits are reached, that they aren't just left hanging. If someone doesn't have job skills, teach them, provide them opportunities to learn. I know when I first got divorced, I had never been in work force. Out of high school, I went to college, and when I left college, I was a house wife,  then SAHM for 4 years. It was *immensely* difficult for me to find work. I was lucky enough to know someone who knew some people who ran temporary agency, who convinced them I was worth taking chance on. So if there were ways for people to either get jobs if they didn't/don't have them now, or to improve their skills/training to a level where they would be making enough to actually survive, that is necessary, as well, IMO.

 

Really, a lot of things, in a lot of different areas, need to change for this to be an equal place for everyone. Granted, I don't necessarily believe that someone who goes through extensive continuing education should make the same as someone who wasn't able to go to college (which does happen. It isn't always as easy as "If you want to go to college, get loans/grants/you'll find a way), but I also don't think that someone who busts their ass doing hard physical/manual labor deserves to make minimum wage, either. A lot of jobs are equally demanding/exhausting/difficult, albeit not in the same manner.

 

TL;DR Life sucks for a lot of people, for a lot of different reasons, and we're all created equally, and thus should all be entitled to at least the basics of survival, without having to justify ourselves.

post #347 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post

 

 

Which is to say: I think that society as a whole benefits from people not starving to death or living in dire poverty. That has been so clearly demonstrated over and over throughout history. Countries that do not take care of their poor people do badly. That's just a fact. The reason that it is better to have the money "taken" by the government instead of just coming through individual private donation is because of economy of scale. The government can take $.10 from each person and that is just not possible through private individual means. There has to be a distribution center and a long number of other benefits.

 

Why does this have to be?  I would gladly give to those less fortunate to me.  In fact I do.  It is just a very hard thing to rationalize since it is TAKEN from me in the form of taxes and I am not given the opportunity to give freely.  

 

I agree that we should not have people starving to death or living in dire poverty.  It is NOT the job of the government to take care of people though!  A community issue- but not one for the government.  Neighbors and families helping each other- not  a take from peter and pay paul.  

 

I absolutely don't believe the dime from each taxpayer is what pays for welfare.  That is completely not true.  Perhaps to the end recipient but it cost money for my money to be taken and run through 73 different agencies to get to the end welfare recipient.  

 

So... to the original question.  Should welfare be given to moms to SAH?  No.  My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children.  He shouldn't have to work to support others.  If I didn't have him would I feel differently?  No.  It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children.  Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?

post #348 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowaorganic View Post

I am going to jump in a little late- but Captain Optimism- our taxes are SUPPOSED to go to what we can't do for ourselves- defense.  That is the vision of the Founding Fathers.  Charity is supposed to be helping your neighbor willingly- not the government forcefully taking what you have earned and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it.  

 

I don't think that's an accurate description of the constitution, whose preamble says both "provide for the common defense" AND "support the general welfare."

 

I also don't think it's accurate to say that government forcefully takes what I have earned and gives it to someone who hasn't earned it. I willingly pay taxes as a patriotic citizen of a democracy. (A flawed democracy, but one in which the majority rules and I have the right to vote and be elected.) So the government isn't forcefully taking from me. Also, as a voter, I vote for people who will support the general welfare of the country. To say that a small child hasn't EARNED aid to his or her family--that's terrible. We are one country and I don't want any children growing up homeless or hungry in my country. 

 

And furthermore, I reject the premise that we should conduct our business based solely on the vision of the founders. We should conduct our business as a nation to the benefit of our contemporaries. The founding fathers are dead. 

post #349 of 792

here's my question.

 

for the ills of society why do the poor always have to pay. why is the anger all taken out to the poor.

 

why not the 1%? those who hide taxes and cheat the system? 

 

first of all what do we mean by welfare? i think there's a time limit to cash assistance, but is there one for food stamps? that would be a sad day if that has time limits too. insurance ages out and so does WIC. but it sure is a cold day in hell if states like indiana and tennessee limit food stamps too. it seems always the poor suffer. the south still remains poor and it starts in a poor southern state (not indiana). i hope that is not true. 

 

this is typical in almost every society. its always the poor who bear the brunt and the poor who suffer. 

 

to me - i am happy any mom who can play the system and be able to be home for their kids. most of the people who are on the programs really need it. not everyone plays the system. even if that means that i suffer. for the sake of equality i would totally be willing to part 50% of my income in taxes for universal healthcare, maternity leave and universal childcare. THAT would be tough too depending on the size of your income.  

 

but i cant steal money from another kids mouth to fill my kids tummy. at least that's how i look at it. where would the southern states be without welfare. history has done nothing to improve their bunch. sadly welfare keeps them where they are for generations - not because they want to stay there, but because welfare does not give them the opportunity to rise above it. 

 

yes i agree there needs to be a better system. i have no idea what that system would be - esp. in a country full of corporations and a capitalistic society whose philosophy is profit first. 

post #350 of 792
Is the problem really the fact that some get assistance, or is it really who's paying for it? Is it those in the upper income brackets paying, or do they have enough deductions to avoid paying for it. The problem is those who make just enough to not qualify for benefits are also being forced to pay for others to get the benefits, because they don't have deductions on their taxes (except for children). It is an unfair situation, and therefore breeds anger and resentment. Understandably so!!!

There are people who declare others on their taxes to get deductions, and to qualify for assistance, while those people are working and getting paid under the table, so the government doesn't know about it. Also unfair.

But if I spend my time focusing on what is unfair, I can't see how to make *my* life better. I admit I sometimes get caught up in the not fair whirlpool, but my son tells me to get out and move on. Pretty good advice.

I think we should stop criticizing someone with different feelings. We should commiserate instead. She's in a tough spot. And maybe if she doesn't feel like she needs to defend her feelings, she'll be better able to keep on going instead of staying stuck on this point.
post #351 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

where do you think it comes from when other people have to do it?

how about do without- like many have to- you can play numbers all you want but when you can't do the extra for fear you pay but it's just OK to make others do it

 

You don't seem to get others have to struggle a lot so other don't 

 

 

 

the tide is turning and many are starting to want it changed-my state is starting, only wish more was done

 

The bolded part doesn't make sense to me. As someone else pointed out, if your family truly has no wiggle room after paying for basic necessities then you most likely aren't paying much in taxes anyhow. I don't see how families that are struggling but are barely above income range that would qualify for assistance would magically NOT be struggling if the less fortunate families were starving instead of accepting welfare. And even if that were the case, the families receiving assistance are still struggling. So it's not accurate to say that your family is suffering so that others don't have to struggle. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your family and (others who make more money and pay more in taxes) struggle so that others don't STARVE.

post #352 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowaorganic View Post

Why does this have to be?  I would gladly give to those less fortunate to me.  In fact I do.  It is just a very hard thing to rationalize since it is TAKEN from me in the form of taxes and I am not given the opportunity to give freely.  

 

I agree that we should not have people starving to death or living in dire poverty.  It is NOT the job of the government to take care of people though!  A community issue- but not one for the government.  Neighbors and families helping each other- not  a take from peter and pay paul.  

 

I absolutely don't believe the dime from each taxpayer is what pays for welfare.  That is completely not true.  Perhaps to the end recipient but it cost money for my money to be taken and run through 73 different agencies to get to the end welfare recipient.  

 

So... to the original question.  Should welfare be given to moms to SAH?  No.  My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children.  He shouldn't have to work to support others.  If I didn't have him would I feel differently?  No.  It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children.  Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?

 

How do you feel about a program like California's Paid Family Leave, which I get if and only if I have worked enough during the previous year (and paid into CA SDI) to qualify? It currently only covers 6 weeks after the birth and up to 4 weeks before. But I think a similar program that covers 6 months to a year after birth should be implemented. That wouldn't be welfare, but it would be a social program, similar to unemployment, that would afford mothers the ability to stay home with their infants during the crucial first year.

post #353 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

exactly when those who are paying for others no longer have "wiggle room" maybe the extended long term assistance will end

 

I feel there should be strict limits as to the time allowed to receive assistance and much great means testing. Other mothers have to go back to work shortly after a birth and we should not treat one as better and more deserving and allow long term assistance that others can not have.

 

We HAVE  those limits and that means testing. We had welfare reform in 1996 that limits the amount of time people can receive TANF. TANF requires moms of relatively young children to work in order to get benefits. Go look this stuff up so that you have some kind of clue about how the policy actually works. The reason it's called TANF is that it stands for TEMPORARY aid for needy families. There was an earlier version of the program, AFDC, aid for families with dependent children, that was started during the Depression to keep people from putting their children into orphanages when they couldn't support them. That program had no limit AND IT ENDED IN 1996. The welfare reform of 1996 tightened everything. 

 

As far as the greater means testing--each state has eligibility based on income and assets. This is based on the cost of living in each state. The federal government has income and asset eligibility for SNAP based on the federal poverty level. Only families with minor children can get TANF; any family can get food stamps. There is no time limit on food stamps. 

 

The federal poverty level was first set in 1963. It was a calculation of how much it cost to feed a family of a particular size. Each state has a different cost of living so each state sets the income eligibility for families receiving TANF. You can find out how much a family in your state can make before they are eligible for benefits. 

 

All this information is available on the internet and findable using Google. 

 

No one on this board should disagree with your assertion that new mothers should have more reliable paid maternity leave. 

post #354 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitteh View Post

The bolded part doesn't make sense to me. As someone else pointed out, if your family truly has no wiggle room after paying for basic necessities then you most likely aren't paying much in taxes anyhow. I don't see how families that are struggling but are barely above income range that would qualify for assistance would magically NOT be struggling if the less fortunate families were starving instead of accepting welfare. And even if that were the case, the families receiving assistance are still struggling. So it's not accurate to say that your family is suffering so that others don't have to struggle. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that your family and (others who make more money and pay more in taxes) struggle so that others don't STARVE.

I have paid taxes at various levels throughout my adulthood. Sometimes at the higher end, sometimes at the bottom end, and sometimes at that infuriating spot where one doesn't qualify for *any* assistance, but half the pay, or just about, goes to taxes!! So don't assume you *know- what someone else pays in taxes. Show the compassion you claim to have to the person who is upset by the unfair system, instead.
post #355 of 792
I don't mind that I wasn't paid for 16 years while raising my set of kids. My hubby has made a great salary for twenty years. We don't have a lot of extras but neither have we had any real suffering because of money.

What I do mind is that my Social Security benefits will be so small because of this time. Thank goodness there are still rules in place that I can draw half of my hubby's SS should I need to.
post #356 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I think we should stop criticizing someone with different feelings. We should commiserate instead. She's in a tough spot. And maybe if she doesn't feel like she needs to defend her feelings, she'll be better able to keep on going instead of staying stuck on this point.

 

I think our feelings are just our feelings and don't need any defense at all. The problem comes in when someone doesn't know how to process those feelings in a healthy way and just starts striking out at other people. Those other people have feelings, too.

post #357 of 792

All the divisions in our society between those who are struggling the most seem very similar to all the divisions between the kids in the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy in, say, a junior high school. The kids who are awkward and don't have their looks all together yet are actually much greater in number than the so-called beautiful people -- but they often want to distance themselves from their fellow-strugglers because to hang out with a bunch of "dorks" is to come to term with the reality that in this particular "world," they are also a "dork." The bullies really capitalize on the fact that they can single these "dorks" out one at a time and sometimes get other "dorks" to join in with the bullying.

 

I think that's what the "we are the 99%" slogan is all about --- shaking up that paradigm.

post #358 of 792

I can tell you how things are in my country so you can have a different perspective, if you're interested. 

 

The minimum base salary Romania is around $230/month 

Only the women who have been working for 12 months prior to the birth are entitled to receive money and stay at home and they can choose between:

 

1. SAH for 1 year receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than $180/month or more than  $1030/month (mothers who have earned more are not intitled to receive their 85% if it goes by that limit). If they chose this option, they have to go back to work one day (or more) before the child is 1 year old so they can some more money added to their initial salary -about  $152/monthly/for an year

2. SAH for 2 years receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than $180/month or more than $360/month and they don't get anything extra if going back to work after 2 years. 

 

I must add public daycare is awful. And homeschooling is illegal. 

 

Oh and the children after 2 yrs old are entitled to receive around $13/month -it sounds like a joke but it's not. So here with this money you can buy two books or three pizza. 

 

Unfortunately, women with low education and low income are encouraged to have babies while women with higher education and higher income and especially middle class are discouraged to have more than 1 child. Families with 3 children are rare, especially in the educated and good income homes. 

post #359 of 792
Quote:
So... to the original question.  Should welfare be given to moms to SAH?  No.  My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children.  He shouldn't have to work to support others.  If I didn't have him would I feel differently?  No.  It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children.  Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves? and their children?

many seem to miss this part!

When you don't get any assistance, you choose to have children and take responsibility for them because you don't get assistance and have to do it on your own.

 

 

 

Quote:
As far as the greater means testing--each state has eligibility based on income and assets. This is based on the cost of living in each state. The federal government has income and asset eligibility for SNAP based on the federal poverty level. Only families with minor children can get TANF; any family can get food stamps. There is no time limit on food stamps. 

this isn't only it - we have state programs that continue to aid in housing, plus county food/housing assistance, WIC, CHIP and school lunch aid

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
The problem is those who make just enough to not qualify for benefits are also being forced to pay for others to get the benefits, because they don't have deductions on their taxes (except for children). It is an unfair situation, and therefore breeds anger and resentment. Understandably so!!!

 

Quote:

So don't assume you *know- what someone else pays in taxes. Show the compassion you claim to have to the person who is upset by the unfair system, instead.

some do get it and others never will

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

1. SAH for 1 year receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than $180/month or more than  $1030/month (mothers who have earned more are not intitled to receive their 85% if it goes by that limit). If they chose this option, they have to go back to work one day (or more) before the child is 1 year old so they can some more money added to their initial salary -about  $152/monthly/for an year

2. SAH for 2 years receiving 85% calculated from their average basic salary during those 12 months, which cannot be less than $180/month or more than $360/month and they don't get anything extra if going back to work after 2 years. 

 

vs "0" for the working US mom

post #360 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowaorganic View Post

So... to the original question.  Should welfare be given to moms to SAH?  No.  My husband works to support his family and allow me to SAH to raise our children.  He shouldn't have to work to support others.  If I didn't have him would I feel differently?  No.  It would then be my responsibility to work to support my children.  Perhaps the better question would be why don't people take responsibility for themselves?

 

I think this is a reasonable response, though I disagree with it. The critical issue isn't your beliefs on this subject, or even your feelings, but whether you understand  that our current welfare policy is not designed to allow women to stay at home with their children. The previous program, AFDC, was explicitly for that purpose, but TANF is not. 

 

 

In this country, I can see a few problems that create a constant need for monies to offset problems of poverty.

 

First, real wages have stayed stagnant since the 1970s. From the late 1970s until the present, we've had a slow, healthy rate of inflation--except that real wages haven't kept pace. This means anyone working for a wage without inherited wealth has earned less money and had less of an opportunity to amass wealth, which has increased the gap between rich and poor. If these folks succeeded in buying houses during the housing bubble, their main wealth asset lost its value. 

 

We are also in the middle of another economic recession, with very high unemployment. These two economic factors have driven down the rate of marriage to a new low. We also have an insanely high rate of incarceration--we have more people in prison here than in any other country. I don't know how that affects marriage--I'm assuming badly--but it also affects whether people can make a living.

 

Our welfare policy since the 1990s has been predicated on the idea that promoting marriage would be a good idea (I'm not sure about that) that dads should pay child support, whether they're married or not, and that moms who are low-income enough to need aid also need to be forced to work so that they won't be permanently impoverished.  The problem is that educational opportunities that would lift people out of poverty are only sometimes included in work requirements, since states have a lot of control over how the federal money is distributed and they need to do a lot with it. 

 

 

Nearly all our programs that deal with hunger--food stamps, school lunch and breakfast, WIC--are driven by a desire to subsidize big agriculture. That's probably good news, because we are a country of ogres who don't care whether children go hungry. What has dismayed me has been the growing need for backpack weekend food charities. These are privately funded (which is good if you like everything to be privately funded, I guess) to make up for how many school-aged kids don't have food at home. In my city, in the summer, food trucks come around to the parks and playgrounds to hand out free lunches to children, in case their parents in this mixed-income area don't have enough money from their work or benefits programs to feed their children. 

 

The principal at my son's school keeps a box of meal bars for children who don't get to school in time for the free breakfast but can't concentrate in class because they are too hungry. 

 

Frankly, I do not care whether the money to keep children from going hungry comes from public or private sources. I prefer public because I think we as a whole society have an obligation to make sure children have what they need. If private funders would reliably make up the difference, though, I could suck it up and deal with that. I'm just crushed when I think that little kids have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

 

I really do not care one iota about forcing parents to be responsible. Kids have one childhood and these are the children in our country and we have an obligation to make sure they grow up healthy, smart and productive. 

 

would I like welfare to also allow women to stay home with children? Sure, maybe, yeah, whatever. I think the policy should actually be to promote education, but frankly I think it's too much of a crisis to be picky. 

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?