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 3

post #41 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

I totally agree meemee, but I dont ACTUALLY think they should give us $22,000 a year per kid to be sahms. While it would be awesome, its not practical.

actually i dont see why not. old rumania would give all college students a stiped of what was basically a starting proff salary as long as you performed. the final exam was like an interview. an oral interview with a group of faculty members. your final could be 2 hours long or 5 hours. essentially i would imagine like peer review - except ur knowledge was grilled out of you. a costudent went thru this system for his BA.

 

$22000 a year does not sound unreasonable to me. its about 1800 a month which would really be a good amount for a family of 3. each subsequent child could be so much extra not 22000 extra. i mean what do they pay per foster child? $550 a month? depending on the state your day care could be covered too. esp. countries that cover paid leaves get anything from 60% to full paid leave.

 

and yes compared to all the tax breaks and other perks corporations and industries get - why not 22000 for the families.   

 

i mean yeah of course it is not gonna happen but 22000 i dont see as asking for the moon. 

 

unfortunately no public program is a foolproof program. there are many who fanagle things to get their way. even in the UK young girls get pregnant as a way to get out of home and live by themselves coz they get govt support. 
 

 

post #42 of 792

I would love for my tax dollars to go to letting single mothers stay with their children during their early years.  It is very important to me that young children have their mothers.   Often quality childcare costs enough to require that a working single mother apply for welfare anyway so I don't see the need to deprive a babe. 

post #43 of 792

I personally support stay at home parenting, even for single parents.  I think it is best for children in general, not just for the children of families like mine who can afford to live off the one income we have.  My daughter is no better than any other 2 year old, she isn't the only one who deserves her mommy rather than a day care.

 

In regards specifically to people abusing welfare, I don't know hardly anything about welfare as I've never been on it nor known someone personally who was on it (that I knew of - the topic doesn't often come up) to learn about it from but I've always wondered if it could be set up more similarly to WIC.  Clearly people are concerned for some reason that a great many people on welfare are using it for drugs/alcohol and designer clothes and other such things that aren't necessary... so why not set it up with the paper checks or a card so you can only use it at a utility company or on kids shoes/clothes or for rent?  Like I said, I don't know how welfare works... but if its so easy to use on things it isn't meant for, why not set it up to put limits on what you can pay for with it and where?  You only get x amount for shoes so obviously you won't be buying designer shoes for your kid which means you have y amount for rent... I'm too tired to think too in depth but people always talk about welfare like the government literally just hands you cash to do what you want with... if that is the case, why not put limits on it the same way WIC has.  I HAVE been on WIC and I know you can't buy anything you want in the grocery store with it even if you try.

post #44 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

 

In regards specifically to people abusing welfare, I don't know hardly anything about welfare as I've never been on it nor known someone personally who was on it (that I knew of - the topic doesn't often come up) to learn about it from but I've always wondered if it could be set up more similarly to WIC.  Clearly people are concerned for some reason that a great many people on welfare are using it for drugs/alcohol and designer clothes and other such things that aren't necessary... so why not set it up with the paper checks or a card so you can only use it at a utility company or on kids shoes/clothes or for rent?  Like I said, I don't know how welfare works... but if its so easy to use on things it isn't meant for, why not set it up to put limits on what you can pay for with it and where?  You only get x amount for shoes so obviously you won't be buying designer shoes for your kid which means you have y amount for rent... I'm too tired to think too in depth but people always talk about welfare like the government literally just hands you cash to do what you want with... if that is the case, why not put limits on it the same way WIC has.  I HAVE been on WIC and I know you can't buy anything you want in the grocery store with it even if you try.


Some people sell their checks/food stamp cards/etc. and then use THAT money to pay for other things (maybe things they need, maybe things they don't....) I see the same problem with WIC because if you get 20 jars of baby food but your baby doesn't eat baby food, can you sell it and then buy clothes for your kid? Or could you sell it & buy yourself a manicure?

I have seen many people receiving gov't benefits (in whatever form) that look like they are abusing the program. Obviously you can't know for sure, but all the same, it's hard to be working your butt of as a cashier, barely getting by, and see someone drive off with their foodstamp groceries in their brand-new convertible. eyesroll.gif Whether they are actually abusing the program is kind of irrelevant -- it's still hard to see, especially for people on the low end of middle-class. One big problem with various welfare programs is that there is a whole segment of people who make just enough to not qualify, but not enough to survive. I think it's hard not to feel resentful if you're working harder and able to afford less than someone on welfare. Even people who aren't abusing the system at all, are still bound to get under your skin if you're in this category.
post #45 of 792

Wow! I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. (greencarnation) A lot of people, (including tv "court judges") complain how their tax dollars are foing to welfare and supporting other peoples children. The reality is that if low income mothers do work, the chances of them having to utilize government funded childcare is very high. Then the same "taxpayers" will be complaining about that. Either way the mother (or father) is deemed as a drain on the economy. The truth is tax dollars are spent in other ways that people are not addressing or feel powerless to address. So it's easier to put the focus on the most vulnerable.

post #46 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post


Some people sell their checks/food stamp cards/etc. and then use THAT money to pay for other things (maybe things they need, maybe things they don't....) I see the same problem with WIC because if you get 20 jars of baby food but your baby doesn't eat baby food, can you sell it and then buy clothes for your kid? Or could you sell it & buy yourself a manicure?

I have seen many people receiving gov't benefits (in whatever form) that look like they are abusing the program. Obviously you can't know for sure, but all the same, it's hard to be working your butt of as a cashier, barely getting by, and see someone drive off with their foodstamp groceries in their brand-new convertible. eyesroll.gif Whether they are actually abusing the program is kind of irrelevant -- it's still hard to see, especially for people on the low end of middle-class. One big problem with various welfare programs is that there is a whole segment of people who make just enough to not qualify, but not enough to survive. I think it's hard not to feel resentful if you're working harder and able to afford less than someone on welfare. Even people who aren't abusing the system at all, are still bound to get under your skin if you're in this category.


I think this is why I feel like I do.  I work so hard just to stay above water.   It's hard to not to feel a little resentful.

 

post #47 of 792

Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right.  Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM.  Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare.  Yes, the system is broken.  Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time.  Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option.  People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child.  To me, this says "our family is more important than others"  "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" .  I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like.  If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children.  I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise.  Grrrr....

post #48 of 792
I'm always interested in knowing what people consider welfare. Is it just cash assistance that one who lives below poverty can receive? Or are we including housing vouchers and low-income, tax-credit apartments? What about Medicaid and other subsidized healthcare plans? Food stamps and WIC and reduced or free lunches? Child care assistance (of course, that's not meant for SAHM's, but it is the alternative if one works a low-paying job)?

I guess it helps when discussing these topics to clarify what others consider "welfare", which to me, is any type of government aid.
post #49 of 792

The big brother issue is a concern of mine also. However, if you receive welfare, you are already dealing with the big brother issue. Instead of looking at the quality of the job you're doing, they look at the amount of money you have. When you are on welfare, it is like having a big fat thumb on you to keep you down. You are not allowed to make any extra money or accumulate anything of value without having your check reduced or eliminated. In a program like I'm proposing,  there would need to be guide lines in place to protect folks who disagreed with the mainstream ideas. I'm not sure about all of the details, but I would like to see a society that truly put children and families first. It would always be a choice.

 
post #50 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by lari View Post

Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right.  Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM.  Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare.  Yes, the system is broken.  Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time.  Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option.  People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child.  To me, this says "our family is more important than others"  "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" .  I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like.  If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children.  I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise.  Grrrr....




I have to agree with you. I have not been a stay at home mom for my daughter but I have found jobs that allow me to be at home as much as possible even though they have nothing to do with my college degree. I never felt like I had the "right" to stay home. I had my daughter at a relatively young age and we were not financially prepared but we have made it work. I don't begrudge women who have planned ahead and can afford to stay home the right to do so. I think it is great if you can do that! However, I don't think I have been any less of a great mom because I have worked her whole life. Staying home with your children is the best option but only if you actually have that option and can afford to do so. If you are attending school or trying to get training so you can get a job in the near future, that is a little different. If you want to just be a stay-at-home mom for your child and want taxpayers to support your family, I have a problem with that.

post #51 of 792
First, I am somewhere left of Marx (Kidding. Sort of. ) in regards to my political philosophy and I fully believe in, and vote to support, European-style social support. Universal health care, paid maternity and paternity leave, subsidized higher education....the whole nine yards.

I also support, unpopularly in homeschool circles, the US ratification of the UN's Charter of the Child. I would go so far as to say that I believe that a child has the right to a SAHP, rather than the mother (or father) having the right to be that SAHP. Also that a child has the right to breast milk, regardless of a mother's choice (which would need a whole lot of support, education and things like paid donor milk programs in order to work. Not really feasible, I understand, but I still think it). Read on before jumping on me here, I refute this!

But this scares the hell out of me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie B View Post

I believe that if we are going to have any hope in this world, we have to start to value our children and the people who take care of them. I think welfare should only be for the disabled. A program where staying at home to take care of your children would be a job that you get paid to do like any other job. If a mother or a father chooses to stay home with their children they could get a check just like any government worker. But, like any job you would be held accountable for the job you do. Raises and bonuses would be based on classes taken such as child development, nutrition, parenting, ect. By doing so we would place value on parenting and take away the stigma of "being on welfare". Taking care of your children should be a respectable position. A program like this would eliminate  the people who collect the money, but don't take care of their children.

I am a mother, grandmother and retired pre-k teacher. I am a firm believer that we need more education on being parents.

 

I can tell you that I spend waaaaaay more time educating myself about the choices I make for my children than any mandated requirement could ever ask. My choices, based on that research, are ones that would probably get me 'fired' from your proposed program. I homeschool my kids using an alternative understanding of child development (Waldorf). I do not vaccinate them. I use homeopathic and other alternative medical practices for my family. I breastfeeding until my children decide it is time to stop breastfeeding. I cosleep with my children. I mostly use an alternative understanding of nutrition (Traditional Foods) to provide food for my kids.

You can see that, in view of my own choices to parent outside of the mainstream, heavy-handed ideas like somehow mandating breastfeeding are completely inappropriate. I guess I think that I feel that the larger community and particularly the government as the representative thereof has an obligation to provide support and an equal obligation to trust an individual's choices. Very tough line. I guess that I would err on the side of feeling that the government would best invest in its citizenry by providing basic supports for dignified existence and a wealth of subsidized education opportunities so that individual choice can be better trusted as left to the individual. To keep using the breastfeeding example, more women would breastfeed because they would have the education, the social support and the time and the money. Some would still choose not to inevitably, but at least it would be a fair choice. Would there be abuse? Absolutely, but I can live with that.

I have come to believe that there will be no answers to these questions as long as we are so entrenched between these two political poles here in the US. I am and will continue to be a dedicated liberal, but I no longer see that there is a black and a white. So, I am a feminist, but I see where feminism has let me, a SAHM who always wanted to be such, down in a bad way (ie, you can be whatever you like, girls, as long as it is what we tell you to be! And we are going to flood the market with women workers, assume our work is done because they have the job but not equal pay, raise the cost of living, so that now it is virtually impossible to live on a single income, and now you no longer have the choice to SAH for part of your career. Thus setting women against each other for making their very tough choices. Ugh.) I would hope that feminism could broaden its narrow vision of just how women must be raised up. I vote pro-choice, but I would do anything to see the need for abortion all but disappear. I would hope that the pro-choice movement can see that it would be helping families not only by offering choice about abortion when backed into a corner, but true choices about reproduction, based on support and education. From my POV, these things, along with supporting families (and especially women and children, who, let's face facts, get a buuuuum deal in the US) can be addressed only when we act with compassion instead of by reactionary dogma.

So, YES, I support any movement towards a government that supports families so that they may make choices in dignity and not in desperation.
Edited by MammaG - 5/26/11 at 10:33am
post #52 of 792

"WAREHOUSED"??????????????  Are you friggin' serious?    Do you realize how disgusting and offensive such terminology is? 

post #53 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife View Post

I'm always interested in knowing what people consider welfare. Is it just cash assistance that one who lives below poverty can receive? Or are we including housing vouchers and low-income, tax-credit apartments? What about Medicaid and other subsidized healthcare plans? Food stamps and WIC and reduced or free lunches? Child care assistance (of course, that's not meant for SAHM's, but it is the alternative if one works a low-paying job)?

I guess it helps when discussing these topics to clarify what others consider "welfare", which to me, is any type of government aid.
For the purposes of this discussion, I would consider all the things you mentioned to be 'welfare'. Anything that is government aid meant to provide basic food/shelter/etc. for those whose income falls below a certain level. I would not include general tax-paid services such as police/fire services in this category. Unemployment would be a gray area due to how it's funded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lari View Post

Being a SAHM is a priviledge, NOT a right.  Only my rich friends can afford to have a SAHM.  Everyone else works their butts off to make ends meet and pay the taxes that go support those on welfare.  Yes, the system is broken.  Welfare should be there to help those in unfortunate situations for a SHORT period of time.  Choosing to be on welfare as a lifestyle choice should not be an option.  People keep mentioning family values, but I personally have a problem with the "values" that are being taught to children of someone who choose's to live off the system so they can stay at home with their child.  To me, this says "our family is more important than others"  "we deserve to be taken care of because the system is broken" "It's the government's responsibility to support us since I want to spend time with my child" .  I would rather that children be taught about a strong work ethic, self-sufficiency, not expecting hand-outs, contributing to the economy and planning/saving so that you can live the lifestyle you would like.  If it's important for you to stay at home you should plan for that before you decide to have children.  I've gotten really tired of this attitude that I deserve to do what I want to do and other's should help me financially or otherwise.  Grrrr....

From the parent's perspective, I can understand your point that it's a parent's privilege. From a child's perspective, I don't agree. Children NEED to be near their parents or loving caregivers. Children deserve that, it's not a privilege IMO, it's a right. Not to sound corny, but children are our future, so it affects all of us, not just individual families. I'm not saying there is one 'right' lifestyle (i.e. SAHM'ing) but that we should make it possible for parents to provide a lifestyle that they feel is in their child's best interest.
It's not as simple as "plan to SAH before you have children"... there's a PP upthread who discussed her plan and how it was thrown off by an unexpected separation from her partner. There are men who lose their jobs right after their wives quit to SAH with the kids. In my case, I didn't WANT to be a SAHM, but I had a high-needs baby who needed me at home (luckily I finagled a WAH position but the alternative would have been to quit... even if it meant going on gov't assistance for a bit). While I do agree that we each have a responsibility to provide financially for our children, I also feel that we have an obligation to help each other out in rough times.
post #54 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by erinsmom1996 View Post






I have to agree with you. I have not been a stay at home mom for my daughter but I have found jobs that allow me to be at home as much as possible even though they have nothing to do with my college degree. I never felt like I had the "right" to stay home. I had my daughter at a relatively young age and we were not financially prepared but we have made it work. I don't begrudge women who have planned ahead and can afford to stay home the right to do so. I think it is great if you can do that! However, I don't think I have been any less of a great mom because I have worked her whole life. Staying home with your children is the best option but only if you actually have that option and can afford to do so. If you are attending school or trying to get training so you can get a job in the near future, that is a little different. If you want to just be a stay-at-home mom for your child and want taxpayers to support your family, I have a problem with that.

Well I feel like my daughter has a right to be raised by her parents and see me more than a couple hours in the morning before daycare and 3-4 hours at night before bedtime. Assuming I could get a day job. My choices are either work full time at a job that barely covers the cost of child care or stay home with DD and collect "welfare" which in our case is food stamps and being on medicaid (never did the WIC thing) and be judged because I make a choice that I feel is MUCH more valuable on an individual level (other mamas could probably contribute a lot more financially to their family) to my family. Yay for meeyesroll.gif It's fun enough getting the stink eye at the grocery store from people when I buy the expensive organic dairy stuff and then use my foodstamps ebt card, I guess now I have the pleasure of knowing people think I am "abusing" the system...

 

I DON'T want taxpayers to support my family but unfortunately the way this country is my options are limited and me staying home with DD is vitally important in my eyes. Important enough that I am willing to take the scorn from those that feel like I am doing something wrong. I suppose I should add, just so people don't think I am totally a drain on the system and one of "those people"...We have 1 vehicle for our family, a 95 toyota pickup that we can barely squeeze into and we live with my MIL...Mamas who work outside of home are making HUGE sacrifices for their families that they feel is best...so are those of us who are choosing to stay at home a lot of the times...I may have made barely enough to cover childcare with a full time job but our budget would have a little more leeway than it does now with me not working...

 


 

 

post #55 of 792

isnt welfare short time?

 

by welfare i mean cash benefits. that's 2 years. 

 

foodstamps and medicaid depends on income i believe. no limitation on that i think (though for some reason i thought foodstamps was at least 5 years not more). 

 

this is a country that does not take care of children. there is no support except for minimal low quality support. it depends on the parents. 

 

let me tell you welfare is a terrible way to live. not only is it not enough to live 'any life' but at every step of the way you face a lot of brutal social disrespect. 

 

i have had long talks about this with my xfil whose dissertation was on this subject. and while some abuse the system - there are way way way more people who are hugely helped by it. 

 

v. v. v. few people see the 'bad' side of welfare. how it keeps the poor poor and treat them as inhumane. u wont see it probably as you dont live in the ghetto. one only sees the 'people making use of welfare' side. no one really sees 'govt uses its own citizens thru welfare'. i mean walmart having a dept to help its employees file for welfare should tell us something. 

 

i have volunteered with non profits working with single moms and low income families and i have seen the other side. the govt keeping welfare recipients on welfare. why? because they are able bodied people and they should be put to work right away even if it means minimum paying job with no hope of improvement. 

 

so if moms want to stay home to help raise their children because the govt refuses to do so then more power to the moms/parents to choose to stay home on welfare. 

 

and the 'our hard earned tax dollars' talk bugs me to no end. it really makes my blood boil. the percent of ur tax $$$ going to fund welfare is laughable compared to the amount going to fund war, corporations  and other nefarious organizations the govt funds. it is because of this attitude the rich get away with whatever they want to do.


Edited by meemee - 5/26/11 at 12:00pm
post #56 of 792

As someone who once had to be on welfare as a single mom, I'd like to bring some hard numbers to the discussion.

 

I received zero child support, and had two daycare-age children.  Daycare costs, at the lowest-priced daycare in my city (and the immediate surrounding area) were $130/week for my younger child and $115 for my older child.  My mortgage was $550/month (the housing voucher list in my area is closed; the people that made it on in time were on a 2 year wait at the time.  The income restricted apartments in the neighborhood would have run me $600/month for a 2br - more than my mortgage for my 4br house with a yard.)  Electricity averaged $50/month (no a/c, no central heat). My car was paid off, but I had to pay for insurance and gas.  We didn't have cable/dish service and my dad paid for me to have a phone, otherwise I wouldn't have had one at all.  Food stamps and WIC more than covered us to keep us fed.

 

TANF (what most people are referring to when they say "welfare" - it is a monthly cash payment) for a 3-person family was $87 per month.  The childcare voucher only SUBSIDIZED my daycare, and I paid a copay of $18 per week (total for both kids).  So, on average, my welfare "payment," what I could use on things other than daycare, was $2 per week.  I more than spent that in gas to get my kids to and from the daycare.

 

By the way, if your kids are absent from daycare for more than 10 days a month, they will pull your welfare.  There is no option, at least in this state, to only use the daycare on the days that you need it, for job searching or irregular schedules.  You pay by the week and your child is expected to be there every day.  If you have children and want to get the TANF/welfare payments, the kids MUST be in daycare.  Period.

 

And, in my state, there is a limit of 5 years on "welfare."  That is a LIFETIME limit.

 

The government paid $230 a week to the daycare.  They also paid me $25/week in gas cards, which I had to drive 30 miles round trip to pick up, because they refused to mail them, and refused to let me pick up a few weeks' worth at a time.  So I got to drive down there every week - taking time away from looking for a job or whatever else - to sit for an hour in a waiting room and drive all the way back.  But hey, the good news is, if you don't have a car of your own, the government will pay for a CAB SERVICE to pick you up at your home and bring you to job interviews, places to apply for jobs, and take you with your kids to and from the daycare, etc.  God only knows how much the cab service cost them.

 

So, the government is shelling out $255/week, plus the cost of the paper pushers, for me to be on welfare.  That would more than cover my cost of living, to let me stay at home with my kids, lessen my stress level having to pump milk and store it for the daycare, having to deal with the paper pushers, and be able to spend actual quality time with my children.  With money left over.  Heck, the government could've kept the leftover money!

 

A couple of months into it, I got a job that paid almost $20/hour, but it was a PRN schedule and I didn't always work 30 hours per week.  (I think it averaged out to 20...some weeks I worked 6 days straight, more than 40 hours total, and some weeks I only worked on Saturdays.  Because Saturdays were required, I had to pay a separate babysitter to watch my kids, and ended up making about $50 for a 9 hour workday on Saturdays.)  I had my daycare subsidy and welfare payments revoked, because I couldn't get my hours up to 30, and was told to get a minimum wage job and work 30 hours per week and I'd end up with more money in the end.  20 hours a week at $18/hr before taxes is $360/week.  Daycare was $245 right off the top.  Plus the additional babysitter.  30 hours a week at $7.25 is $217.50 before taxes, but my copay to the daycare would have only gone up by a few dollars, so I would've kept most of that money (after taxes.)  That's not counting if I would have had to pay for a separate babysitter if I worked outside of daycare hours.

 

The counselor said, "Why don't you just get a different job?"  What, they're falling out of the sky now?  (This was during the depth of the recession.)

 

It was one of the most stressful things I've ever experienced in my life.  Dealing with the paper pushers, who felt like "babysitters", was horribly demeaning and degrading.  I had a degree and they were annoyed that while I was getting interviews, if I apply for the same job that 200 other out of work people are applying for, it lowers the odds that I'll get hired, even if I do give a great interview.  They never helped me to get a job...the best they did was have a posting of available jobs that you could pick up once you trekked down to their office to pick up your gas card.  Once I did get a job, I had to embarrassingly hand papers over to my brand new employer for them to verify the hours I worked.  Like I'm a delinquent doing community service or something.  It was horrible.

 

Oh, and God forbid one of your kids gets sick.  It's a ton of paperwork and you still have to pay the daycare even if you can't go to work.  The state won't adjust your copay because your kid got sick.  And we all know how much daycare kids get sick/pass sickness around.

 

I ended up having to put a lot on credit cards and eventually had no choice but to file for bankruptcy.  I was the girl who went to summer school in college to get done faster, who lived in a junky apartment for the first year out of college and kept eating ramen noodles so that I could put more than 50% of my income toward paying off my student loans.  And had them paid off by the time I'd been out of college for 2 years.  And now I was on welfare and bankrupt.  Not something I was proud of.

 

Every 3-6 months, I had to go in to have a meeting with my counselor (and arrange for a day off work to do it, since the wait always took a few hours, even with an appointment), where they would look at every dime I had.  If I ever managed to save any money, it was used against me and my benefits were recalculated.  If I got a check for my birthday, it was counted as "income."  They once suggested that I sell my paid-off, reliable car (that was worth about $4500) and buy a cheaper car.  I am the only owner of my car, it was 8 years old, I know that I have kept it up well, and it would make ZERO sense to trade it in for a car whose upkeep may not have been as good.  We bought nothing but food for almost a year.  My kids wore the same five outfits to daycare each week, and my dad bought them shoes.  I drove on bald tires and had to borrow money to pay to renew my license when it came up for renewal.

 

I paid into the system for many years, and I ended up in my situation by no fault of my own, and I was horrified when I found out what it was like when you needed the help.  Having lived through it and come out on the other side through the grace of a power much higher than me, I wouldn't wish it on any single mom.  Ever.


Edited by redbirdlady - 5/27/11 at 9:17am
post #57 of 792

And may it succeed.

 

Whats the purpose of any thread?

 

Who cares? 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by Petronella View Post

May I ask what is the purpose of this thread?  It's been started by some person or entity called just "Mothering," as an administrator.  Is this one of those threads that's being posted on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, to drive more traffic to MDC?




I assume that is the purpose of every thread started by "Mothering."


 

 

post #58 of 792

I agree with you and I was the same kind of parent, however I have seen too many people abuse the system and the system abuse them, therefore I would like to see some accountability. I am talking about basics, like food, clothing, shelter, etc. I think that parenting is the most important job in the world and maybe the least valued. Right now preschools and daycares are regulated in CA, but depending on the school, there are a wide range of philosophies and interpretations of them. Some I agree with and some I don't, but at least in most cases the child's basic needs are being met. I just want to find a way to take care of the children and make stay at home parenting a respectable and admirable job. It comes down to "women's work" being valued. I have seen how the welfare system kills spirits over the years and it is not right. I am just toying with ideas. For instance, I would like to see child development classes required in the 5th grade. It is a information that most people will need way more than history or science.

 
post #59 of 792

Maybe we should think outside the box.

 

Welfare, etc is bad because...

 

1.) It punishes people who are trying to do differently.

2.) It cannot be properly regulated.

3.) And, maybe we are the wealthiest nation in the world, but, we have no money.

 

What if we just stopped welfare?  I wonder what would happen?  

 

Is it possible that by "helping" humanity through the government, we have hindered our natural response of compassion?  I am reminded of a young mother who asked people at her church to help her family through a difficult time.  The response was, "Have you filed for food stamps?"  What?!?! 

 

I have a lovely home, and have been blessed with plenty of money.  I would be happy to help an honest, hard-working family. 

 

But, people who want to help are so hindered by the government's help, they are stuck.  It is very frustrating. 

 

And, I, also, have seen many abuses of the system.  I suppose that perhaps the type of person I would want to help (and have) isn't using welfare anyway.  They are already skirting the system through a network of friends and family.  When we were first married, I was appalled at the conversation of women around me.  The question was NOT, "What do we NEED?" but rather, "What can we GET?"  They were willing to take anything they could qualify for, even though they could probably make it without.  And, then I was further shocked when dh finished college and got a well-paying job.  We took a budgeting class through his work and were horrified to find that WE would "qualify".  And that we were encouraged to take it!  Seriously?!?  He was making more than 4 times what we were used to living on at that point. 

 

I think I'm rambling now, but I hope someone else can catch my thoughts and flesh them out a little. 

 

(Okay..something is coming to me....what about starting a "sponser family" thing.  Like, maybe there could be a way to sign up to sponser a family in need.  Like...a mentor or something.  I know there could be awful abuses, and I would dread any horrid training that would happen.  No, that wouldn't work either.  What I'm saying is, I would like to be able to pick a family from a list of families, and help them.  Maybe that single mom with twins doesn't need anything more than money.  Maybe that young mom with a rough home life needs a lot more.  But, I have no idea how to deal with that.)

 

Thoughts?

post #60 of 792
My only thought about that is that people who are struggling and can't get by without that help - and there are lots of people in that situation - shouldn't be in a position of having to rely on someone else's generosity if and when they feel like giving money, or have their families go hungry.
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?