And it takes quite a bit of work and effort to live without a car, it may not directly provide a wage but I appreciate everyone who makes that effort because it helps reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption.
I think when people tell their stories is proves the point that it's not black or white. Your snap judgment may not make sense once you learn how a caring, intelligent, ethical person is actually making their life decisions.
I guess I don't see two to five years as temporary and not having to do with a life style/choice.
I have a hard time taking that source seriously for a number of reasons:
1) It says both that 4 million Americans are on welfare and 4% of the population is on welfare. Does not define what those mean (the population of the US is over 300 million).
2) uses the term "Aid to Families with Dependent Children": this was changed to TANF in 1996
3) While the average TANF benefit is right around $150/month per family this source says "welfare" pays more than an $8/hour job in 40 states. Minimum wage at the federal level for a full time job is over $1300/month. What are they *now* including in "welfare"
4) Includes Unemployment Insurance in their statistics (artificially inflating "welfare", additionally unemployment is an insurance program that everyone pays into)
5) TANF is limited to a 60 month LIFETIME maximum. They show almost 20% over 5 years.
Statistics can be made to say virtually anything, especially when you don't include definitions or sources.
I was really puzzled about those high benefit amounts. I didn't know what they were figuring. But I noticed the AFDC term and it has been about 16 years since it was called that! That's what I got when I was a single mom way back 1994, the maximum was $225 per month. I worked as a nanny 25-30 hrs but that went 100% toward rent and utilities and I qualified for AFDC and food stamps at that time. Even if you add about $200 of food stamps... that is so much less than those statistics. I don't know what was done to make them misleading but they don't make sense to me as someone who was in the system way back when they must have gathered their data.
Hi there, and welcome. I don't think anybody thinks that it is fine to buy expensive things using benefits at all. But then again a family member could have give a nice phone as a gift you never know.
What about people who are following the rules, though? People who are actually poor? And this whole thread was started to ask if it should be okay for a mom who is following the rules and telling the truth about her income to stay at home with a baby, with a husband working, but to get food stamps or medicaid if their income was low. What d you think of that?
I was really puzzled about those high benefit amounts. I didn't know what they were figuring. But I noticed the AFDC term and it has been about 16 years since it was called that! That's what I got when I was a single mom way back 1994, the maximum was $225 per month. I worked as a nanny 25-30 hrs but that went 100% toward rent and utilities and I qualified for AFDC and food stamps at that time. Even if you add about $200 of food stamps... that is so much less than those statistics. I don't know what was done to make them misleading but they don't make sense to me as someone who was in the system way back when they must have gathered their data.
It could be due to Medicaid. Insurance benefits for a family of four could easily be $1K/month, but that's NOT the same as income, kwim?
If they are considering unemployment insurance to be "Welfare" that could artificially inflat the number as well. It is possible to get over $2K/month in unemployment benefits.
The info at the top says that it was updated in 2012, but as you said they're using a term that is 16 years out of date--- perhaps their other "facts" are out of date as well.
Well let's not debate the "ethics" of receiving unemployment legally and honestly and yet indulging in x, y, or z (because it's welfare and you should act properly desperate and of course it doesn't matter that we all contributed to it just like private health insurance)
I have a problem with people considering unemployment to be welfare!
Also, I just want to say that the most valuable thing that WIC has given to my family is breastfeeding support. When I found myself unexpectedly pregnant 3 years and 9 months ago, I didn't have strong feelings about breastfeeding either way. I figured I'd give it a shot when I was on Mat leave, but then when I went back to work waiting tables I figured we'd have to switch to formula, at the very least supplementing my breastmilk. My own mother did not breastfeed my brother and only BF me for 8 weeks because she had to return to work. So that was my model for breastfeeding.
Through WIC I received a lot of information and support about the benefits of breastfeeding, and about the legal protections afforded to breastfeeding mothers who work. I didn't know that my employer was legally obligated to allow me time and space to pump while on the job so that I could give my baby bottles of breast milk instead of formula. I also received a mechanical pump for a number of months--maybe 6 or 9?--that I used to pump while at home, and a manual pump to use at work, all free of charge (the mechanical pump had to be returned but the manual one was a gift. At a recent WIC appointment I was informed that they now give mechanical pumps to working, breastfeeding moms instead of just loaning them out for a period!)
My DD is turning 3 this weekend, and she still nurses. I really don't think that would have been the outcome without WIC.
Kitteh, I'm so happy about how WIC helped you get into breastfeeding. That's awesome, and it really kind of connects with what littlest birds was saying about how those with a lot of health problems make healthcare more expensive for everyone. Breastfeeding just gets kids off to a better start and reduces the risk of many health problems for the mother, too.
I had a wakeup call in November when I went to the first well woman checkup that I'd been to in years, and learned that my actual weight was 294 lbs. I'm just under 5'10, not 6'10, so this puts me in the morbidly obese category. And I also learned that my blood pressure, which used to be normal, was in the prehypertensive category. So I've gotten back into incorporating yoga into my everyday life. And it's such a blessing to not be having to work 12 hour days or something to make ends meet. As well as allowing more time for yoga, it also enables me to be more mindful about what foods I put into my body. And since I have lots of time with the people I love, I'm not turning to junk food for comfort as I'd be very tempted to do if I were separated from them for long hours each day.
I'm just sayin', providing low income families with a little help can enable them to find a healthier balance between work and personal life and give parents the time and energy they need to take better care of themselves and their children, and can end up saving the taxpayers a lot more money in the long run.
If you look into the data on the statistics of generational welfare you will see it certainly is generational. Certain states are far higher than others.
Having another child while receive "assistance" also not uncommon.
Perhaps those who are responding are quite bias because of personal dependance (it's only a little milk over 5+ years-so what- when you can have saving and not spend your own money-unlike what others must do) and many must not live in states with high assistance populations or those who teachers are making less.
would be nice if all could be equal
To build on my previous post, I wanted to add that I think providing more nutritional education programs in poor communities, including one on one counseling for individuals or families that are struggling with obesity, would be a very good use of our tax dollars. I think prevention is a million times cheaper than medical treatment for the myriad problems associated with obesity. So for those who are really worried about how much the poor are costing them, it makes sense to support programs that can help people live healthier lives before they develop a major problem.
It certainly is a shame when private (non govt funded) groups do try- such as nutritional educational programs only to be meet with little expectancy and participation. I personally feel you should be mandated to attend classes (such as nutritional) in order to receive assistance but when we have little restrictions on what one can get with food stamps, as opposed to WIC, I doubt it would be received. I feel there is much that could be done as in only paying for whole foods and non-processed but that is not happening. At least with other forms of assistance there is mandated classes.
Giving vouchers that can be used at farm markets are not working in our area, we have a very low participation problem because the cost still is extremely higher than at a local store. Our local farm market has gotten a bad reputation, even by the local newspaper as the elitist market because of this. The cost vs going to a local farmer is more than double. Sadly most local farmers can afford to participate in the voucher program.
Serenbat, until you go back and answer every 'but what about this?' example, until you go back and explain, without sarcasm and quotes around the word 'life style choice' how another mother's choices are less worthy than yours -your anger is ...at least baffling and really, if I took it personally I'd be offended.
Who are you to judge? You are a tax payer. Well, so am I. You are not the masses. You are one of many who feel like you are Taxed Enough Already, but I am one of even more who believes your philosophy is flat out wrong. Unfair even.
How is this NOT a 'life style choice' ?
and as it was pointed out-
you make a conscious effort to do something - that is a choice, it is different from loosing a job and needing aid for a temporary time, as it was designed for- choosing to have a life style that impacts your ability to seek employment that would cause you not to receive aid, having another child while still receiving aid, etc= life style choice - to me
just because you work a system to your advantage does not make it ethical - does it impact on other's? - certainly does
welfare and some assistance qualifications have changed in my state because it is a life style for some, it's meant as temporary aid- we do not have a system to aid mothers as some are using it for- this is far different from what other countries do after a birth of a child
just because you work a system to your advantage does not make it ethical - does it impact on other's? - certainly does
So, how do you feel about what I posted before:
My biggest problem with people judging others for their "life style" choice is that we only seem to judge the people on the bottom.
For example, the average food stamps in the U.S. for a family of four is approximately $520/month. That means that family, though their "life style choice" costs the taxpayers just over $6000 per year.
Now, let's look at the other side instead. How about a person who choses to take out a million dollar mortgage. That certainly is a "life style choice." Now, interest rates are low now, but traditionally a 6% mortgage was considered good, so let's say because of the jumbo loan the interest rate was 7%. That person would pay (and deduct) close to $70K of interest the first year of their loan. In the 28% bracket, that would lead to a tax deduction of almost $20K and in the 35% bracket a tax deduction of almost $25K.
Those taxes have to be made up by everyone else. We are, in effect, paying $20-25K for that.
But there is not a lot of complaining about that "life style choice." Even though for each person who does that it costs 3-4 TIMES what it costs to put a family of four on food stamps for a year.
So, people complain less about subsidizing people in the top 5% than they do for people in the bottom 5%.
Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind?
How about people who get subsidized child care? How about wealthy people who deduct their child care from their taxes meaning we ALL subsidize it?
Exactly why is WIC such an issue for you (something that *over a lifetime* most families probably get less than a couple thousand dollars from? How about people who use public schools for years and years and years? Is that okay? Is there *any* thing that is not "gaming the system" in your mind? They don't work the same way-not even close- the public schools system is open to ALL- if you choose not to use it, so be it, WIC is not for all- not even a fair comparison. The school system is not just for certain incomes- all children!
ETA - WIC and other forms of assistance were not designed for paying off student loans or for the notion that it just is easier for someone else to pay for your choices. If you can't afford to feed your own children maybe you should consider not having more until you can, but it is easier to know you just don't have it payed for it. Also (while some do get away with it) if you have enough disposable income that your weekly nail apt is more important than paying your own money to feed your child, I also do not feel this is what assistance is designed for. And it's just so "little" amount, as a nation we don't feel all children deserve this or it would be offered for all to have the same start, so it must be for a reason-need, not need because you don't want to use your own money and can just bank it or keep the weekly apt.
How about people who get subsidized child care? No, it is not equal either. Families making above the cut off still have to pay and depending on their taxes some are able to take the earned child credit- the taxes are based on what you earn/pay, if you don't earn enough to pay into why should you be able to take the tax break? Still families that that do not receive subsidies need child care- not at all equal or fair to the child. How about wealthy people who deduct their child care from their taxes meaning we ALL subsidize it? You just fail to see what the system of welfare/assistance is designed to do, be temporary assistance, not a I'll take what gives me what I want system that we all are not part of- these are two different things , the system is not designed for staying on and on.
If you look into the data on the statistics of generational welfare you will see it certainly is generational. Certain states are far higher than others.
Having another child while receive "assistance" also not uncommon.
Perhaps those who are responding are quite bias because of personal dependance (it's only a little milk over 5+ years-so what- when you can have saving and not spend your own money-unlike what others must do) and many must not live in states with high assistance populations or those who teachers are making less.
would be nice if all could be equal
dang! everything you say is sorta mean. what is up with that? can you not make a post with out trashing someone else. you made your "life choices" if you don't like them then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! but stop hating on people because they are using a system that gives them a wee tiny bit of breathing room. if it craps your hide so much then do something about that too. help a mama out, donate to a charity, go work with those in need. maybe if everyone helped each other then no one would need "welfare" but for now, we do. and since it seems that so many who hate on welfare seem to have a "it's not fair, what about me, it's every man for himself" sort of attitude, then stop paying taxes and go do it all yourself.
as for me, i am totally happy helping in both ways, paying taxes and actually going out and doing something. maybe one day will well all have what we need. <3
i also wanted to add that yes, you can buy crap food on food stamps, BUT i don't think a change will come for that, not because people refuse, but because big business depends on people eating crap food. if food stamps went all "only whole foods, raw dairy, organic meats" etc i think nestle, kraft and the lot would go nuts. not so much the people we wan t to eat better but can't afford it.
if food stamps went all "only whole foods, raw dairy, organic meats" etc i think nestle, kraft and the lot would go nuts. not so much the people we wan t to eat better but can't afford it.
Not to mention the grocery stores that serve lower-income areas... if there were much stricter limits on what food stamps could be used for, a lot of locally-owned businesses might shut down completely. Leading to even bigger "food deserts", all the problems that come with boarded up storefronts, etc, etc.
But hey, at least Serenbat wouldn't be lying awake in the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves...
Follow Mothering