Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 26

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by serenbat 
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!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!

 

 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.

But it's still only "all" CHILDREN.  Many people pay taxes and will never have the benefit of it. Just like many people pay for WIC and never have the benefit of it (though, to be fair, it is for *at risk* children meaning that you can be high income and still qualify).

Actually, there is nothing that indicated WIC is supposed to be a limited or temporary help.  So, you're really fine with someone taking $20K/year in tax rebates on a purchase of a million dollar home but you begrudge the few hundreds of dollars someone takes from WIC to provide food for their child?  There are people who feel THE SAME WAY about the public school system--- that if you want to have children, you should be ready to provide for them (including paying for their own school).  It must be "nice" to have such a well-defined line of black and white that just happens to put all people needing a little extra help (that aren't wealthy) in the horrible camp.

[TiredX2]

And the only people eligible for over $20K in tax rebates a year on mortgage interest are those who can "afford" that size of house--- but you're not complaining about their (much larger) use of your tax subsidy.  Why is that?  Why all the jealousy towards the poor?

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

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.

What I'd really like to see is programs that cater to low-income people in a way similar to that in which many grocery stores in middle to upper income neighborhoods cater to their customers. In some grocery stores near my mom's home in the suburbs, you could walk through on a Saturday morning and literally get your breakfast or lunch just trying all the samples, and can also get some fun ideas regarding different food combinations to try that you might not have thought of. Now, I certainly understand that this is done in wealthier neighborhoods because it increases sales of those products and benefits the companies selling them. It would be like suicide for food producers to do the exact same thing in poor neighborhoods where there are tons of hungry homeless people, or people who have some sort of a home but are just hungry and have little opportunity to try out new delicacies.

What I'm thinking of would be for a government or private educational program to partner up with grocery stores that are in walking distance for many poor people, and set up tables similar to the "sample" tables in the stores in wealthier neighborhoods -- only in this case, the educators would be demonstrating easy methods for preparing a wide range of natural, healthy foods. Samples could still be provided, of course, and educators could be available to help any people who'd like some help shopping for healthy foods on a budget.

This makes so much more sense to me than offering classes in a separate location from where people buy their food -- meaning, one more place to find transportation to, and to try to manage your small children while taking in a lot of new information. Some people have literacy problems, too, and having the education be so hands-on, as well as fitting so easily into the frequent grocery shopping routine that's part of every parent's life, and is obviously quite frequent for parents without cars who can't buy as much in one trip, just makes good practical sense.

I also agree with those posters who've said that home visits are not as likely to be popular -- in this case, I'm expanding the "home visit" concept to include having a nutritional educator come into one's home to provide personalized instruction. It's understandable, and doesn't mean anyone has anything evil to hide, when you consider that many of us who frequent MDC have parenting practices that we know are best for our kids and that we feel very good about, such as child-led weaning and cosleeping -- but that we wouldn't feel so comfortable bringing under the scrutiny of a government employee or other complete stranger who may not have done all the research that we've done on those topics. Plus, it's simply more cost-effective to send a group of educators into one place anyway.

I realize some people may say I'm promoting "enabling" -- but I actually think it's a lot more efficient to do things in the way that is most likely to get results. Everybody goes to the grocery store (or at least everybody with kids does), and seeing good food preparation ideas in action at the same time that you're choosing what groceries to buy on your limited budget, and getting help if you need it when looking for the healthiest foods at the lowest prices, seems much more likely to result in more low-income families eating a healthier diet. Plus, there are often huge discrepancies between the quality and selection of foods -- especially fresh fruits and vegetables -- that are available in stores that cater to the rich and those that are available in stores in poor neighborhoods. If more nutritional educators did their work in these stores, their presence and involvement with the stores would most likely help to change this unfortunate situation.

I'm getting kind of excited about my idea...I'm actually wondering what I might be able to do about it.

[mammal_mama]

I'm wondering if we might have better results in our welfare system it it were run by ethical and successful business people. While I think there is soooo much wrong with the way corporations are running America, and with how we're labeled "consumers" and bombarded with advertising, I keep thinking about how most successful businesspeople invest a lot of resources into making sure that their products are marketed in the ways that are likely to get the best results at the lowest cost.

In contrast, it seems like many programs for the poor are run for the purpose of feeding into the stereotype that no matter what you do, the poor are always with us, they're always going to eat and feed their kids crap and have high rates of obesity and, now, high rates of childhood type 2 diabetes -- the kind that used to never surface until after about the age of 40, and high rates of all kinds of other health complications related to eating lots of empty calories for years and years...

If there were a well-run business set up for the purpose of lowering healthcare costs by increasing the likelihood that the poorest Americans ate a healthy well-balanced diet, it seems like there's be a lot more poor people feeling like eating natural, healthy foods was their own idea (you know, subliminal advertising messages or whatever you want to call them).

Just think how effective "marketing" has been in getting so many of us to spend money we don't have on things we really don't need or benefit from -- if government were really a force for good, and were run like an ethical business, surely its "marketing" would be just as effective for good as "corporate" marketing has been for bad in many cases.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I'm wondering if we might have better results in our welfare system it it were run by ethical and successful business people.

If you include ethical in the equation you would have to have it in the discussion. Is it ethical to have more children when you are already receiving assistance vs waiting to when you can provide on your own? 

Some places are doing some things - Philadelphia is running a city program that is addressing obesity for those on assistance.

[captain optimism]

Private groups offering nutritional education to low-income clients often do so with government funding. I used to write the grant proposals for programs to help low-income parents. They had a GED program, a job-training course, short-term housing for homeless families, and a couple of social work programs to support young and low-income moms, and a really great young fathers program. (That was basically one incredibly charismatic guy who turned a lot of young men's lives around--it was one of the highlights of my job to write grant proposals describing the work he did.) 

Our experience at that non-profit was that we had a lot of clients who wanted the programs, not that they refused to use them. It's true that only a minority of people really had it together to get everything out of the help that they could, and there were some great success stories. I would say most of the people who enrolled got a lot of what they were seeking--parenting advice and help, books for their kids, access to better jobs, counseling to deal with the after-effects of domestic violence, and so on, even though they were really at-risk families, people in serious crisis. Yes, sure, some dropped out, but mostly we helped people live better and not stay stuck. 

People are a lot better than we think they are.  

I don't think the answer is to seek more guidance from the private sector. The truth is that organizations like the one where I worked with private sector foundations and corporations, both to get funding and for help with getting jobs for clients. We actually worked with other non-profits, with the state, with the city, and with the private sector. That's usual. In some states more of the money comes from private donations and in some more from the state.

We were often, even at that time before the most recent economic downturn, caught in a bind by the welfare reform provisions. We couldn't offer job training to homeless moms in our shelter because they had to be on TANF to stay in the shelter and TANF required them to work, not get job training. Of course, they couldn't make too much money while they did it, because if they made too much they'd lose their housing. So we, as an organization, had to make those same bad choices as low-income moms do. All their three and four year old children had to be in daycare, even though their kids were traumatized by losing their homes. 

[serenbat]

I was referring to religious groups in my area do not fair well with outreach, and our local farm market (also is doing food related programs) isn't doing well reaching those in need either- but that has more to do with their other issues, and given the funding my local markets is getting technically they are govt funded in certain ways.

[mammal_mama]

First off, captain optimism, I really do agree with you about the basic goodness of people, and I didn't mean to make it sound like I was saying that poor people, or any people, need "subliminal advertising" to persuade them that they really want to feed their families real, healthy food and not junk. I've just been thinking about how successful businesses market their products in such a way that they're most likely to reach and be enthusiastically received by the target market.

If the product is a healthy lifestyle, then considering the fact that everyone already wants to feel good and have happy, healthy, successful children, it shouldn't be all that hard to get that product from the minds of the planners into the hands of the targeted group.

As parents, we do our own marketing when we prepare and serve our foods in the ways that are most appealing to our children, and make them easily accessible -- and there's nothing deceitful or patronizing about that.

I also agree with you and serenbat that there have been, and continue to be, some really good, helpful, effective programs out there. I just kind of feel like my idea of running the program right there in the grocery stores in poor neighborhoods, which has probably already occurred to others, and may actually be happening in some places for all I know, could make up at least some part of the missing puzzle piece and help fill in the gap between what many of us now know about food and  health, and what many poor people are actually eating.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

If you include ethical in the equation you would have to have it in the discussion. Is it ethical to have more children when you are already receiving assistance vs waiting to when you can provide on your own? 

I think ethical business people are most focused on operating their own businesses ethically, not on making sure that each and every customer fits in with their personal beliefs. It's true that most people are in business to make money -- but the smartest ones invest a lot in making their businesses customer-friendly, such as by hiring people who really care about other people and want to help them, and by training them to see things from the customers' perspectives and to assume the best even about the most difficult and disagreeable customers.

While looking for a definition that explains what it means to assume positive intent, I stumbled across a really good business article on the topic, and I've pasted the link below for anyone who is interested.

http://www.executivetravelmagazine.com/articles/how-to-assume-positive-intent

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

I also agree with you and serenbat that there have been, and continue to be, some really good, helpful, effective programs out there. I just kind of feel like my idea of running the program right there in the grocery stores in poor neighborhoods, which has probably already occurred to others, and may actually be happening in some places for all I know, could make up at least some part of the missing puzzle piece and help fill in the gap between what many of us now know about food and  health, and what many poor people are actually eating.

Actually, this is the key problem. Both urban and rural low-income families may live in so-called food deserts. These are areas with reduced access to fresh food. 

These are the areas the USDA considers food deserts: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-desert-locator/go-to-the-locator.aspx They figure out what counts as a food desert by whether the supermarkets are spaced far apart, so that people can't get to them. 

In my area, which is crowded and urban, the use of SNAP at farmer's markets has worked very well--but that's because we have pretty good public transportation and farmer's markets all over our city. My own area has gotten both private and public funding for anti-obesity programming--which they have put into public recreation facilities, maintaining crosswalks and bike lanes, and bringing locally-grown food into the public schools. 

Our attitude toward public health is pretty similar to our attitude toward public welfare. It's very blaming and shaming and all about individuals and their initiative. It's not really a public policy, it's a lot of noodging. 

[serenbat]

with all things ethical you have to make the choices

even given health foods it does not always mean the right choices are taken by those exposed to the importance of the options

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-deserts-work/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html - this is very small when you figure in the rest of the state on assistance, it is a large city but nothing is being address currently outside of larger areas on a scale like this

[rightkindofme]

I get that you have lots of issues with how the adults are behaving. The children didn't ask to be born. The children involved can't pick or unpick their parents. If you discontinue aide you aren't punishing the parents for their stupidity you are punishing the children for being stupid enough to be born.

[mammal_mama]

serenbat, I agree that there will always be some people who don't make the healthiest choices. In some cases, they may not today but then they may get a wakeup call like I did.

I just think that if the concern is about the cost to the taxpayers, then healthcare as it currently stands is one of the hugest expenses we're looking at. I really love what the group in the movie "Edible City" is doing in Oakland, California, bringing the poor people together to grow their own food and own and operate their own corner stores. And the movie points out that locally-grown food, and Mom and Pop stores owned by people in the neighborhood, used to be the norm in this country less than 100 years ago.

I know we can't go back, but knowing what many of us now know about food and health, I wish every single official that we elected really saw the situation and cared about moving forward to something even better.

And it's not moving forward to complain that those who are too poor to buy insurance or pay for their own care are the root of the problem. Since I talk with a lot of Europeans as part of my job, I've learned that one component of universal health care in at least some places, is the expectation that people eat right, get plenty of exercise, and stay healthy.

But at the same time, European city planners seem to pretty much be committed to keeping cities on a human scale, which makes it easy for people to do a nice amount of walking as part of their daily routine. Even if they have cars, most people in cities have good grocery stores in easy walking distance, and public transportation is also much better than it is in many American cities. Populations seem to be more concentrated in the center of urban areas, which makes it easier to develop a good bus or rail system, whereas in many American cities, those with enough money to move prefer living in the suburbs, so everything is really spread out and it becomes a way of life to just get in your car and go everywhere.

I'm just learning about so many policies that would really be conducive to helping Americans get healthier -- no, not force them to make the right choices, but just, for example, make it easier for busy people to get regular exercise as part of their daily routine, rather than having to carve out an extra chunk of time in an already full day -- but it seems like city planners and government officials are just blind to the fact that there's are reasons why we have higher obesity rates than other developed nations. I know we can't be Europe, but why can't we learn more from them?

[serenbat]

Quote:

If you discontinue aide you aren't punishing the parents for their stupidity you are punishing the children for being stupid enough to be born.

I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make. 

The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it. 

It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.

I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I know we can't be Europe, but why can't we learn more from them?

the current systems of assistance we have are not able to support it- why allow abuse and glorify it? it is not the same, we as a nation do not have it

[rightkindofme]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make. 

The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it. 

It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.

I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.

Actually the support I got from welfare as a child kept me from starving. It kept me full enough to be able to learn at school. So that I could go on to college and become a productive member of society. 

I don't think it is a "good thing". I think it is way the fuck better than the alternative. I was already unwanted in every way. I'm really fucking grateful that my government has more compassion than you.

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I never said that! It's a tragedy for the child the poor choices many parents make. 

The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it. 

It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.

I have never hear any one advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society.

Here's a devil's advocate question, Serenbat: what do you think *should* happen to babies who are born to mothers on public assistance?

One modest proposal: the parents could be charged with neglect, have their rights terminated, and the babies could then be adopted by upper-middle-class couples who can't have children of their own. There are LOTS of those couples, after all. Then the babies could grow up free from hunger, want, and worrying about whether their family will have electricity next month. And the mothers of the 1% will have the children they so obviously deserve. It's a win-win!

Oh wait... seems to me a lot of countries have tried that before...

[captain optimism]

Instead of concentrating all our energies on blaming people for making bad choices, we need to offer them the possibility of making better ones. If you can't get fresh food where you live and if cooking is a huge time and expertise cost, you will get used to buying crappy processed food. If walking around and playing outside are dangerous, either because of traffic or because of crime, you won't do those things. 

If you want moms to make excellent choices about when to have children, you have to have an excellent school system that prepares people for a variety of educational options. Women delay childrearing when they have something equally worthwhile to do with their young adulthood, and people who don't have a good basic education can't choose to do a lot of those equally worthwhile, lucrative things that contribute to society. Further, the last twenty years saw national policies of promoting abstinence in schools instead of teaching teens about contraception, trying to cut funding to the one national non-profit that provides teens with contraception, and standing against health insurance for kids. 

Taxpayers paid for the stupid public policies that got us here in the first place. To make it the fault of every individual woman who had to choose between abortion and carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term is ridiculous. If we force lots of women to choose between two bad alternatives, they will always make a bad choice, because a bad choice is all there is. We pretend it's the natural condition of society, but our public policies set the conditions, and we pay for those policies one way or another.

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

But at the same time, European city planners seem to pretty much be committed to keeping cities on a human scale, which makes it easy for people to do a nice amount of walking as part of their daily routine. Even if they have cars, most people in cities have good grocery stores in easy walking distance, and public transportation is also much better than it is in many American cities. Populations seem to be more concentrated in the center of urban areas, which makes it easier to develop a good bus or rail system, whereas in many American cities, those with enough money to move prefer living in the suburbs, so everything is really spread out and it becomes a way of life to just get in your car and go everywhere.

I'm just learning about so many policies that would really be conducive to helping Americans get healthier.

Originally Posted by serenbat 

The parents are the one that act irresponsible when they abuse the system and ethics certainly should factor into it. 

It'a about supporting mothers that abuse a system for their own benefit - it was not designed to for how many use it in the case of this thread.

[serenbat]

Quote:

 

 

 Serenbat: what do you think *should* happen to babies who are born to mothers on public assistance.

I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.

What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!

You are meant to take personal responsibility. 

You are not meant to raise a family for years on it - why is this so difficult to understand? It is not a system designed for all mothers to stay home with their children (as in the the system other countries have) when they are born, it is not meant to have multiple children on, it's meant as temporary (better yourself and your situation) so you don't stay on to raise a family- the goal should be short and get off it. 

Again, why advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society?

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I never said starve children, you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda.

What I have said - it is not a system meant as a "life style" - it is meant as assistance - not long term- you are meant to get off it!

You are meant to take personal responsibility. 

You are not meant to raise a family for years on it - why is this so difficult to understand? It is not a system designed for all mothers to stay home with their children (as in the the system other countries have) when they are born, it is not meant to have multiple children on, it's meant as temporary (better yourself and your situation) so you don't stay on to raise a family- the goal should be short and get off it. 

Again, why advocate that children should be born into a welfare system as a "good thing" and that supporting abusers is good either- for them or society?

I never said anything about starving children, either. Refusal to answer my question noted.

Let's try again: what do you think should happen to the children of people who stay on public assistance long-term? (Where, I guess, "long-term" means "one minute longer than Serenbat thinks they should be there".)

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

the current systems of assistance we have are not able to support it- why allow abuse and glorify it? it is not the same, we as a nation do not have it

I was thinking about things that need to be done on a governmental and city planning level, such as supporting a revitalization of our city's urban cores and providing incentives for more businesses to be centered there and creating a situation where many people with more financial options actually want to live in the urban core -- while at the same time making sure there continues to be plenty of affordable housing for lower income people so they're not pushed out to the fringes. And providing more incentives to small businesses so that little grocery stores run by people in the neighborhood can actually thrive and sell good foods at affordable prices and not convenience store prices.  So that even people who have cars actually find it feasible to take a brisk walk to the neighborhood grocer's and buy what they need for a couple of days at a time..

With more people concentrated in a smaller area, it would become more feasible to invest in a really good public transport system, because if more people's homes and jobs are centrally located, maybe some folks would still prefer driving, but I think many would start taking the bus or train, which would automatically add a little walking to their daily schedule because the stops are usually a few blocks away from your destination. One single mom in my city would love to use public transport if it wouldn't currently eat up so much of her time. She has about a 15 minute drive to work but I think she said it would take her at least an hour each way to ride the bus. That's a lot of time for a single mom to give up!

I realize these changes would  cost something -- but, in view of our environmental crisis, how can we afford not to start shifting more in that direction? Also, in view of our health crisis, how can we afford not to change the structures that push so many of us into being such a sedentary nation? The upfront cost of the change might seem high, but I think the long term economic, and quality of life benefits, would be tremendous.