Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 27

[serenbat]

Quote:

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...

this is crazy!  

this thread isn't even about this

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

this is crazy!  

this thread isn't even about this

Attempt to derail, and second refusal to answer my question, noted.

What do you think should happen to the children of people who are on public assistance for more than a short term? I'll even allow you to define "short term" any way you like.

[serenbat]

Quote:

Refusal to answer my question noted.

you missed the part (better yourself and your situation)

I suspose your solution is not do so! 

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you missed the part (better yourself and your situation)

I suspose your solution is not do so! 

Third refusal to answer my question noted. Bonus points for derailing smilies this time!

What if people don't "better themselves and their situation" - by which, you mean, getting off public assistance in the amount of time you find appropriate? What should happen to those people's children then?

[captain optimism]

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?

Yes, you're right, the current system is not designed for all mothers to stay home with their children. It's designed for NO mothers to stay at home with their children beyond infancy. The question at the beginning of the thread was, should there be welfare that would allow mothers to stay at home with their children. I am almost positive that the reason it was phrased as it was, with no acknowledgment that the current system isn't designed this way, was in order to fan the flames of a long discussion. 

You, personally, introduced the element of calling nearly every possible use of the social safety net, including going to the ER and using food stamps, "abuse" and "fraud." No one else with negative feelings about government support for low-income families went as far rhetorically as you did. (Or seemed to--sometimes your infelicities of expression confuse your readers.)  

Your seeming thorough opposition to anyone making any use of the social safety net prompted this modest proposal style response. ("A Modest Proposal" was a 1729 satirical essay by Jonathan Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their children. Some of us read it in school.) 

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by captain optimism 

("A Modest Proposal" was a 1729 satirical essay by Jonathan Swift suggesting that the Irish eat their children. Some of us read it in school.) 

Hey, I bet some homeschoolers and unschoolers read it too! ;)

Nonetheless, I'm glad somebody got the reference. Everybody seemed to miss my props to Ambrose Bierce yesterday...

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj 

Hey, I bet some homeschoolers and unschoolers read it too! ;)

Nonetheless, I'm glad somebody got the reference. Everybody seemed to miss my props to Ambrose Bierce yesterday...

Aw jeez, it was H.L. Mencken, not Bierce. I bet if I'd been homeschooled, I would have known that!

Back to the topic, folks...

[serenbat]

The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits.

But welfare abuse has been a serious issue that has caused strict regulations for welfare services on who is eligible and how welfare can be used.

Since one of the goals of US welfare is to help individuals and families break the cycle of dependency on welfare, educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job.

http://www.welfareinfo.org

[glassesgirlnj]

"educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job."

OK, now we're starting to get somewhere. You think educational assistance should be provided to parents on public assistance, to get them off of government benefits faster. Am I understanding you?

I haven't received those benefits myself. (Incidentally, Serenbat, our family is probably in a similar financial situation to yours; we make JUST a little too much to qualify for certain things, such as daycare vouchers and WIC. And we *could* qualify for moderate-income housing, if we wanted to sit on a waitlist for decades...)

So, does anybody on this thread whose family HAS received government benefits - I know there are several of you - want to share her experience with the kind of "educational assistance" that Serenbat is talking about?

[journeymom]

We need to get this distraction out of the way:  Do all of us here agree that everyone should take personal responsibility for themselves?  Does anyone here actually believe people should not take responsibility for themselves?

Quote:

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. 

I don't think I personally have clarified that I completely agree with you, welfare as it exists now is meant to be a short-term assistance. I absolutely agree, we all should take personal responsibility. Everyone who uses public assistance should endeavour to get on their feet and self-sufficient as soon as possible.  

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

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

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

Since you highlighted that particular comment of Mammal Mama's, please go back and point out precisely where Mammal Mama said the current systems of assistance should allow and glorify abuse.  Where is the glorifying? I believe she was describing European society where, like you are demanding (rightly so), the recipients of assistance also take personal responsibility for their health.  She then went on to contrast life in Europe to life in the US, how one is more conducive of good health than the other.  And then ask why can't we learn from the European example. My understanding is that she didn't negate your comments at all, she merely offered more solutions to the problem.    

As you say, "you seem to be reading only what suites your agenda."

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

The institutionalized program was set up to be an offset measure for those in need, not a complete replacement of income and benefits.

But welfare abuse has been a serious issue that has caused strict regulations for welfare services on who is eligible and how welfare can be used.

Since one of the goals of US welfare is to help individuals and families break the cycle of dependency on welfare, educational assistance can ensure that individuals will receive a better education thereby potentially allowing them to obtain a better job.

http://www.welfareinfo.org

SERIOUSLY? Seriously? You trust the word of a website that promotes the use of payday loans to low-income people as a "resource"? I mean, it's totally accurate to say that the stated reason for the welfare reform of 1996 was to break the cycle of dependency on welfare, but can't you find a better source to bolster your authority in saying precisely the same thing that I've said multiple times over the past 27 pages? Can't you at least go to the federal government's own websites to find information about their programs? You have to link to implicit promotions of predatory lending? 

Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj 

Aw jeez, it was H.L. Mencken, not Bierce. I bet if I'd been homeschooled, I would have known that!

Back to the topic, folks...

Oh, right, not a fan of Mencken here. 

[captain optimism]

On the matter of what educational activities a TANF recipient can do in lieu of a work requirement, remember that TANF is a block grant to states, and rules about what you are allowed to do as education vary from state to state. In some states it has to be vocational and in some, there are programs for people to attend two and four year colleges. 

SNAP is also administered by individual states. Some states give the same amount of food stamps to college students as to other low-income recipients, while others reduce food stamps for people who go to college. 

[journeymom]

As per the original question- should we support moms so they can stay at home with their children?  I have a few thoughts.

-I am referring to general public support, not welfare. 

-I don't think all children benefit from having a sahm.  I think some children benefit more from being in good quality day care and preschool. 

-I don't object to the idea completely.

-Sweden's example is great, but it must be pointed out that more than 300 million people live in the US, to Sweden's 9 million. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

 Where is the glorifying?

we do glorify it when we deem it expectable to have multiple children when receiving assistance and do not discourage the it

we do glorify it when when we view it as just a little bit....as if just a little cheating/a little fraud  is OK too

we do glorify it when we positively view those who make the system work for them as Ok because it's their choice

we do glorify it when we don't encourage personal responsibility and deem it expectable to depend on others thus meaning it's better to stay home if you can get govt assistance vs working

we do glorify it when we when we can't see that yes it is your life-style when you depend on it for years and years and I do think 60 months is more than fair for most assistance and so does the government 

I see many here glorifying it- IRL I see the complete opposite with many knowing of abuse and seeing dependance prevalent and a major need for change

[mamazee]

I don't know how you discourage people from having more children, unless it's by making birth control/women's services easier to get, which I'm all for. But having babies is an instinctive urge, and without birth control is very likely to happen.

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by mamazee 

I don't know how you discourage people from having more children, unless it's by making birth control/women's services easier to get, which I'm all for.

I'm basically for it too. But if we're specifically talking about discouraging "welfare moms" (the subject of this thread) from having more children, that's led to some pretty ugly practices historically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

[serenbat]

Quote:

I don't know how you discourage people from having more children,

like you do other things- it's not OK to drink while you are pregnant, smoking is not a hot idea, and we seem to put those messages out there, we (society / govt) put out lots of messages - how about, it's not good for your child to not take responsibility for yourself- there are lots of ways to do

first saying, hey, that are not ethically good for you and your child, and bringing more children in to the mix is not a good idea at this time - that doesn't mean you are pushing an agenda for abortion any more than saying drinking and smoking aren't great when pregnant and around existing children

society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

<<p>society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)

I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents don't follow those rules.

Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.

What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)

So, assuming Igor and Ivanka are not going to change their behavior in any way, what would The World According to Serenbat do with their kids? You may use both sides of the paper.

[captain optimism]

At the moment, according to the Guttmacher Institute which collects data on birth control and abortion, nearly half of all US pregnancies are unintended. Of those, 40% end in abortion. That's WITH the negative propaganda on abortion--50% of people in the US describe themselves as "pro-life." Guttmacher's stats say that 61% of the women who have abortions in the US have another child already. 

In spite of the fact that so many of us disapprove of abortion, we have the second highest rate of abortion per capita in the world, and more than half of the people who are getting abortions are doing so because they have gotten pregnant by accident and already have another child or children. 

What was especially telling to me about these stats was that 54% of the women who had abortions had been using contraception in the month before they got pregnant. Most used it inconsistently or incorrectly. A lot of the women who were not using contraception reported that they considered themselves at low risk for getting pregnant. 

Yes, I think it would make a very big difference if we had better access to contraceptives and to information about contraception. 

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Again, this is an issue of public policy, not one of individual ethics. If you want fewer unintended pregnancies, go with funding for family planning. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

Yes, I think it would make a very big difference if we had better access to contraceptives and to information about contraception. 

you are not going to see it when so many that call themselves Pro-Life are anti-contraception as well, and many are in all cases