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 28

post #541 of 792
Quote:
I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents don't follow those rules.

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 

post #542 of 792
Quote:
this is an issue of public policy, not one of individual ethics.

 

I think this is a really important distinction for this conversation.

 


Edited, discovered a mistake.

post #543 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 

 

 

Don't do that. That's not what she said at all. 

post #544 of 792
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

<<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.

 

 

Quote:
Don't do that. That's not what she said at all. 

 

 

so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, are you encouraging dependance? you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance

post #545 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 

you cont to not answer the question. you just come back with sassy sideways comments. what do we do with families who cont to have children while on assistance? how do you stop people from having kids? you said educate like has been done with smoking and alcohol... yet many women still drink A LOT and smoke while pregnant. yes it is viewed as bad by the general public (so is being on "welfare" as seen by many of your own comments), BUT it doesn't stop people from doing it. it seems there is only so much we can do...1.)  take their children from them after a certain period of time 2.)force sterilization on the them (most likely the women, because the men although they are needed to make the babies don't actually carry them.) 3.) kick their butts to the curb after a certain number of years whether they have a way to support themselves or not, kids be damned. 

all the other choices are pretty much just educate and hope for the best. 

and just an FYI we are all dependent on each other. all of us. i don't see that as an issue, but i know you do. unless you are really truly doing EVERY SINGLE THING yourself, you are also dependent on others. i think that view might be worth looking at. our feelings about dependency. how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. 

post #546 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, are you encouraging dependance? you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance

 

We have a massive political agenda to end dependence on government assistance. What we lack is sufficient political will to work on ending poverty. It's really easy to put restrictions on who can get money from the government to live, but it's a lot harder to reduce the actual need for government or charitable intervention. 

 

The US has the world's highest GDP and 20% of the children in the country live in poverty. We have the second highest child poverty level among developed countries--after Romania. (UNICEF measures it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/us-child-poverty-report-unicef_n_1555533.html) Of course, in our case they could only measure relative poverty, because we don't actually track some of the other indicators.  We do know that children in our country are at risk for hunger and homelessness. (A lot of the states with the highest rates of obesity also have the highest rates of food insecurity, which is pretty interesting.) 

 

On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy.  (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)

post #547 of 792
Quote:
you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance

 

Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here.  What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?

post #548 of 792

"how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "

 

Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting  primal/innate/essential human needs.

 

Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:  

 

Oregon’s consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, “I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.” In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief” in the signing away of the patient’s reproductive capacity.

 

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807

 

 

Australia is now paving the way for children of any age to consent to sterilization — without parental consent. That’s right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is ‘sufficiently mature’, they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, there is no age minimum, as long as they are ‘mature‘ enough.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k

 

To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives?  Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper.  With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?  

 

I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance.  Where are we when we need each other?

post #549 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

 

Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here.  What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?


I, too would love to hear a clear answer from serenbat.  Good questions. 

post #550 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotheringBliss View Post

"how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "

 

Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting  primal/innate/essential human needs.

 

Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:  

 

Oregon’s consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, “I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.” In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief” in the signing away of the patient’s reproductive capacity.

 

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807

 

 

Australia is now paving the way for children of any age to consent to sterilization — without parental consent. That’s right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is ‘sufficiently mature’, they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, there is no age minimum, as long as they are ‘mature‘ enough.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k

 

To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives?  Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper.  With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?  

 

I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance.  Where are we when we need each other?


 Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children.  You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming.  Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section.  From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children.  Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.

 

I don't think that the current system glorifies or encourages dependence.  Thank goodness so many of us are willing to treat these "dependents" as decent human beings even during whatever period they receive assistance.  Few people like being dependent, they certainly do not want to be talked down to and preached at, and treating them like parasites is bringing poison into our communities.

post #551 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain optimism View Post

On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy.  (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)

nod.gif well said. 

 

i find from my own experience the biggest opponents to welfare are those who are on the cusp where they just missed the qualification by a tad bit and their objection is fraud. while yes fraud goes on, is it going on so much that it makes the program more harmful? 

 

and the funniest part? that the government is doing something to help people from their dependency on the system. to me that is the biggest joke. just see how much help the govt. gives to get people off esp. in the southern states. 

post #552 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj View Post

 

 

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

Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!

post #553 of 792
I really just don't know specifically what is meant by "discouraging." I might agree, depending on how it would be discouraged.
post #554 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

 Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children.  You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming.  Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section.  From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children.  Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.

 

I don't like the idea of reviving sterilization as a public policy. We have a long history, in this country and elsewhere, of government bodies deciding to sterilize women because they are "unfit" in some way--"stupid" or "dependent." When doctors encourage women to accept sterilization, I think that's an abuse of their authority. 

 

Public policies that are really good for society have to make people happier. Taking away the fundamental choice of whether to have children is depriving them of one of the principles guaranteed in the Constitution--the pursuit of happiness. 

 

I believe that if we offer people appropriate options that they will make good choices, and that a young woman who is currently down on her luck can often recover. Not everyone will make the right choice, but if it's possible, most will. We want to do right by our kids.  

 

It's fundamentally wrong to abridge women's ability to choose whether or not to have sex and whether or not to have children. 

post #555 of 792

dh was just telling me about his day at work. a co-worker just returned from a trip to Kibera ( the world's largest slum in Nairobi). 110,000 people in one square mile. they have no toilets so raw sewage runs in the streets, children starve everyday, there is constant sickness, hunger, violence, death... everywhere. there is no safety net for these people. none, no government help, hardly any education. it is sad, scary and just a pretty awful way to life. 

we are lucky to be here, here where we have a safety net. where you can get food, you have running water, you can send you kids to school. even if you are the poorest of the poor you can still get some help if you are willing to look for it and ask for it. and here we are fighting over pennies from everyone. pennies a year from your tax dollars goes to prevent that sort of situation here. 

how can anyone want to prevent people from getting help? who has the right to decide who is worthy of help and for how long? whose children are better? whose children get to eat, have a safe home, have medical acre? i am blessed beyond measure because we have food every night, and health insurance and a house. why would i want to deny anyone EVER of having that? because they are what? "stupid", "poor", making bad "life style choices"? who am i to say? who are you to say? where do we draw the line? 

geeze. this whole idea of fighting about who gets food is just so damn stupid it makes me sick. if i have to pay more in taxes so someone eats tonight then damn it, i will. and i will be damned if it will get my undies in a bunch, because no one on earth should have to live like that, no one should have to live in that sort of fear place. and all the complaining about how hard you ( a generalized you here) work and how "you" shouldn't have to work to help another human being is just sickening. because honestly there by the grace of god go you.

serebat: you have said more than once why is some "welfare mom's" kids more important then yours... they aren't, BUT they are not less important. no one is less. when we start seeing that we all want love and acceptance and help and togetherness then maybe this world will come around, but if we cont to have this "us against them" mentality all we will have is "haves and have nots" 

i am not sure how much more of this thread i can take. 


Edited by mamaofthree - 1/30/13 at 6:32pm
post #556 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!

 

You're welcome! :)  ...Prob won't hear much from me for a while, still trying to get my 14-month-old to fall asleep.  (At least reading "Mr. Seahorse" aloud is more productive than listening to regurgitated Fox talking points.) 

post #557 of 792
Quote:
What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html

 

MAJOR GOAL

The four purposes of TANF are:

  • assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
  • reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
  • preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
  • encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

 

My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2

 

it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community  members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just  such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a  good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that. 

post #558 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I really don't get why this is just such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most people are not committing fraud. And most are not long-term dependent on welfare, it's a temporary stop-gap. And families with young children just happen to be most in need of this temporary aid, because:

1. Little kids need to eat to grow, and, you know, SURVIVE.
2. Whether you work & pay for daycare, or stay home and lose an income, having a child seriously cuts into your financial resources. This is mitigated some when most kids reach school age.
3. Many with young children are also just starting out on their own as adults. Not only do they have to learn how to manage finances, but they either had to skip out on college and can't get a good-paying job, or they are under the weight of thousands & thousands of dollars in student loans, and still not making much money because jobs for those just out of college pay crap. In our society, families just starting out in life are at a huge disadvantage.

Whether you have 1 child or 10, the loss to income to be a SAHP is the same. (Working parents will obviously have more costs per child for daycare.) If someone wants 3 children, why not have them all around the same time, and then be able to re-enter the workforce as they hit school age? Having them years apart means they are constantly leaving & re-entering the workforce and just may not be in the family's best interest, financially or career-wise, and likely would cost society more in the long run (seeing as that's the thing you seem concerned about).

And, sometimes you can't wait to have another child without giving up on your dreams of multiple kids altogether. If you are a 43-year-old mom, there aren't exactly a ton of child-bearing years ahead of you while you wait 'til you're financially well-off. Same is true of people with certain health & fertility issues. I don't see a problem with a family already on assistance having another child while they still can. Then in a year or two they will be more financially stable & no longer relying on the system. I am appalled that you would imply a family should permanently limit their family size because they are temporarily in need of help.

Sterilizing parents, letting children starve... this conversation is making me sick. I swear this time I'm really done.
post #559 of 792

Personally, I'm in favour of a different kind of system all together. I hear so often that this system is broken, that system is broken. Well, f***, why do we keep doing it then? We invest so much time and energy into this one and we don't even like it! Change it. There's been this marvelous idea popping up here and there and I seriously hope it will catch on like a wildfire gone even wilder! It's called sharing. We do it all the time anyway--sharing movies, music and whatever else on the internet, giving away stuff to goodwill, having people over for dinner and I'm sure there are plenty more examples of what people share on a regular basis...why don't we just start sharing even more? I have skills. I can trade them for a skill/service/something I value. Why do we need money to survive? We don't.

 

I think for the system we have, welfare is necessary but falls far short of what families need. That people abuse it is irrelevant because people will abuse/neglect anything they don't value. Every person has dignity and worth, no matter their income, gender, education, possessions etc. The welfare system in the states is mindbogglingly pathetic, the same for here in Canada I presume (although I'm not on it now, I was when I was a child and my family couldn't afford much of anything at all) and I never would wish that fate on anyone.

 

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results? Ya, that makes sense in this case...so...if we want a different result, we have to do something different. We can't rely on what isn't working. 

post #560 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html

 

MAJOR GOAL

The four purposes of TANF are:

  • assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
  • reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
  • preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
  • encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

 

My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2

 

it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community  members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just  such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a  good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that. 


You have not only attacked TANF recipients.  You have attacked pretty much everybody getting any small portion of assistance.  Starting with attacking me because I am uninsured, then people who receive WIC, everyone who receives food stamps, and anyone who has another child while getting ANY kind of help at all.  Some of these are two-parent families with at least one parent fully employed no matter what their family composition, other responsibilities, or other plans for their future. In some families both parents may be working in some way but just not enough for you. I homeschool and work as well, as does my husband but I got scolded for being irresponsible because we can't afford health insurance.  We are not talking about people in the welfare system generation after generation, but someone who might get food stamps when her children are young even though her husband is the only one employed.  You are making broad generalizations about many people on many different paths and without the respect and decency to see that there are more issues in life than avoiding the littlest hint of dependence on others.  That is why your arguments don't make sense.  As if any kind of dependence at any time were some kind of hideous toxin. 

 

So if a woman has worked and has paid her share of taxes for years and then during her children's younger years she gets assistance and is home for a while, and then whn they are a little older she is employed again, "paying her share" again... what is the harm?  I see more benefits than harm and I am glad that we have that little bit of acceptance for helping people when they are at their most vulnerable.

 

Do you really despise everyone who receives any benefits if they do not behave according to your formula?  Earlier you suggested you only meant if that woman had the option of a job that would pay for all her bills, plus child care, plus insurance, and she just decided not to work at that job.  Very few women are poor because they are turning down those jobs, people on the edge rarely have those kind of employment opportunities.  Later the comments were more about those parasitic "welfare" moms milking the system and talk show quality generalizations.  Sounds like you just hate that undeserving 47% to me. 

 

Making the system work for you is healthy and positive? Well making whatever system you are part of NOT work for you is stupid. Its smart to get food stamps when poor nutrition, anxiety, and empty cabinets are the reward.  It's smart to apply for WIC or for health care assistance if that your children need that care and it helps you and it was meant to help.  It's not nasty and manipulative.  Whoever the abusers of the system are they are not most people, nor is any woman who is a SAHM and receives some kind of assistance.  Let people live a decent life.  We don't like seeing hungry children begging in the streets or being allowed to sicken because their parents are to proud to be "dependent" or secretly left at home as preschoolers because the mother is slipping away to a job and has no safe option for childcare that she can pay for herself.

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?