Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 33

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by couldbebetter29 

I also have 3 degrees, I have a daughter of my own, 2 step daughters that I care very much for, a house I pay for, food I pay for, bills I pay. I work a full time job and go to school to complete my bachelors degree. I have worked since i was 16 years old and paid and earned all that I have. My parents both worked when I was growing up and even though they were not with me every day all day I learned everyone has to work if they want a better life, if not you are where you are. But everyone can change their life and situation, you just have to do so.

I don't believe everyone can change their situation.  Statistically, it does not hold.  Some people do not have the first clue on how to change their life, some people really see no alternative but their way of life (and they might be right - the obstacles to leaving generational poverty (of which, by your own admission, you are not) are huge.).  It isn't that they choose a welfare lifestyle.  It would be like saying I choose not to be Prime Minister.  I don't choose not to be it - I have no clue how to go about being prime minster, I have no resources to even try to make it happen…..it is not going to happen. 

Have fun with that analogy, everyone 

There is a lot to station in life that comes down to luck. I tend to believe in generous policy towards those less fortunate, as they often did not do anything to deserve their station in life.  There but for the grace of you go I.   The wiki article posted upthread said 50% of American born into poverty stay in poverty.  Interestingly enough, both Canada and Britain (which have stronger social safety nets than the USA) have more movement between the classes:  30% of Canadians born into poverty remain in poverty and 40% of Brits

ETA:  I am not sure what to do with those we know commit fraud.  The kids still need eat.  I think there are so many subthreads to this thread, but some of the disagreement might come from the fact some of us are focusing on the majority who do not commit fraud, and some of us are trying to say - fraud exists!  How do we deal with it?

Food banks and school feeding programs are one way - they do not care that your parent/s committed welfare fraud.

Edited by kathymuggle - 2/1/13 at 11:29am

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I would say that in Canada at the moment, I suspect most provinces do a poor job at helping people to move out of generational welfare.  There should be more assistance in removing barriers.  It almost seems like the government is happy to give them just enough (or perhaps just less than enough) to feed and cloth people, and forget about them.   I don't know if it is a penny wise but pound foolish move (which is what I suspect) or if people who are generationally poor are actually seen as unemployable, thus the government makes little effort…I just don't know.  

I think it's mostly the bolded. My ex's family was on welfare when I met him, and some aspects of the program blew my mind. They were allowed to earn $100/month (I believe that was the amount) without it affecting their benefits. After that, anything they earned was taken straight off their benefits, and there was a cutoff where they lost benefits entirely. That sounds really good - but it doesn't give people incentive to get off assistance. At some point, they're going to be taking in the same amount, but working full-time (or close to it). Some people will do that, because of a work ethic, sense of responsbility, or whatever. But, many won't. (Frankly, many people in the workforce have the same attitude of "do the bare minimum"- they're just not in the same situation.) My ex never lived with anyone getting up every morning and going to work, until he married me. He never really understood why people didn't just call in sick if there was something they wanted to do, because he didn't equate "get up and go to work" with "have money to survive". Why would he?

I always kind of felt that welfare should have cut benefits on a 2:1 ratio - earn $2.00, and lose $1.00 in benefits. That means people aren't getting an income and full assistance, but it also means there's some financial incentive to actually go out and earn some money. My ex-MIL got new glasses, paid for by welfare (universal healthcare doesn't cover eyeglassse, at least in BC - not sure about other provinces). If she'd had a job earning the same amount as she got on welfare, she'd have had to pay for them. It's really hard to sell someon on the idea that they should get up and drag themselves to work every day, and put up with all the crap involved in having (and keeping) a job, to end up with less than they've already got. And, no - I don't think that means that welfare is a cushy life, because it's not. They lived in dire financial straits. It's just that they would have lived in just as bad a situation if one of them had been working.

I don't have the answers, but I don't think penalizing people for getting a job is the answer. It saves a few dollars per cheque, sure - but it ultimately results in a lot more cheques being issued.

My ex's family didn't end up in full-on generational welfare. My ex has a job where he lives now (he left the city, because it was the only way he'd stay off crack). My ex-SIL has a job, but still lives in borderline poverty - more money than she grew up with, at least. My ex-FIL is still drinking himself to death, and living on welfare. My ex-MIL is still on welfare. But, ds1 probably won't be - at least not in the generational sense (we never know what will happen in the future). My nephew is working. I'm not sure how they ultimately dodged the generational bullet, but I didn't see anything in the policies they grew up under that helped them do it.

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

I think it's mostly the bolded. My ex's family was on welfare when I met him, and some aspects of the program blew my mind. They were allowed to earn $100/month (I believe that was the amount) without it affecting their benefits. After that, anything they earned was taken straight off their benefits, and there was a cutoff where they lost benefits entirely. That sounds really good - but it doesn't give people incentive to get off assistance. At some point, they're going to be taking in the same amount, but working full-time (or close to it). Some people will do that, because of a work ethic, sense of responsbility, or whatever. But, many won't. (Frankly, many people in the workforce have the same attitude of "do the bare minimum"- they're just not in the same situation.) My ex never lived with anyone getting up every morning and going to work, until he married me. He never really understood why people didn't just call in sick if there was something they wanted to do, because he didn't equate "get up and go to work" with "have money to survive". Why would he?

Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should."  At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs.  One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.

[Storm Bride]

Everyone can change their situation in life...I'm not sure I agree. How much change are we talking about, anyway?

What about someone whose dad scammed welfare his entire childhood, as well as beating on him and his siblings? His mom wasn't in the picture, because when she ditched her husband, she didn't take the kids. These kids were smoking pot and drinking with their dad by 15, and none of them ever finished high school...nor were they encouraged to do so. He wanted them working and "paying their share".
 

What about the kid whose mom's boyfriend kicked him out of the house at 16, because he was sick of supporting "these brats"? This kid had an average intellect, at best. He was, imo, showing the effects of malnutrition (not severe, but present). By the time he was in his early 20s, he was deliberately dealing drugs (pot) to known narcotics officers, so that he could get a jail term over the winter...he mostly lived on the street, but it was cold.

These guys were both friends of mine in my youth. The first one sort of straightened out, and is paying his own way these days (at least, the last time I talked to him - it's been a few years). He's still quite happy to be paid under the table, has no interest in paing taxes, because that's "for suckers", and has a string of wrecked marriages and a couple of kids (no idea if he pays them support). He simply has no tools for living life - he's managed to bootstrap himself to a position that most people take for granted as a starting place...if that. The other guy? He's spent most of his adult life in jail. (He's First Nations, and I expect race has played its part, too.) He's out now. He's in his late 40s, just lost his wife, has no job...where does he start changing his situation? I strongly suspect he has an undiagnosed learning disability, on top of everything else. Maybe he could change his situation, but he doesn't "just have to do so". He has to have some kind of a clue where to start.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by mamaofthree 

2.) although it isn't always true... a large majority of generational poor are minorities. whether we like it or not, here in america there is a big problem with our history and our treatment of people who where not white. it can be hard to pull yourself out of your history. i mean how many of us here on mothering.com are working on our own person history? trying to over come abuse,bad choices our parents made, learning and growing and being better parents even though our history is not so hot. now imagine on top of that abuse by our government, that really was just dealt with about a generation ago. (and we expect the next generation to just be over it and just move on)

Thank you so much for pointing this out! It's only recently that I've learned in greater depth about some of the horrendous practices that have been carried out against different minority groups! Some groups honestly are entitled to way more recompense from the government than they've received thus far, and I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign gratitude for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 
….and I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign gratitude for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.

Yes and no.

On a macro or governmental level, you are correct.  Feigning gratitude when you are being thrown crumbs, treated callously or like a criminal is crap.

On a smaller level, a little respect and politeness just make for a better society.  If I give someone something, I do expect to be thanked.  It is polite.  This is an expectation regardless of income level.  If I donate a check to a charity or food to a food bank, I expect to be thanked from the organisation.   I expect to be thanked when I give stuff to a person.  In general, if you can offer thanks for a gift, you should not accept the gift.  

I get that people are occasionally in a bitter mood, and just because you cannot show appreciation , does not mean the item is not going to be put to good use.  Overall, we are all responsible for the energy we put out into the world.  

[serenbat]

Quote:

 I strongly disagree with anyone who says they should feign gratitude for any little crumbs they are thrown in lieu of real actions that could seriously begin to redress the wrongs that were done to them.

it this was meant at me, I certainly was not giving little crumbs by wanting to give the clothing to the mother I spoke about - I turned them into a thrift and made money off of them for me- they were in great shape

many states do time limit extensions- mine does!

and whites are almost equal to minorities in getting assistance

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_welfare_spend

[mamaofthree]

i don't know about the giving thanks. when i give i don't expect anything. if you give and expect something you are not truly giving from an honest place. at least that is what i think. i mean it is nice to have someone say thanks, but i don't demand it.

although i would not call myself a christian i do like that saying that goes something like "your left hand should not know what your right hand is doing".

and i do think we need to be respectful when we give. some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart... like i said no strings attached.

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I certainly did not say only. You seem proud not to work and depend- many do not feel this way. They want to be proud to take care of their children, you seem to not see that- clearly not all of the 47%  depend. You must also think all those who are part of the Occupy Movement don't have job either.  

SERIOUSLY????  I do work.  I have no idea what makes you say this.   

I am proud of the work I do.

[serenbat]

TANF reports that only 24% work and receive - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42768.pdf

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by mamaofthree 

i don't know about the giving thanks. when i give i don't expect anything. if you give and expect something you are not truly giving from an honest place. at least that is what i think. i mean it is nice to have someone say thanks, but i don't demand it.

I don't demand it - that is rude.  I do  like thanks to be freely given.  That being said, I know that if I had two friends or organisations of equal needs, I would be more likely to be a repeat giver to the one who seemed to appreciate it and who expressed basic politeness when they received.  

and i do think we need to be respectful when we give. some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart... 

Agreed.  Sometimes giving to food banks and thrift stores is not about giving something people will actually use, but really a way to unload crap you do not want.  I have seen this a lot.  Sometimes people can pick through stuff to find what is acceptable to them (thrift stores are an example) but other times food or clothes come in pre-packaged bags - in which case giving less than acceptable stuff is just unloading your useless junk onto others.  This is a big problem in this area - we have limited garbage pick up  (2 bags per week) and people unload all sorts of crap at thrift stores.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 2/1/13 at 2:51pm

[serenbat]

giving.......

instead of directly donation to a person you may feel needs it, you can donated to a charity, get a slip of proof to use to lower you taxes and a poverty person can buy it at cost

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

no I'm not and you mustn't know states do have flexibility

I'm not sure if you are talking about *all* kinds of "welfare", but I do know that at least in Indiana, there is a *strict* 24-month limit on receiving TANF. It doesn't matter if you got it for 24 months, then later you are homeless, and you want to get it again, they will *not* allow you to re-apply/receive more than that time limit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by couldbebetter29 

I believe any one can choose to leave low income housing but you have to make the choice to make your life better. If you do not have the education already go to school while on assistance. In Michigan you can do this, but a lot do not.

It isn't always so easy. DF, for example, wanted to go to college *so* bad as soon as he graduated high school. His step-dad (who made, literally, $1 million/year), said as long as DF went to work 1 year in manual labor, his step-dad would pay for him to go to wherever college, for whatever he wanted. DF did, but as soon as he started talking about where he wanted to go/what he wanted to do, his step-dad changed his tune. He wasn't going to pay for DF to go "get smart." He wasn't going to "waste the money for DF to have his head in the clouds." etc. DF tried to apply for grants/loans, but... when your parents make that much money, I guess they figure you don't need the help to pay for school, so he didn't qualify for any help, not even loans. DF is on autism spectrum, and was never taught how to do even basic living skills, he had no job skills (for jobs he would qualify for w/o education, he's *very* smart in every religion I know about, and everyone who has ever talked to him (that I know of), has said he should do some sort of teaching of religion or something, but nothing he can do without "proper" education, even though he probably knows as much, if not more than someone who *does* have proper education), he never had support from his family to do anything, never taught anything about having a job, or finances. He lived with his family, rent free, as he didn't know anything about how to get/hold a job, when I met him. I taught him (the best I knew, since I never was taught, either, about working, or paying bills, or any essential life skills [Yay! Foster system!]), how to apply for jobs, helped him figure out how to fill them out, called him every day to make sure he was ready/leaving for work, etc. He has the strongest work ethic of just about anyone I know, and has gone in to work when he's sick more than anyone I know. (Not great, and he doesn't like it, and I think that maybe there should be more time allowed off for *true* sickness, because when he ended up in ER, and was so sick he could hardly leave bathroom, he used up his time off already, and it's only February.) But as soon as he was not tied to bathroom anymore, he was back at work, so he didn't lose his job. This is the best job he's had in his life, and it's still *very* low, compared to COL (which I believe our area is fairly low, compared to most.). So while I suppose *almost* anyone *might* could leave low income housing, it isn't always so easy as, "Oh, I'm going to go find me somewhere better." or even, "Oh, I'm just going to go back to school and get a better job." I know one of my professors when I was in school had 2 master's degrees, 2 bachelor's degrees, and was working on another master's, and was making just above minimum wage. I know that story personally, as we were talking about it when I was homeless and trying to figure out how to make up my finals when there was no public transportation and I had no way to just go and take them. So not just "heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend." While I would like to go back to school (and planning on getting certification either summer or fall semester to try and get a better job), stories like that make me realize that "better education" doesn't always end up being worth it. I can't imagine the amount of money my professor spent/amount of loans my professor had to spend/take out to get that much education, just to be making not even minimum wage.

Originally Posted by TiredX2 

Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should."  At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs.  One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.

That would be the first thing I think would help. If people *could* actually make it working, it would make it so much easier to work to make it. Being so tired at the end of the day you can't even prepare meal for your family, *if you even get to see them at all* PLUS not making enough money to make your bills is *very* discouraging. I understand why someone would not do it. (Even though I did, when I was working. I literally got to see my kids/DF one day a week, *if* that. Otherwise, they were staying at my mom's house. She got them up, got them dressed for school, got them on bus, they got off bus after school and went to my mom's, where they spent the afternoon, ate dinner, and went to bed. *IF* I got the weekend off, I would get to see them then, but... I was so exhausted that the most I could muster was sandwiches DD made for them, and watch a movie. If I worked 7 days/week, I wouldn't get to see them at all. It was *insanely* difficult on all of us, they were having behavior issues due to the inconsistency of my schedule and/or not getting to see mommy and daddy or knowing if they would get to, etc. I don't think it's fair that it should have to be that way, especially adding on not knowing if you'll be able to make the bills. If I weren't so dang embarrassed to ask for help to survive, I would have asked for it, but I hate(d) hearing how I/we should just be working, not relying on the system, or hearing crap from people at grocery store when I went and used EBT card to buy groceries, because no one believed I was working 50-60 hours/week, and still needed assistance. I don't begrudge anyone who would rather stay with their kids and get assistance. I think it's important to be able to see your kids, and get to spend time with them.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

What about the kid whose mom's boyfriend kicked him out of the house at 16, because he was sick of supporting "these brats"? This kid had an average intellect, at best. He was, imo, showing the effects of malnutrition (not severe, but present). By the time he was in his early 20s, he was deliberately dealing drugs (pot) to known narcotics officers, so that he could get a jail term over the winter...he mostly lived on the street, but it was cold.

That sounds a lot like DF's situation, when he was younger. He never ended up in jail, but he lived on the streets when his step-dad decided he was tired of "taking care of him" (if you can call it that.) Thankfully, he lived in Alabama at the time, so it wasn't usually terribly cold, but I guess he stayed with friend(s) when it did.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 
 

I expect to be thanked when I give stuff to a person.  In general, if you can offer thanks for a gift, you should not accept the gift.

So what about when someone thinks they are "helping" you by giving you things that either are torn/horribly stained/obviously something that someone couldn't use (like infant/toddler clothing for an elementary-aged child, for example). I still say thank you, because I feel obligated to, but if someone brings me something, especially something to "help" me, I would hope that they offer me things that I could use, not things that are ill-fitting or don't fit at all, or clothes that aren't even acceptable to wear, say, to school. But I still say thank you, because it's expected, and because I should be thankful that someone gave me something. Even if I can't use it. But it hurts worse than not being given anything at all, sometimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mamaofthree 

some time ago on mothering.com someone posted about getting food from friends and it was out of date, dented cans that all put together could not even make a meal. that really is crappy. and clothing that is stained, ripped, worn out... don't give that to people. just because they have nothing doesn't mean they need crap. i try and give what i would like to receive. food that we could eat without risk of poisoning, clothing that is at least in this generation, and from the heart... like i said no strings attached.

This is what I was trying to say, but I still feel obligated to say thank you. A few years ago, when we were homeless, someone at our church signed us up for angel tree/holiday helper type program. It was DD (5), DS (2) and me. When we got the gifts, there were newborn baby girl clothes, baby girl toys, baby girl accessories, etc, and nothing for DS. I don't know what happened, but it was all inappropriate stuff. I said thank you, because i did appreciate the thought, but... it left me with two boxes of newborn baby girl clothes, and DS was still wearing the same two pairs of pants/same 3 shirts over and over, with my not having a way to wash them with any regularity. The thought does count, I think, but it doesn't keep baby clothed and warm.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by TiredX2 

Our society argues that executives won't work unless they get extra compensation (for example, in the recent Twinkee fiasco, there were millions of bonuses proposed to keep the executives on through bankruptcy--- otherwise, they might have left). And yet we expect someone to work for poverty wages, put their children in substandard care and end up kicked off of health insurance because they "should."  At some point it's actually a logical conclusion to stay on welfare programs.  One of the things we, as a society, can do to combat that is fight for an actual living wage so that people working full time can afford housing, food and healthcare instead of ending up worse off than they were before.

If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!

It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!

[sparklefairy]

Another point to ponder regarding looking for work for 6 hours a day:

One cannot simply shoehorn into every job that is posted. Jobs have minimum qualifications regarding experience and education. Jobs for which the qualifications are very low often won't consider people who are "overqualified." It really isn't a matter of just applying for every job out there. There's no point: it just wastes everyone's time.

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by pek64 


If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!

It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!

[journeymom]

Originally Posted by bmcneal 

The thought does count, I think, but it doesn't keep baby clothed and warm.

Ugh. I'm so sorry.  In deed, it's the thought that counts.  Clearly these people weren't thinking.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

it this was meant at me, I certainly was not giving little crumbs by wanting to give the clothing to the mother I spoke about - I turned them into a thrift and made money off of them for me- they were in great shape

I wasn't referring to the clothes you tried to give to the woman who didn't want them. However, much earlier in the thread, it did strike me as odd when I shared some about our situation, and you accused me of not showing enough gratitude to the taxpayers while I was sharing my story -- and yet, that's not what my last post was really about.

My more recent post was about minorities, and I'm not in a minority group and honestly don't feel society or the government owes me any more than it owes the next person. And the assistance we've received has been very helpful -- it's not "crumbs." My reference to "throwing crumbs" was not directed to you, but more to the general society in which many whites take exception to minorities whom they feel have an "attitude of entitlement."

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

TANF reports that only 24% work and receive - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42768.pdf

You told me directly that I personally seem proud to not work and to depend.  Which is completely false.  I do work.  I don't depend.  I've never even received TANF. 

I never received TANF because the assistance I received was almost 20 years ago and it had another name then.  I received it while working as a nanny as the single mother of a young child.  I started college when she was 2yo and I received it for a short time while I was in college.  I also had a work study job during that time.

Later I received food stamps for about 2 years as a SAHM of three young children over 10 years ago.

I have worked ever since at different things with a husband that worked full time as well. 

And I indeed am proud of my life and I will never consent to being shamed for being a SAHM once upon a time while receiving food stamps.  I did not go back to work by the time my infant twins were 3 months old and I will never feel guilty for that.

For the poor, being a SAHM is consistently a truly temporary "lifestyle choice".  Generally it is extremely difficult to sustain being a SAHM on assistance.  You might scrape by for a couple of years, but generally you will be looking for at least part-time opportunities as soon as you feel like you can maintain sanity for your family while doing the work.  You do a community that includes many good, ethical, hardworking parents a disservice by painting all of them and all assistance ever received with the same brush and suggesting they shouldn't have the right to make lifestyle choices that offend you personally. 

You told me I was included in this group of "takers" because I don't have insurance.  My dh and I essentially work at five different occupations between us because of the different kinds of paid work we currently do.  We work seven days a week.  And we homeschool.  It is my understanding based on your previous comments that because I homeschool, you think I should be working more at something different and sending my children to public school.  Your criticism really puzzles me.  I truly thought that by "meeting" some responsible moms' by reading their stories here you would in fact see that there can situations where such assistance is okay.  I know it was for me.

I also already answered your question when I told you about being a SAHM when our twins were infants and our house falling apart etc. when my dh worked full time and we received food stamps.  I would have stayed at home even without the food stamps.  Our children would have suffered, I would have suffered, but employment was not an option for me at that time and also would not have lifted us out of poverty.  Since I chose to SAHM and would not have budged on that:  Would you, Serenbat, have taken access to those food stamps away from me if you could?

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by pek64 


If the minimum wage was actually a livable wage, there would be fewer people needing assistance in the first place!

It's absurd that CEOs get bonuses while employees are being laid off. That kind of thing should be illegal!

In a way programs like food stamps allow more big companies to get away with paying lower wages.  They pay starvation wages, but magically their employees don't starve, and they still get workers extra-cheap.  If they had employees' children dying of malnutrition they would be forced to pay better wages.  Thus, food stamps are really subsidizing Walmart and other corporations' bottom lines.   And the  employees get to feel ashamed of their failure in society because of their "dependence" --thus keeping the poor in their proper places--feeling terrible about themselves.