Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 34

[serenbat]

Quote:

You told me I was included in this group of "takers" because I don't have insurance. 

I did not use the word taker-never did I say that.

Quote:

 We once did receive public assistance in food stamps and health care for a few years while I was at home with young children and I did not feel it was wrong.  Those benefits didn't raise us out of poverty but took just a bit of the desperation out of our lives.  For me to have been employed during that time would have been a far worse picture for everyone involved.  We would have still been struggling except my children would not have had that one blessing--the continuity of care and my own stability.  My child care would have been subsidized and cost the state MORE than it cost to have me at home with them in benefits.  If I had been working in anything available, I would have made less than the cost of childcare.  That is usually the case.  I also think it is okay to use welfare to help provide greater stability for children in poorer families, and having moms home for a while usually does exactly that.  The emotional struggles and anxiety create some major risks, and those children just might need moms at home the most, and may be the ones most likely to otherwise end up in substandard child care situations as well.  Some families may be able to provide adequate internal stability while still managing 2 lower-income jobs as well, but some may not handle that adequately and those children can be really vulnerable.

Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system.  We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that.

I think it speaks for it self in what you wrote. 

Clearly when you do have to take the responsibility and take a job (in many cases one you don't like or don't want) in order to provide medical vs someone who does chose not to work but will take a govt run assistance for medical - there clearly is a choice being made.

You can call it what ever you want, some clearly do make the choice to work to provide and have feelings much like I do about someone who does not do this. 

Quote:

 Would you, Serenbat, have taken access to those food stamps away from me if you could?

NO, I would not.

Unless you are elderly, disabled or have a child that you must care for that is disabled, and because of this it prevents you from working...... other wise, no. If you can work, why not! 

Others in society (and we are not talking rich or even super rich) in fact DO have to work for food for their children. They have to work long hours, be away from their family- it's not some bed of roses going on with tons and tons of wiggle room.

You are making a choice not to work or not to work enough and still stay with your child.

How you do not see others are working and think this is fair (or even or what ever term you want to use to justify your situation) so that you can so do what you want?

Why can't food assistance go to those who are unable to work (disability) vs those who choose not?

It's very clear you are making a choice.

You seem to have no problem with the fact that those who do have to work and not take assistance have to do the same things as you and have children yet some how it's OK because it's right for you and everyone should just be fine with.  Other people also have many jobs, work over time,work 3rd shift, 12+ hour days,  have to find child care and pay their bills and not ask for help.

I really think you are looking for others to say it's just wonderful that you stay home because they system can work in your favor- no problem, no one up set, and those who work are just thrilled because they can't  but can help you.

[kitteh]

I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children. You can say that this teaches the children the importance of hard work and a strong work ethic, but I think that the loudest message that children get when they are away from both parents for such a long time on a regular basis is that they don't matter.

And it is not in any way the fault of the parents who have to choose to make these really tough sacrifices either way--sacrificing income and material wealth, as well as possibly some dignity when accepting assistance, in order to have the ability to actually raise their own children (assuming this is even a choice they are able to make, as some don't even have the choice available to them) VS sacrificing the close parental relationship and ability to raise their own children in order to be financially self sufficient and not feel like a drain on society. It's really just sad that it comes down to this and that our society doesn't support families like it should. Which I suppose is the whole point of this thread. We ought to have a better system in place so that parents have better choices available to them.

[serenbat]

Quote:

I think it is really sad that some parents have to work

you can not also just up and quit and get assistance - I did state this earlier - if you don't take insurance via work, your child can not just go on CHIP in my state, all must take the coverage - same if you just quit - you don't qualify when you qualify for COBRA first

there are other things that prevent some from just quitting to get assistance- student loans and they don't go away with bankruptcy - they also garnish ALL wages if you ever have a real job again!

there are lots of factors

but when you say I am able (able-bodied) to work but choose not to and know you can just get assistance, others who work don't feel 100% supportive when they are doing a 12 hour- 3 day on 4 off shift

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

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.

You're absolutely right, and if I were you, I wouldn't waste any more time or energy trying to explain your experience and point of view to Serenbat. Whenever I read threads where welfare recipients are being bashed, I usually end up feeling compelled to share our story -- but whereas in the past I actually hoped to change the perspectives of those doing the bashing, I am now focused almost solely on providing support for those who are feeling ripped to shreds by insensitive and disrespectful comments.

I've learned that in the eyes of some, a welfare recipient who shares her story is always going to be branded as someone who's "proud" to be in a dependent role, "proud" to be taking from the hardworking Americans, and the bashers will oftentimes ignore the testimonies of people who draw some sort of welfare assistance but also work (which, as others have pointed out, is the situation that the majority of welfare recipients are in). At one point earlier in this thread (I don't have time to go back and find it now), someone even put quotation marks around the word "assistance" that I had used, as if in using that word, I were trying to put a pretty face on something that was truly shameful and despicable.

It seems like there really are just always going to be some unhappy people who'd rather lay shame and blame on poor people than look at the big picture.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by kitteh 

I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children.

Serenbat, I think it's misrepresentation to just snip off the above sentence after the word "work," as you did in one of your posts just a few minutes ago. I also think you've noticed that most or all of the welfare recipients that you've been bashing on this thread ARE employed.

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

you can not also just up and quit and get assistance - I did state this earlier - if you don't take insurance via work, your child can not just go on CHIP in my state, all must take the coverage - same if you just quit - you don't qualify when you qualify for COBRA first

there are other things that prevent some from just quitting to get assistance- student loans and they don't go away with bankruptcy - they also garnish ALL wages if you ever have a real job again!

there are lots of factors

but when you say I am able (able-bodied) to work but choose not to and know you can just get assistance, others who work don't feel 100% supportive when they are doing a 12 hour- 3 day on 4 off shift

Serenbat, I really don't get the way that you selectively quote some people and then respond in a way that really doesn't have much of anything to do with the post you quoted.

I never said that it's sad that some parents have to work. You cut my sentence short in the middle, which changed the entire meaning of it! I said I think it is sad when parents have to work long 12+ hour dayss and holidays in order to make ends meet. I work at an elementary school where many of the children go to extended childcare both before and after school, and they suffer some real sadness and separation anxiety from the long long days away from their parents. It truly breaks my heart every day to see the ongoing pain suffered by some of these children, and it has strengthened my resolve to do whatever I am capable of in order to not put my own family through that sort of thing. If that means accepting the assistance that is available to me at the expense of suffering the ire and criticism of people like Serenbat, then I'm ok with that.

I never suggested that parents ought to up and quit their jobs and attempt to enroll their children in government-funded health insurance plans, I'm not really sure where you are going with that. I have student loans so I definitely understand the importance of being able to pay those back!

Personally, I'm not blaming the parents in either scenario--those who are unable to work a job that offers health insurance and pays a living wage and have NO CHOICE but to accept TANF and food stamps to support their families, OR the parents who do have access to slightly better jobs that offer health insurance but still not a high enough wage to make ends meet without them working really long hours and being away from their families for extended periods of time. I find myself somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. I'm not at all dependent on the WIC that my family receives, but it helps and we greatly appreciate it. Even without it, though, I would not be able to work more than part time and still afford child care, nor do I want strangers raising my children. I think families need to have more choices available to them.

[glassesgirlnj]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

Whenever I read threads where welfare recipients are being bashed, I usually end up feeling compelled to share our story -- but whereas in the past I actually hoped to change the perspectives of those doing the bashing, I am now focused almost solely on providing support for those who are feeling ripped to shreds by insensitive and disrespectful comments.

I've learned that in the eyes of some, a welfare recipient who shares her story is always going to be branded as someone who's "proud" to be in a dependent role, "proud" to be taking from the hardworking Americans, and the bashers will oftentimes ignore the testimonies of people who draw some sort of welfare assistance but also work (which, as others have pointed out, is the situation that the majority of welfare recipients are in). At one point earlier in this thread (I don't have time to go back and find it now), someone even put quotation marks around the word "assistance" that I had used, as if in using that word, I were trying to put a pretty face on something that was truly shameful and despicable.

It seems like there really are just always going to be some unhappy people who'd rather lay shame and blame on poor people than look at the big picture.

Yeah, I'm also starting to feel like I'm just wasting my time and annoying the pig, here - and I'm not even receiving welfare!  

But like I said to rightkindofme, please know that I really appreciate you being courageous enough to share your own experiences with us. 

[queenjane]

serenbat where do you live that all jobs come with medical coverage?

You've stated several times if people choose not to work, choose not to take medical coverage but instead just take medicaid that that is wrong...but not all jobs have medical coverage and for those jobs that do offer it, its not always affordable. Try affording family medical coverage while working at a part time job (working at a part time job NOT because you "dont want to work" but because you cant find a fulltime one)....for many families, they simply cannot afford what the medical coverage would cost. Thats why programs like MIChild exist in my state (which allows a higher income cut off than regular medicaid and is for the working poor.) Personally i am fully employed and do not have medical coverage as part of my job. I also do not qualify for medicaid (well apparently i CAN, the letter they sent me was SO difficult to understand but i think if i spend like 200 dollars on medical care, THEN they will cover me after that? i dunno....) I rarely get sick and when i do need to see the doctor i go to the urgent care clinic and pay in cash. What else would you have me do? (Again, please let me stress i am fully employed.)

[queenjane]

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.

why do you say this? I got the feeling a lot DO take advantage of enrolling in school. I am in MI also. This is a very very depressed economy and now you are seeing formerly middle class people getting aid. Lots of unemployment.

Recently here there was a RIOT when over 4000 people showed up to the local housing authority JUST TO GET ON  A WAITLIST. Yep, thats right, you have to fight to get on a wait list for sec 8. Not to GET sec 8 but to get on the waitlist...which you can be on for YEARS before moving to the top. I dont blame someone for not moving out of low income housing after such a struggle to get IN.

[queenjane]

You know...the more i think about it maybe we SHOULD cut ALL forms of aid...no housing, no TANF, no food stamps, no govt cheese, no WIC, no daycare, no Head Start, no school grants....cut it ALL.

Let the revolution commence. People will do ALL sorts of things when they are hungry, desperate and watching their children starve or out in the cold.

Be careful what you wish for.
 

[mamaofthree]

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

see but they were not thinking. i think that is just plain arse rude to do to someone. here is my junk, you deal with it. here is my old outdated food, you eat it. i am not sure i would be saying thank you for that stuff. or at the very least i would never accept things from them again. of course then you the the risk of looking like a jerk because here you are poor and refusing someone else's junk. it is like it is a no win situation.

[serenbat]

I live in the north east.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I live in the north east.

So all jobs up there come with insurance? (even entry level jobs? even part time jobs?) oh by "come with insurance" i mean insurance that a low-income mom could actually afford.

I'm really confused by this idea that a low income person who has medicaid is somehow taking advantage. or that someone "chooses not to" take insurance...if you are so low income that you as an adult qualify for medicaid, then you likely cannot afford any insurance you are able to obtain through your job unless you've got a job with GREAT benefits. I know people who pay hundreds of dollars a month for insurance...i cant see that being doable for many low income people.

Also with many jobs you have to work there for a certain period of time before you even qualify for benefits.

[serenbat]

Quote:

So all jobs up there come with insurance? (even entry level jobs? even part time jobs?) oh by "come with insurance" i mean insurance that a low-income mom could actually afford.

ALL do not, many do and cost is subjective but you really don't have that much choice not to take coverage if your employer offers it, you can't just say no and get state aid-even for a child, you can say no if you prove your spouse has insurance and you are covered- the state sets the rules 

we have HIPP - the state does offer differential if they feel the employer cost is not correct, this is only if you have one member receiving employer insurance http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/hipp

some part time jobs do offer insurance within three months, some would let you buy in prior to having it offered at a reduced rate, some place pay 100%, temp jobs even offer insurance - depending on the industry and that can mean entry level at certain jobs-most let you know right up front with their ad

with general welfare - there is a law if you move from another state for 12 months you stay at the rate you were given if the cost is less than the state pay for welfare, it's designed to avoid people moving for benefits and also the state makes rules that do not apply for the whole state, only certain sections

[erinmattsmom88]

How would subsidized health insurance aka Obamacare fit into this thread? There are millions of people in the middle that are going to have to get insurance next year. These people make too much for medicaid, but don't earn enough to adequately afford private health insurance. Lots of people have full-time jobs and their employer doesn't offer health insurance. We are in this boat. DH is starting a new, full-time job next week. He will be making decent money, has a few benefits, but he won't be offered health insurance. So, we are too rich for medicaid, but too poor for BCBS. We will be one of those families who will have to get subsidized health insurance from our government. I can't predict the future, but we will need it indefinitely. Will we be considered abusers of the system? We'll still be paying for it... through taxes and monthly premiums, but these monthly premiums will be based on income. Someone who makes 30K a year won't have to pay as much as someone who makes 60K a year. Is that fair? Do I have to stress that I will be considered a fraud, or sucking off the system if I have the same insurance as someone who makes several tens of thousand dollars more than my family, but pays less money for it?

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I did not use the word taker-never did I say that.

It was NOT an exact quote.  It is completely accurate as far as your meanings that you have repeated often.  Isn't that what "other people provide for you while you're dependent and could be working more" means? 

Originally Posted by serenbat 

NO, I would not.

Unless you are elderly, disabled or have a child that you must care for that is disabled, and because of this it prevents you from working...... other wise, no. If you can work, why not! 

When people explain to you their perfectly good answers to your "why not" you still ask this question. 

I don't really know what I--as a real person--do that you have a problem with.  Since I work a lot, my husband works a lot, and I don't even use what assistance we are eligible for that seem like it would make us your favorite kind of poor people.  When I stopped receiving food stamps, we were still eligible.  We could have eaten nicer food if we had but we were scraping by and we managed.  I really don't understand the things you say.  Like some people have to suffer and do work they don't like and so on...  What makes you think I have only done work I like?  And if you aren't talking to me then who are you talking to? 

I am glad people use the system.  The system was made for people to use.  It's SUPPOSED to work to their advantage.  It's SUPPOSED to help them makes their lives better.

I might find this thread frustrating because I feel like I am in a useless debate, but it has so many thoughtful comments that have come out of it anyway.  

[LitMom]

Originally Posted by erinmattsmom88 

Do I have to stress that I will be considered a fraud, or sucking off the system if I have the same insurance as someone who makes several tens of thousand dollars more than my family, but pays less money for it?

I don't think you should feel bad at all, and I'm probably one of the people paying more for the exact same insurance policy. Self-employed/business owners always pay more, for the exact same insurance as big corporations because we lack the leverage to negotiate more appropriate rates. You'll probably be paying the same amount that a 3000 employee business does per employee. And while I think they should offer that rate to everyone, I'm certainly not angry with people who get the better rate! 

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

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......

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.

Nail, on the head IMO!

Clearly there is a need for a safety net to protect children, I think we all agree to that.

What is galling to me is that we set people up to fail and stay on assistance as long as possible for the above reason. Stormbride's example about her ex-husbands family goes to the point that sometimes the government does need to teach even adults how to better themselves if they didn't have an example of such growing up. I like the incentive idea, as punishing people is usually less effective overall.

I've read most of this thread, and many times people have stated roughly that they were taking the benefits now and staying home because they didn't want to send their kid off to any old daycare just to make less, or even slightly more than they could on state aid. Or that it makes more sense to take the help now, have the kids they want and then they will work later. Or why work for slave labor, when I can stay home take care of my babies and get an education...and work later. I totally understand all these impulses. 

What they are missing, and what the government is enabling, is that employers aren't keen on hiring people with long periods of unemployment. That's just a fact. There may be a good reason to drop out of the workforce, but to most employers hiring someone with a steady work history is a safer bet.

Also, in many careers you start at a fairly low rung and build up to a better salary over a matter of years. This can be jarring, when you've built your little family and suddenly need to work 40-60 hours a week at one or more jobs to bring home possibly less than you did before your assistance ran out. We should not build our safety net to allow this to happen.

If a persons prospects or skills or interests are such that you may be in a lowish income bracket for a very long time--working early and steadily is really the only way to break free. This is even more important for single mom's, regardless of what one may think of SAHM-ing.

**This is an anecdote, but I think helps explain the idea. My friend lost his job, just as the recession was hitting. Went on unemployment, got food stamps, WIC, etc. and started looking for work. All the jobs he found were for worse hours, and slightly lower pay than he was getting on unemployment and so he continued to look.

After, I believe 18 months on unemployment, (it was extended at that time) they were out of UE benefits and started to get desperate. Another 18 months later, he gladly took a job at slightly less than half his previous salary with truly terrible hours as it was the only place he could find that would hire a man who had been unemployed for so long. They lost their house and all savings in the meantime.

If there would have been some incentive to work as soon as possible, such as a tiered loss of benefits, I am sure he would have jumped at the idea. Living "on the dole" was not a fun experience for him, nor the rest of his family. Instead he did the smart thing, and kept the higher payout and held on to hope for a good job until it was too late. I can't imagine this is an isolated incident.

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by kitteh 

I think it is really sad that some parents have to work 12+ hour days with overtime and holidays just to make ends meet and feed their children. You can say that this teaches the children the importance of hard work and a strong work ethic, but I think that the loudest message that children get when they are away from both parents for such a long time on a regular basis is that they don't matter.

And it is not in any way the fault of the parents who have to choose to make these really tough sacrifices either way--sacrificing income and material wealth, as well as possibly some dignity when accepting assistance, in order to have the ability to actually raise their own children (assuming this is even a choice they are able to make, as some don't even have the choice available to them) VS sacrificing the close parental relationship and ability to raise their own children in order to be financially self sufficient and not feel like a drain on society. It's really just sad that it comes down to this and that our society doesn't support families like it should. Which I suppose is the whole point of this thread. We ought to have a better system in place so that parents have better choices available to them.

Wow. I've lived the life of a parent working a ton, actually 14 hours/day 6-7 days a week. I would in no way say that I ever thought that I didn't matter. My Momma taught me to be proud of my Daddy who worked had to work so very hard, because he chose manual labor rather than a college education and regular job.

It may be a matter of perspective, but none of us ever felt sorry for ourselves or not valued. And he did indeed raise me, even if it was only for a few hours each day.

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

I've read most of this thread, and many times people have stated roughly that they were taking the benefits now and staying home because they didn't want to send their kid off to any old daycare just to make less, or even slightly more than they could on state aid. Or that it makes more sense to take the help now, have the kids they want and then they will work later. Or why work for slave labor, when I can stay home take care of my babies and get an education...and work later. I totally understand all these impulses. 

Really? I haven't seen that here at all. One woman said she wasn't insured because she has a child on the autism spectrum who wasn't getting adequate education in the public school. Another said that she left a job because a coworker was threatening to kill her and the management refused to do anything about it. Another said her husband is disabled and she is working from home in order to be available to her children. 

It struck me that we have laws to protect the parents of children with disabilities from having to quit their jobs to educate their children--or worse, having to watch their children go uneducated--but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money. 

There are certainly laws and policies in place that should protect workers against workplace threats, but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money. 

We have a special social safety net for adults with disabilities, but in order to get on it you have to sacrifice your right to work and you have to go through a long process of proving the disability. Also, disability ssi payments won't really support a family. 

Essentially, we have people who have to make choices that we know they shouldn't have to make, that we even have laws to stop them from having to make. This is a social issue. If there were more federal funding for educating children with disabilities, or for EEOC enforcement, or even legal aid, those folks wouldn't have had to make those choices. Sometimes the things that make people poor are the repercussions of social policies you wouldn't expect to have that impact. 

Your story about the family that chose to wait until unemployment insurance was about to expire to take a job that paid less--I don't know. You think people are rational enough to reject jobs that pay less than state aid but too irrational to realize that state aid is time-limited? That's nice. You must be an economist! Seriously.