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