Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?
New Posts  All Forums:
 

Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 35

post #681 of 792

Okay, so I've read the whole thread--wowsers that took a few days!

 

I stated above my views on how assistance should work, so I won't again.

 

I just wanted to ask: What do you all think about this issue of an "entitlement mentality", and is this maybe truly the heart of the debate?

 

I am reading anything from "you should never take/need any help if you planned or carried through with a pregnancy" to "you should take all you can get, as you've paid your share and deserve it". It seems we are very divided at the extremes, and yet we all basically agree that kids should be fed!

 

As an American who has lived in Japan for seven years, and now in Germany for two years I feel a bit divorced from my home culture. We have one car, and DH bikes to work when there's no snow but  I still almost never drive as we just walk or bike everywhere. And before you assume I am talking about a 5-10 minute walk in a magically planned out town, I will say that I haul three kids in a trailer and baby-seat and the eldest bikes alongside for 45 minute errands at least once/week. Most of our walks are 15-20 minutes and for the last two months we have been doing so in a foot of snow, and wind and rain sometimes. It would be much easier to drive, but it's great exercise and I don't believe in driving when you can walk. Even with public transportation, and fantastically laid out villages people do still need to venture a bit outside their wee little towns for shopping on occasion. So this idea of "food desserts" strikes me as a bit like the idea of welfare queens driving caddy's. I am sure it does happen, but it's not the norm for our country at large.

 

I am not a super fit woman, and yet biking with kids is still very doable. (My bike and baby-seat came from Goodwill, and I pieced the trailer together from some that were being trashed--so I spent $50 on my vehicle of choice). Before I had my bike the bigger kids walked and we had a stroller for the baby and groceries--I do remember crying on the way home sometimes, but that just made be shop more often and for less. I biked to town three years ago when on an extended trip to the states and almost everyone thought I was insane! I made hour-long weekly trips to town for about six weeks and had four hecklers, and at least a dozen people pull over to express awe at the idea of biking into town, it was very surreal. In Germany I have seen a woman who has to weigh around 400 lbs biking in the town over to get groceries, and the frailest looking old woman in my village walks everyday to do errands--I truly do think Americans have a skewed picture of what is "possible" to do.

 

Two generations ago, my maternal Grandma raised six kids and ran a business after her husband died with no insurance. She worked at least 60 hours a week for many years, and actually did at least the same before he died. She batched-cooked on the weekends and had the oldest look after the younger ones, they all turned out great and love each other and our proud of their parents. It was what you did back then, and I am very proud of them all. Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?

 

I guess I am just sad at what we are accepting as reality for people. Almost all people, save the severely handicapped or mentally ill, can do so many different things that would bring them self-confidence and self-sufficiency. Even if it's just working very hard at two menial jobs to provide for your family, there is a lot of pride in that if we give value to it. I personally find it very offensive to assume that the vast majority of people on aid just can't do any better--I think they can, but haven't been given the tools, or incentive, or even just moral imperative to do so.

 

I also would say, that unless we at MDC are just an over-paid section of society--it can't be true that most people who have posted on this thread have paid "their fair share" and should feel like they are drawing down from what they paid into assistance funds. TANF is not the same as unemployment insurance, unless you actually pay federal taxes you are not funding TANF. Look at our federal tax structure, also we don't spend 2/3 of the federal budget on defense as I saw go unchallenged many pages ago.  My family makes over the median level and with four kids we get back all federal taxes plus $800 extra. Cha-ching, that's a form of income redistribution folks.

 

Our family doesn't pay federal taxes, much like 50% of the US population. It is federal taxes that make up almost all of these programs, so it truly doesn't matter if you paid sales taxes, or real estate taxes, or new car taxes, or boat docking taxes, or whatever else we get taxed for these days in the US--all that money is earmarked for other things and has nothing to do with TANF or WIC or food stamps.

 

Please take the time to digest the difference between a $20,000 tax write off and a $2,000 cash benefit....I will wait 

 

One consists of money you worked for being exempted from taxation by law, and one is money other people earned being given to you--much like my family's $800 tax refund this year. The government isn't actually "giving" that horrid rich person $20,000, they are just letting them declare less taxable income  and are therefore letting them keep more of the cash they worked hard to earn, because we as a society value fueling the real estate business. That's an entirely different debate, but letting people write things off their income does not in any way equate to whole-sale charity and I am sorry that some still insist on thinking so.

 

One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring. Minimum wage is a small amount for a very good reason. Please research it, on the surface it can seem so unfair, but the reality of paying an inflated wage for a job that could be effectively done by a part time 16 year-old cheaply, at a level needed to sustain a 2 person household, with 2.25 kids is staggering and a very serious job killer. We would have a few happy people, and even more pissed off un-employed folks. There would be no sixteen-year-olds slinging burgers to pay for their first cars ;-) No one is actually meant to live on minimum wage their entire lives, it should be a resume builder and a way to earn cash when you are young, or if you really only want to work part time. I find it incredibly demeaning to suggest that entry level work is all the "poor" should ever aspire to. If we keep pushing for this, we will end up with more people out of work with less chances to climb out of poverty and learn valuable skills.

post #682 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain optimism View Post

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.   

If you want me to go back and quote I will, I don't dispute what struck you, I remember them also. The ones you are referencing  had outlying reasons, IMO. I was summarizing a number of different posts and opinions. 

 

The woman who quit due to the threats, could have threatened to sue when her HR department didn't respond and I am sure she would have prevailed with just the threat--but I don't fault her for not doing so with the pregnancy and high blood pressure--I would have just walked as well in her place.

 

In regards to my friend, I think you are missing the point that taking a job that pays less that "state aid" should not cost you all the benefits you are getting--hence the idea of a graduated scale to lessen aid. It's entirely rational when you support your family to take all you can, and hope to earn at least that and to hold on until you find a job that will let you make the most you can. People tend to wish for the best, but perhaps we should encourage "good enough" and we will help with the difference in the meantime?

post #683 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafi View Post

The woman who quit due to the threats, could have threatened to sue when her HR department didn't respond and I am sure she would have prevailed with just the threat--but I don't fault her for not doing so with the pregnancy and high blood pressure--I would have just walked as well in her place.

 

 

There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer.  (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule. 

 

Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again?  It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process.  If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal. 

post #684 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafi View Post

 

 

Two generations ago, my maternal Grandma raised six kids and ran a business after her husband died with no insurance. She worked at least 60 hours a week for many years, and actually did at least the same before he died. She batched-cooked on the weekends and had the oldest look after the younger ones, they all turned out great and love each other and our proud of their parents. It was what you did back then, and I am very proud of them all. Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?

 

I doubt her basic work ethics and values would have changed from being on welfare for a short term when her husband died.  She still would have been a great person, and she would have rebuilt.

 

 

One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring. Minimum wage is a small amount for a very good reason. Please research it, on the surface it can seem so unfair, but the reality of paying an inflated wage for a job that could be effectively done by a part time 16 year-old cheaply, at a level needed to sustain a 2 person household, with 2.25 kids is staggering and a very serious job killer. We would have a few happy people, and even more pissed off un-employed folks. There would be no sixteen-year-olds slinging burgers to pay for their first cars ;-) No one is actually meant to live on minimum wage their entire lives, it should be a resume builder and a way to earn cash when you are young, or if you really only want to work part time. I find it incredibly demeaning to suggest that entry level work is all the "poor" should ever aspire to. If we keep pushing for this, we will end up with more people out of work with less chances to climb out of poverty and learn valuable skills.

 

That is the ideal.  People make minimum wage as teens or then move on.  That is not the reality.

 

A few stats from a link I posted upthread:

 

#7 Half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.

#8 At this point, one out of every four American workers has a job that pays $10 an hour or less.

#9 Today, the United States actually has a higher percentage of workers doing low wage work than any other major industrialized nation does.

 

post #685 of 792
Quote:
 I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule. 

this is OT - but if one only files a complaint with their company - they have no chance of anything happening - you must in 99% of all cases file with your employer, duel file with your state and the EEOC per their guidelines-within the mandated time frames and most cases many settlements are reached that are not via a law suite and this is often private, it's it illegal for the company to promote this and make it public, give a bad reference, etc You have no chance of suing and any reputable lawyer would tell you that (and MOST do consolations for free since they work on a percentage) unless you have won (meaning the state and or federal govt agency ruled in your favor- most lawyers will not take a case unless you have won) going through the state and federal system and that is not suing, it is filing paper work, attending arbitration and have a verdict rendered, in most cases. I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so. 

 

how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do

I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!

 

 

Quote:
How would subsidized health insurance aka Obamacare fit into this thread?

I see this as OT- I do know IRL- that those who I know who are denied insurance because of preexisting condition, are ones that are making payments vs those who are in the middle section you mentioned - with no insurance but not because of preexisting conditions. It seems only on here that what I have mentioned about this group that used ER's is just not really happening in most minds, but IRL I do see it. I see the ACA as mandating that those will have to pay towards their care unlike what is happening now. I understand the ACA as not all about the preexisting condition but the cost of ER care as primary care. I don't think that should be a factor as a SHAM regarding this thread. I see SHAM choice here.

 

Quote:
That's an entirely different debate, but letting people write things off their income does not in any way equate to whole-sale charity and I am sorry that some still insist on thinking so.

and also my family does pay federal taxes and we just looked at what military goodie we contributed to this year

 

 

 

Quote:
One last thing, the continued push to make the minimum wage a "living wage" is vastly misguided and such a red-herring.

I totally agree. I did also point out that some states pay welfare above minimum wage.

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Honestly what would her life had been like if she abandoned the business, stayed home on welfare for a few years and then tried to rebuild?

 

 

Quote:
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. 

 

you only mentioned two generations ago (your relative) - what about longer? Some of the spin justifications I have read here really make my head spin! Not only did past generations do it, the did it large numbers and in shorter time frames and some would argue with much harder conditions as well. Obstacles that I have read on here really make me wonder how others overcame -IMO much greater one, how could they have when now we don't seem to be able to? desire?

 

 

 

 

Quote:
What do you all think about this issue of an "entitlement mentality", and is this maybe truly the heart of the debate?

Shouldn't it be!? But I don't see it here- how can it be when if you are not gung-ho, you just want children to starve?

We can't even broach that as a society (and in ALL wages brackets) we are getting lazier and lazier in many areas. So much here seem to be federal related when in facts states play a big role but we have low, super low voting in this country. Most have no clue who their local reps even are, let alone that they make the state laws that greatly effect them, regarding the issues discussed here. There are many other areas as well, even given not working most still do not want whole foods, they want easy. Easy in many ways. 

 

I feel so much of what is missing is acknowledgement that motivation (and the dirty word responsibility) is a huge factor and there seems to be a lack their of. You have to keep a steady work history, you have to show up on time, you have to have the desire and I just see the opposite. I see many did not answer the question that was posed about if there was no safety net and I see that as very telling and so what, they don't have to because it's not a real possibility. 


Edited by serenbat - 2/3/13 at 8:31am
post #686 of 792
Quote:
At this point, one out of every four American workers has a job that pays $10 an hour or less.

 

there are many factors here as for the reason

 

I do know that MANY have no clue why all those papers hang up at work places (the ones that do say what the laws are, the ones required to be posted) or how they even became laws, I think this does factor into things-IMO

post #687 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

there are many factors here as for the reason

 

I do know that MANY have no clue why all those papers hang up at work places (the ones that do say what the laws are, the ones required to be posted) or how they even became laws, I think this does factor into things-IMO

I am a little confused - are you saying illiteracy plays a factor or being law abiding - or both?

 

I would certainly agree both can play a role in poverty - low literacy or education in particular. 

 

Most people who are poor or on welfare are law abiding.  One mistake can follow you for a long time, however.  I was talking to a man yesterday who was looking for work driving a truck.  I suggested school bus drivers, as they are always looking for them around here, and he could get in fairly quickly. It turns out he can't apply as a bus driver (or numerous other jobs) due to criminal record.  He says he was gotten his act together since then (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) but according to him it would cost 3000-6000 to get have his criminal record removed.  This is money he does not have.

 

The USA has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

 

post #688 of 792
Quote:
are you saying illiteracy

NO! more along the line of I just don't give a ____ (and many other words could be added here!!)

 

no desire to know, no desire to care, no idea this effects a person, not only lack of understanding as to what the work paper documents are but why we have the laws, not knowing how they came into being and like who fought to get them to be laws (I feel this is a major factor but not for this thread) - like YEARS ago when someone got their first paycheck (a real paper stub) and they would stare and have no idea why things were taken out- along those line if you know what I mean

post #689 of 792

again - years (long ago) many more people were not "educated" for having to have to drop out as in supporting a family, yet they still had the desire to be educated and literacy did work it's way in there regardless that they had to leave school and at a VERY young age, not even talking 16- my grandfather had to leave school at 11

 

I know someone who only went to 6th grade and managed to get a Ph.D - he also survived in two concentration camps along the way

post #690 of 792

Serenbat…..I sense you are mad over the lack of personal responsibility and work ethic you see (as well as fraud, using the system, etc).  That is Ok.  You have undoubtably seen things I have not seen, and you have every right to your feelings.

 

That being said - anger at those on welfare who do not behave as you like is not going to move people off welfare (which I think everyone agrees is a good goal).  Best practices around poverty management are the way to go. Truthfully, I would look at states and countries that have low amounts of people on welfare or living in poverty and figure out what they are doing right.  I do not think we can eradicate all poverty - but I do believe the USA (and Canada for that matter) can do better than they are doing.  

post #691 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

This didn't allow me to quote, but from what would my Grandmother, a single parent of six children, have rebuilt if she threw in the towel, and took welfare and then tried to rebuild? In what possible world would she have had had a better life five, ten or much less forty years now later if she gave up the family business when times got hard? She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.

post #692 of 792

in our state a low income family can get foodstamps if they have children under 6 living in the house, it only requires that one parent works.  i have discovered that even if DH worked full time we would still get the same amount in foodstamps per month and if we both worked we would not only get foodstamps but hundreds a month in daycare assistance on top of that. it seems to me that it saves the state money having one of us stay home since being 2 income would still be poverty level. 

post #693 of 792
Quote:

Serenbat…..I sense you are mad over the lack of personal responsibility and work ethic you see (as well as fraud, using the system, etc).  That is Ok.  You have undoubtably seen things I have not seen, and you have every right to your feelings.

 

That being said - anger at those on welfare who do not behave as you like is not going to move people off welfare (which I think everyone agrees is a good goal).  Best practices around poverty management are the way to go. Truthfully, I would look at states and countries that have low amounts of people on welfare or living in poverty and figure out what they are doing right.  I do not think we can eradicate all poverty - but I do believe the USA (and Canada for that matter) can do better than they are doing.  

I think it should serve as a reminder that others did have to overcome major obstacles in the past, given far less resources, some none, yet now, so many can't seem to do this- I see so much lack of desire to attempt it.

 

other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved? kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it

post #694 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarafi View Post

This didn't allow me to quote, but from what would my Grandmother, a single parent of six children, have rebuilt if she threw in the towel, and took welfare and then tried to rebuild? In what possible world would she have had had a better life five, ten or much less forty years now later if she gave up the family business when times got hard? She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.

I have been on welfare.  I was there for about 18 months when I had a new baby and the minimum wage jobs that DH was able to get gave us less money than welfare.  I now work at a library, and DH works for the government.  I have not been on welfare in about 15 years. There are numerous people on this thread who have been on welfare and are not on it now.   Welfare is not a life sentence for many people.  She is your grandma, though, and you know her better than I.

 

I would not have judged her one bit if she decided after her husband died and with 6 young children if she went on welfare for a bit.  Oh, and as bad as it was - she had a business to take over.  Most young widows with numerous children do not. 

post #695 of 792
Quote:
 She's still living off the income from the work she put it, even when most would say it was too much trouble.

it's a mentality - keep on keep on saying how hard it is or how it doesn't pay to do it - in the end why bother?

 

we have sooooooooo many issue pressing in this country - we can't get our weight under control no matter how much it (info) is thrown out there (even if you take out the argument that it's the "fast" food causing it- we have stopped MOVING!) - we are going in the opposite direction, I see this issue (this thread) as the same, backwards not forward

post #696 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

 

other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved? kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it

I do not know.

 

Be specific - what do you want to talk about it?

 

I am usually up for blabbing on the internet, but I think people are going around in circles and not hearing each other clearly (which often happens on long, controversial threads)

post #697 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj View Post

 

There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer.  (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule. 

 

Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again?  It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process.  If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj View Post

 

There are a couple other issues with this: let's be real, in the United States, most lawsuits come down to who can afford the better lawyer.  (My spouse also points out that every state has different employment laws for this kind of thing, and every circuit court in every state interprets them differently.) I'm sure you can point me to exceptions, and I'm equally sure that many of them would prove the rule. 

 

Also, assuming this woman did win the lawsuit; with that as a matter of public record, do you think she'd ever be able to get another job in her field again?  It's perfectly legal for employers to Google your name during the hiring process.  If they throw her resume in the trash because they think she's "litigious", a "troublemaker", etc etc - as long as they're smart enough not to come out and SAY it - again, it's all perfectly legal. 

If I recall correctly, this didn't seem like a huge mega corp she was dealing with, hence the very poor HR response to a potentially violent problem this Mama got. In almost all cases with small employers the "squeaky wheel" will prevail, which is why someone was allowed to bully, and why I think if the Mama had been healthy enough to deal with it, even just the threat of a lawsuit would have fixed things for her--as she was legally in the right.

 

Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.

 

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.

post #698 of 792
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so. 

 

how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do

I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!

 

Wow. That is just amazing. You actually knew what this woman should do to get legal protection, and instead of telling her, right here right now, you went on for pages and pages about how she was choosing not to work. And NOW, you admit that this information is not perfectly easy to find, but you have no sympathy for people who can't find it because you found it when it was more difficult. 

 

How do you do your job? I mean, you work with the public helping people find employment, correct? Do you give them the finger, literally or figuratively, if they don't know how to do some part of the job hunt? Are you angry with them that they could use a computer, and so don't show them how to send an application, because YOU used to have to send an actual LETTER? 

 

What is UP with that? 

post #699 of 792

I thought this was a very interesting video (it is 4 minutes or so) where two experts from differing backgrounds talked about poverty in America.  

 

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/commentary/personal-responsibility-key-ending-poverty

post #700 of 792
Quote:
fallout shouldn't just default to welfare

as with - you can lead a horse to water but .....

 

if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

 

 

 

Quote:
The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for

this is the situation for many and they don't rely on assistance and make it work-------planning... thinking of the future prior to acting

New Posts  All Forums:
 
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Discussion Forums › Parenting › Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children?