Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 37

[Polliwog]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

 

I don't understand this rational - you say she is better off with you, she would not have a "safety net" (yet it's repeated over and over here that welfare is suppose to be a "safety net") and this whole thread is about
welfare mothers staying with their children, 
and your is better off removed? That is the complete opposite. 

Welfare is "A" safety net not the only safety net. MY daughter's birthmother didn't lose custody of DD because she was poor. She's significantly mentally ill, developmentally delayed AND an alcoholic. She had all kinds of support to prevent disruption and later termination. It wasn't enough. DD wasn't safe enough even at a minimal standard. My DS's life path (my son's too,) will be different than her birth mother's because she will grow up in a stable home where she is safe and her needs are met. She still has the same genetics, but her opportunities will be completely different. My son's birth mother has overcome a lot of her challenges, and is parenting her youngest, but there's minimal chance that DD's birthmother will be able to survive without assistance. But, money was not the reason that any of my foster kids went into care.

I've worked with low-income families for years (in Head Start, supporting child care programs that provide subsidized child care, and teaching at an inner-city school in Philadelphia. Over time, I've come to understand generational poverty. Yes, there are people who are deliberately trying to work the system. But, many more are just trying to survive and do right for their children.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

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.

I'm probably repeating something already said, but the minimum wage has not increased in conjunction with the increase in the cost of living. Thus, it has lost much meaning. I suggest you research why there even *is* a minimum wage. In other words, find out the reason it is started.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

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.

It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?

The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.

I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!

[pek64]

It's not fair to compare two generations ago to now, because laws are different. Back then, an eight year old may have been left responsible for younger siblings unsupervised. Is that legal, now? I don't think so.

Then, there wasn't much in the way of insurance. Now, having an uninsured vehicle is illegal. Then, one could provide food without a license. Not so, now.

All the added laws makes it more difficult to start a business, nowadays.



Not everyone on welfare lacks motivation. And some are lacking motivation to change. There are no clear cut answers. Hence, frustration.

[pek64]

Originally Posted by sarafi 


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.

What do recommend when a special educator is assigned that is causing more problems, instead of helping. Sometimes taking the child out of school is what is best for the child. Would I go on welfare to do that? Maybe. If I truly believed it was best for the child. Other times, school and the parent working is best. There is no one answer to issues.

[pek64]

To comment about lawyers, there are not lawyers willing to work on contingency, in many cases. And $150 for a lawyers nowadays is cheap! I just recently needed to hire a lawyer who sent a few emails and made a few phone calls, and now I'm in debt! Don't compare even twenty years ago to now!! And legal aid is next to impossible to get!! I tried for four months! While trying to represent myself. It was a nightmare! I wouldn't want to endure that when pregnant!

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by pek64 


It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?

The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.

I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!

I'm not sure what is worse, parents working those long hours in order to buy fancy vacations and cars and STUFF, or the parents who have no choice but to work those long hours just in order to make ends meet. We have children from both types of family in our before and after-school childcare programs.

[pek64]

Initially, I was arguing that it is understandable that someone seeing others abuse the welfare system would feel frustrated. But implying that there are no obstacles to improving one's situation is flawed reasoning. And to say that there is no difference between past times and current is equally flawed. In the past, family members helped each other, as did neighbors. Yet when I asked my mother for help, having helped my sisters when they needed help and my parents couldn't give that help, I was told people don't do that anymore and to figure it out for myself. Times and attitudes change.

[serenbat]

Quote:

To comment about lawyers, there are not lawyers willing to work on contingency, in many cases.

thhis would be regional - my state, it would be rare to be charged for a consultation - with a harassment (what ever the nature) case you usually have to go farther away to obtain one that would not have a conflict, again, if you did not report it, or file with the police (if that is really what is called for) you are going to have difficulties  

Quote:

It's not fair to compare two generations ago to now, because laws are different.

all types of laws have changed but the programs related to welfare have basically not differed in application between two generations, many principles have remained the same, many exist as original

[mammal_mama]

I agree with those who say that we can't always extrapolate from what was common in the past and apply it to today. For example, if I decided it was okay to raise my kids with just one outfit for everyday wear, and one outfit for Sundays, and send them to school barefoot or stuff cardboard in old shoes to cover the holes when we couldn't afford new shoes, just because that's how many of our ancestors managed, I think CPS would beg to differ. For one thing, it's a lot easier now to get clothes at low prices, and even for free, than it was in the past..

Also, life in the past was simply more labor intensive and working 14 or more hours per day used to be the norm for many Americans. Now this is no longer the norm. With this in mind, I'd like to look at one comment that's been made on this thread from the reverse angle. One argument against welfare is that nobody's children are any more or less worthy of parental time and attention than anybody else's. If this is true, then if some economically privileged couples can easily afford to have one parent at home with the children, why would we say that the children of poor parents are any less worthy?

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by pek64 


I'm probably repeating something already said, but the minimum wage has not increased in conjunction with the increase in the cost of living. Thus, it has lost much meaning. I suggest you research why there even *is* a minimum wage. In other words, find out the reason it is started.

If I recall correctly, the minimum wage was championed as a Progressive measure, meant to raise the wages of "deserving" workers. It was intended to raise wages so much that people simply would not hire children, childbearing woman, or any other less desirable worker if they had to pay the same wages to these types as they would have paid a healthy white male.

FDR did use it politically as a platform, because women could vote and all. Interestingly all the original court challenges to the law had to do with paying woman the same as men, it seems that wasn't the popular part of the bill--and those pesky ladies kept trying to work.

When I studied this we had to use only original documents. All of this information is on the net--or you could use a library and get the source documents yourself. Here is a pretty thorough paper in the Princeton archives if you care to read it.

I doubt that was what you were trying to say when you brought this up--and I don't think today's proponents of a "living wage" are trying to practice eugenics in case that needed to be said.

[serenbat]

Quote:

 If this is true, then if some economically privileged couples can easily afford to have one parent at home with the children, why would we say that the children of poor parents are any less worthy?

because there are not just two types of people - there are those who a still in the middle!  

What happens to those children?

It's not equal or fair as I have said- right now we have one group that can easily afford it, one that (what ever way you want to view it) does it and a whole other group not. And somehow making it work (and yes abusing it) is going to somehow make it right for all? 

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

all types of laws have changed but the programs related to welfare have basically not differed in application between two generations, many principles have remained the same, many exist as original

The welfare reform law happened in 1996. That is 17 years ago. Usually a generation is 20 years. The changes to the law in 1996 changed the name of the program, imposed a limit on the number of years any individual could be on it during her lifetime, and imposed work requirements. It also turned the program into federal block grants to the states. AFDC, the previous program, was administered by the federal government, and TANF, the program after 1996, had to be administered by the states. 

It is manifestly and ridiculously incorrect, wrong, and untrue to assert that the programs related to welfare have not differed between two generations. The principles are not the same, the administration is not the same, the rules are not the same.  

We have experienced a change in policy in our lifetimes. If you read a newspaper, or the website of a newspaper, or Wikipedia, or the websites of the federal government, or what--THIS THREAD--you would know that. 

If you are trying once again to assert that other social welfare programs are the same as welfare, that is misleading. It's also untrue that those programs have remained unchanged. We are embarking on the beginning of healthcare reform, and that is going to mark a very big change in how we administer a major social benefit program. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

It is manifestly and ridiculously incorrect, wrong, and untrue to assert that the programs related to welfare have not differed between two generations. The principles are not the same, the administration is not the same, the rules are not the same.  

we are still doing the same

the basic principles are still there - we are giving medical, food assistance, job training, housing, addictions support and the like and we have even increase programs in the private sector too and somehow in 3 years unicorns and pixie dust makes it work?

this is like pretending that abuse and generational welfare isn't happening

healthcare will impact the uninsured the most - many are not getting any assistance right now - you can make 60 thousand and not be able to have health insurance due to a preexisting condition and not get a dime in any aid

[captain optimism]

I got way too close to an ad hominem attack with spelling flames in that response, so I'm deleting it. I'm done. 

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by pek64 

Initially, I was arguing that it is understandable that someone seeing others abuse the welfare system would feel frustrated. But implying that there are no obstacles to improving one's situation is flawed reasoning. And to say that there is no difference between past times and current is equally flawed. In the past, family members helped each other, as did neighbors. Yet when I asked my mother for help, having helped my sisters when they needed help and my parents couldn't give that help, I was told people don't do that anymore and to figure it out for myself. Times and attitudes change.

I am sorry your family would not help you, it sounds like a pattern for them and it sucks that they would not help you when you needed it.  There's no worse feeling, IMO when those who are supposed to love you can't be put out to help you when you need it. My in-laws are not super helpful--and yet tend to take a lot from us-, maybe it's just that generation? And maybe you and I will be better for it, as we will know how hard it is to need family support and be denied just out of hand. 

My family has been helped so much by strangers, acquaintances and friends and we try our very best to pay-it-forward. Three other neighbors offered their services as translators to help me adjust with the kids in German schools this year.  Just the other day a woman a few streets down came out to ask if all the kids where really mine, and ran inside to grab homemade jam and bless us with it. We just gave all our air-miles to my brother-in-law b/c his mom is dying and he was stressed about how many times he could afford to go see her. I recently spent weeks baby-sitting an adorable, but very, very busy toddler b/c my neighbor went into labour early while her husband was deployed. Five years ago, I babysat two days a week for almost three years so a single mom could study and build a better life--while I was paying to send my two to private school. Other people have done similar things for me as well. Helping people out makes us better people, IMO and teaches us a lot about ourselves.

I am not actually a heartless or greedy person, I just don't think the way we *kinda* support people on assistance is good for them or anyone else. People do get upset when they can't access the same benefits, and yet work tons of hours and perhaps have a less fulfilling home life than what they suppose the people who get aid are getting. I fail to see how it's out of bounds to express that opinion, but that's not actually my problem with the way we run aid in the US.

Have you noticed the stress people are expressing, having to worry about if their funding gets cut or if they start to make a bit more and actual get to take home less due to restrictions? I would argue that they way we do assistance is not kind, nor is it really effective for the majority of people who need it. For the people who need it a few months to jump-start something a safety net is a wonderful thing--which we should have. For the people who are looking at needing help for a number of years, we are doing them a disservice by making them rely on aid that may change, or may not always exist. Quite frankly, if my husband died I would be able to adjust and support the kids, with our insurance. If he left me with the kids and took all the cash, I would for sure need help having not worked in almost eight years with four young children. We are all susceptible to needing help at one point or another, I am not ignorant of that fact.

 Helping people overcome obstacles (which everyone who has every lived has faced in one form or another) is kinder than pretending that these obstacles are so hard that the better choice is to not try. Especially in those cases where we have laws in place to protect people! Everyone should have the knowledge, and maybe even help to overcome any obstacle, if someone deems it too hard after being given help and tools, should we still just say they are doing their best? (Not talking about anyone in particular, this is just a hypothetical)  We all have our individual stories, but what would happen if we had counselors who actually worked to get people independent ASAP and empowered people instead of the cookie-cutter-let-this-drag-on-for-years, method we use now?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" All things don't have to be equal to be able to draw lessons from those who were successful in the past. Older generations have a lot of wisdom to impart, and actually lived on our planet as humans so their lives were not in fact completely different.

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by captain optimism 
 

Arggh, I messaged you "good call" for the deleting, not for being done! I think you add so much to this discussion, hate to see you leave

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by pek64 


It was your mamma who taught you. Did *she* work?

The original quote specified that the children were not getting to see *either* parent. That's what may lead to the children feeling unimportant.

I can see that it's possible the children may feel the parents are working for themselves, primarily. They may prefer more parent time, and no vacations to parents working for luxuries, but that's for another thread.!

Sorry for the confusion. Yes my Mom had to work for many years also, just "normal hours". I remember some pretty lonely day cares, but I really never felt like my parents didn't value or love me. I really think kids get what we project, and my parents really were trying to do their best by us and I always understand that.

I have known people who keep their babies (like from the age of three months old) in day care six days a week while working a regular 9-5 job M-F. I also know people work the bare minimum, in order to go home early for family time every single day. Both sets of kids seem equally secure in their parents' love and are wonderful children. The eldest of each set is twelve at this point, so I can't say what they will think later--but they seem like very happy children. I don't think there is a direct correlation between time spent and quality of attention given. And I say this as a SAHM.

I am not here to judge what you need to do to make life work for your family. We are all very different.  I don't think we should always default to the idea that kids need a SAHM and a daddy who works a steady 40 hour job, or else they will be ruined. Many families are happy and healthy in many other situations.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

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

I think this thread has been going in circles for a while.

I posted this a few posts back (like 50).  Did anybody watch it?

I am actually more interested in what the man has to say than the woman.  I agree with the woman - nothing new to me there.

The man (whom I do necessarily agree with) said some interesting things.  He said this:

"….three rules must be met to not end up in poverty:

1. Finish high school.
2. If you’re a woman, don’t have a baby if you don’t have a husband.
3. Get into the labor force and stay there.

….. "Why is it that middle class and upper middle class kids have much higher rates of getting into the labor market, such lower rates of having babies without husbands? They have been told this is the way you're supposed to live your life" said Murray.

Murray argues that society should do a better job of telling kids from disadvantaged backgrounds that certain decisions have to be made in order to obtain a better life."

He also said that America has a new creed, which is "thou shall not judge."  The result is middle and upper middle class people know the above rules, but do not share them as they do not think they have any right to tell other people how to live their lives.  Do you think this is true - do you think we avoid giving messages out to society at large that perhaps single motherhood is not a great idea (for example and in  terms of poverty) because we fear being judgemental?

To his list of rules for avoiding poverty I will add 2 of my own.  They seem a given, but I think many teens and young adults do not know them and they can lead down the poverty path.

a.  You will probably not make large amounts of money straight out of high school or university.  

b.  Do hard things.  Doing hard things=empowering.

I think the school system (in addition to parents) does have a fair bit to answer for.  I know I was never ever taught by the school system how to avoid poverty, or that income was frequently low once people graduated.  No one ever sat me down when I  was taking out students loans and explained to me the difficulty of paying back such loans and how long it would take.  No one tells young mothers that entering the work world after raising kids is not easy, and that in this world keeping a toe in the work world might be a good idea for when you need to re-enter the work world.   

As per doing hard things.  I would say the culture I am in actively encourages people to take it easy - and not do hard things.  This might be a repercussion of a bunch of adults over working and not taking it easy…but I some kids are raised to "take it easy".  The high school my kids attend has a goal of a 90% graduation rate.  Sounds good, right?  In order to achieve this goal they stream many kids into the easiest classes they can offer - can't have people failing.  The kids that are streamed into classes that are too easy for them  do not really learn to work or do hard thing.

[serenbat]

IMO- in the US (and especially in certain non-cultural groups ....  I think crunchy is one of them) we have a difficult understand of the word hard, many take it to mean "pushing"

is see this use reflected in many parenting issues  

                                                                                      certain HARD decisions have to be made in order to obtain a better life