Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 38

[kathymuggle]

A little OT, but I have always wanted to plug this book.  

FYI : It is  a Christian read.

The book is called Do Hard Things and it is about teenagers rebelling against low expectations of teenagers and youth.

http://www.amazon.ca/Do-Hard-Things-Rebellion-Expectations/dp/1601421125

(as an aside - I am not saying those on welfare do not work hard.  I am sure that is individual. Indeed, I bet it is harder to be at home with 2 small kids on welfare than at home with 2 small kids and a decent income from a spouse, inheritance, etc.  I do think there is a fear of hard work, and maybe it is fear of the unknown…and that might keep some people stuck?  It does for me, sometimes.  As stated above, I think some schools do not do a good job at setting up environments where kids are challenged to do hard work.  

[pek64]

So our children *have to* have more than two outfits; they *have to* have shoes with soles and not cardboard; we *have to* have proper licenses and insurance ; we *have to* have proper permits and zoning to raise our own chickens; we *have to* have a car, live in the city where there's no garden possibility, or spend *coutless* hours traveling by bus ; and yet we are somehow supposed to pull ourselves up out of poverty, "just like our ancestors did". I know I'd be imprisoned if I committed all the violations my grandparents did!

And regarding my family, it's more personal, as my parents helped my sisters, and asked me to help them, too, then changed the rules when I needed help.



I am also through with this thread. I have learned one thing I'd like to share, before I go.

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by pek64 

So our children *have to* have more than two outfits; they *have to* have shoes with soles and not cardboard; we *have to* have proper licenses and insurance ; we *have to* have proper permits and zoning to raise our own chickens; we *have to* have a car, live in the city where there's no garden possibility, or spend *coutless* hours traveling by bus ; and yet we are somehow supposed to pull ourselves up out of poverty, "just like our ancestors did". I know I'd be imprisoned if I committed all the violations my grandparents did!

And regarding my family, it's more personal, as my parents helped my sisters, and asked me to help them, too, then changed the rules when I needed help.



I am also through with this thread. I have learned one thing I'd like to share, before I go.

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

Pretty sure I'm bowing out too, after this. I agree about that, although in this thread, I was attempting to show that I (think) I'm "using" the system as it was intended to be used, short-term, temporarily. I may be wrong, and I may be abusing the system. If so, that isn't/wasn't my intention at all. I agree with a lot of the people saying that there is abuse of the system, and I do think there should be a way to discourage/end that, but I'm not sure how to go about that. I also think that they (system) should be more helpful in helping getting employment and/or schooling. I know when I was trying to get "help" from them, they literally gave me the web address of a job search website I had already accessed, and had qualified for *very* few of the positions available, as you had to have for most of them, higher education.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by pek64 
 That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

I would very much like that.  It might have to saved for another thread, as this one has a lot of baggage.

I am fairly firmly in the "government needs to provide basic services so kids do not starve" group as well as "help remove barriers to transitioning back to work" group……however, I do not think this thread has taken a good look at the role personal responsibility plays in getting out of poverty.  Personal responsibility is almost treated like a dirty word - and yet I think most of us agree no one gets out of poverty without personal responsibility.  How do we as a culture foster it?  Will fostering it help lower the welfare and poverty rate?

[serenbat]

Quote:

How do we as a culture foster it?  Will fostering it help lower the welfare and poverty rate?

you just do it

a good analogy was recently made by some regarding our nations "conversation" on guns - we had a "conversation" about smoking a few years back and how we could not remove it from certain places, business would go out of business, the sky would fall....and now we have smoking out of many places, we also did this with "disabilities " (adding entrances,ramps, it was going to cost too much, etc) we were also able to do that, if we keep saying how hard it is going to be we won't change it-IMO 

Quote:

Personal responsibility is almost treated like a dirty word - and yet I think most of us agree no one gets out of poverty without personal responsibility.

you got it! 

[glassesgirlnj]

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about. If you do come back to this thread, would you clarify whether that's what you meant?

Also, haven't there been multiple posters on here who were "vocal" about using the system for a short time only? Where would they fit into your observations?

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj 

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about. If you do come back to this thread, would you clarify whether that's what you meant?

Also, haven't there been multiple posters on here who were "vocal" about using the system for a short time only? Where would they fit into your observations?

I agree with pek64, but don't think she is saying that poverty is SUPPOSED to be a shameful thing, but that it often feels shameful for those who are in it. I agree that the people who need it and use it without committing fraud tend to be quiet about it IN REAL LIFE, and those who abuse the system and commit fraud tend to be more vocal, because they also tend to have an entitlement complex and are proud of "getting away with it."

My family definitely isn't in poverty, but we do qualify for and accept WIC. Very few of my acquaintances in real life know that we get WIC, or that we live in affordable housing provided by a non-profit community corporation, or that we are living in a one bedroom apartment with a toddler and a baby on the way. We aren't in poverty, and yet many of those things feel shameful to me, because I know how people judge those they see as "poor."  I have been more vocal in this thread about our situation because it is really the only place that I can talk about these things, I feel.

[seraf]

Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj 


Hm. At the risk of disagreeing, or sounding adversarial: when I read the above, I'm hearing that poverty is supposed to be a shameful thing, that one should keep quiet about.

Poverty is frequently seen as shameful.

The initial question is laughable from where I stand. I work full time and we would qualify for food stamps if my income doubled. Something like 50% of my county falls below the poverty line.

Someone posted up thread about how her family would continue to qualify for food stamps and also qualify for free childcare if she didn't stay home. My family is in the same boat.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by kitteh 

I agree with pek64, but don't think she is saying that poverty is SUPPOSED to be a shameful thing, but that it often feels shameful for those who are in it. I agree that the people who need it and use it without committing fraud tend to be quiet about it IN REAL LIFE, and those who abuse the system and commit fraud tend to be more vocal, because they also tend to have an entitlement complex and are proud of "getting away with it."

I think the media likes to portray the fraud side of poverty, too.  It sells.  

[queenjane]

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. 

(bolding mine)

serenbat if you are going to quote people can you make SOME attempt to keep it in context and to do so accurately? Please? I did NOT say my daughter "would not have a safety net" what i said was:

had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have us as a safety net

(added the bold so it would be more obvious to you since you didnt see it the first time)

i immediately followed THAT sentence with this one:

The safety net would be govt programs.

(again, added the bolding this time around)

I'm really not sure how to make this more clear so you will understand....for many people, esp children, they do NOT have what many others have...the safety net of a functional family therefore they often depend on welfare as the safety net. And i think this is a GOOD THING. Better than having no safety net at all!

My point, unless you missed it the first SEVERAL times i tried to make it...was that i believe that a GOOD USE of govt assistance is so that a mom CAN stay with her children (not be adopted out to better-off families...still not sure how you're making that leap??) instead of being forced by finances to make choices such as adoption. Personally, i think the only reason a mom should feel compelled to place a child for adoption is if she truly does not feel ready to PARENT. But that may be a topic for another thread entirely.

And FYI....my daughter was not removed from her mother for reasons of poverty...it was for neglect. and in inability to parent or benefit from the many many services offered. Children are NOT (or are not *supposed* to be) removed for financial/poverty reasons. That wasnt at all the purpose of my post. Sigh.

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by captain optimism 

So, let me get this straight, again. I already noticed that you said this. 

You quit a job without another job to go to because YOU were being harassed. Then YOU collected unemployment, because of your fabulousness in figuring out a way to pursue redress. 

Leaving aside the number of times in this thread that you, personally, have seemed to be criticizing others for taking unemployment--again, not totally sure that you're saying what you mean all the time because of the way you write--

How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?

Is it different because you know that you were really being harassed, but you assume that anyone who wound up having to go on welfare was just being lazy?

Originally Posted by pek64 

Those who use the system the way it was intended tend to be quiet about their use of assistance programs. Those who abuse the the programs are more vocal about their use of the system, thus giving the impression that many more people are abusing than using assistance programs. That's what I see. Agree or disagree as much as you'd like. It's apparent that few posting want to find points we agree about to have a less adversarial conversation.

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I think the media likes to portray the fraud side of poverty, too.  It sells.  

I agree with this and would like to add one more group of people (of which there are a vast number).  Those who are convinced that THEY are using the programs as you are supposed to but everyone else is a fraud AND those who don't even recognize "government assistance programs" for what they are (people who say things like, "Keep the government out of my medicare" are firmly in that camp).  I have a sibling who is on disability (and should be).  His family relies on that income and his oldest daughter is actually using the SSDI payment *she* gets to go to college.  But he would *NEVER* identify himself as someone using a government assitance program.  This article is an example:

Half of Americans Who Get Government Aid Say They Don't

http://www.care2.com/causes/half-americans-who-get-govt-aid-say-they-dont.html

Many people are obviously living in this ficticious world where *their* government aid is earned and everyone elses is not.  Where they're not taking advantage, but those "other" people obviously are.

[serenbat]

queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you 

seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available  

not the place here to say if it is correct to remove or not, but there is much to be said for removal of a child from a natural community to a more affluent (better off) one, when all should have access and by law do, to the same educational help that you state you are able to provide, at least some ethnic groups fall under protection where removal is not done

I know many seem to think things are different now with assistance program and how things are run differently, but in my state low income (or what ever term you want to use for this segment of the population) adoption still do occurs (we don't say it has anything to do with poverty) and we also said that years ago too when my friend was adopted out, when she got her records unsealed it was stated as neglect for the reason in her's, she found she had another sister (neglect also) but when she found her bio mother (and two other sister that she kept by the mother) the story was not at all that and given she was given for adoption, other sister as well in the hospitable right after the birth - and I am not saying this in your case -her parents were told very little vs what were on her state records- this took place in the early 70's and all four lived with in 30 miles of each other, it was deemed by the state as "safe" because they were of the same sex

some good things have come in our state, the children adopted out from low income mothers are no longer tracked (a program the state once did to access IQ and emotional development) 

it should be noted that if you work and pay your taxes a percentage is taken out for unemployment, your employer also pays into your unemployment, in the way they contribute towards your other benefits, if you ever draw - like once in over 20 years (as in my case) my percentage paid in was not even close to the total I had personally paid into the program over the time frame and the amount received in unemployment was also taxed and than I later went on to continued to pay into the tax- my state also has some reciprocal agreements but that was not a factor for me because I have always worked within my state  

Edited by serenbat - 2/4/13 at 6:11pm

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you 

seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available  

I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall.

The system has nothing to do with this particular biological parent's inability to mother her child, nor was her economic status the cause for the adoption of queenjane's daughter. The birth mother was neglectful and also just happened to be poor. It's offensive to imply that all mothers in poverty ought to have their children adopted out into more affluent families. Queenjane most certainly was not making that suggestion, but it sounds like you are!

[kitteh]

Also, I thought this was an interesting excerpt from TiredX2's link

…the point isn’t really whether or not these people [who benefit from various government assistance programs or subsidies but don't recognize themselves among those who "rely on the government" for help] are hypocrites or uneducated or ungrateful; more compelling is why they’d see themselves as exceptions. Shame about government help is ingrained into our culture, and so is the narrative of the “culture of dependence.” It’s not only rightwingers and deficit hawks who feel this way. When my contract position ended temporarily, it didn’t even occur to me to apply for unemployment to fill the gap until my father suggested it to me. When I waved him off, feeling embarrassed, he balked. “Are you kidding?” he replied. “That’s what those deductions on your paychecks were for.”

We’re on the verge of forgetting (if we haven’t already) that our government isn’t just taking our tax dollars for “its own” purposes. “Its own” purposes are ours — we just prefer not to remember until we’re really in need.

 

[Drummer's Wife]

There is so much reading comprehension fail in this thread, I don't even know why you all are bothering to try to re-explain things. It's giving me a headache just reading it, and I'm not even bashing my head on anything.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

queenjane, I feel things come across very clearly and your comments about how she is better because of service she has with you 

seems like a very failed system if the bio mother isn't able to parent with all the different programs available  

the first sentence doesnt even make sense to me "better because of service she has with you"...but anyway...

the second part....quite the contrary, the system worked EXACTLY how it was supposed to work. She was removed as a baby, mother got parenting classes, baby went back after a very short time. Removed again as a toddler, this time for a couple of years while mother was given extensive services. Went back for less than two years, removed again...this time mother was given extensive services again but it was recognized that despite being given these services mother was not able to benefit from them and thus rights were terminated after a long trial process in which everyone involved went over backwards to make sure all of mom's legal rights were protected. Some people are simply not able to parent a child no matter how many supports they have. I wont go into detail here about WHY this is true in my daughter's specific case but it was not "the system" that failed. In fact it was "the system" that saved my daughter from further trauma (though the damage has been done) and probably saved the life of my son (not to mention my other son, but thats a different case entirely...)

[serenbat]

Quote:

the first sentence doesnt even make sense to me "better because of service she has with you"...but anyway...

Quote:

 finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.

those were your words and that is how it comes off -better as in because she is with me (not where she was)

Quote:

It's offensive to imply that all mothers in poverty ought to have their children adopted out into more affluent families.

I do too- that's why I said about removing children from their community to really nice, suburban well funded schools (that means to me... better life-not what they would have had and I find it offensive to read!)  and no one puts down poverty as the reason, that's not done. Adoptions are happening- that is real, not in numbers they once were but still occurring. 

[mammal_mama]

kathymuggle, I'm not sure who in this thread has given you the impression that they are treating personal responsibility like a dirty word?

As I've pointed out before, most of the people getting some form of public assistance are also working. I, for one, love my work and take a lot of pride in a job well done. I don't feel any aversion to hard work. I'd say most or all of the people on this thread feel the same way.

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama 

kathymuggle, I'm not sure who in this thread has given you the impression that they are treating personal responsibility like a dirty word?

No one.

I am trying to explore the issue from the other side.  Sometimes trying to figure out if the other side has any validity and what that is can be useful.  

This thread has been dominated by a liberal/socialistPOV (which I have said repeatedly I agree with) , however I don't think this view is reflected in society at large in the USA.  I am not submitting this as proof (because goodness knows how many people answered the poll, and they were all self selected) but take a look at this:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-government-end-welfare-in-the-us

The boiled down message I am getting from the other side is "personal responsibility" and I think it is worth exploring so we understand each other better and can move forward.  It is about communication.    If the words "..personal responsibility are almost treated like a dirty word…" are a bit inflammatory (and on second read, they are) my apologies.  I still think exploring what the other side has to say without getting caught up in anger is useful.  

Edited by kathymuggle - 2/5/13 at 6:46am

[mamazee]

"Personal responsibility" isn't a dirty word (or even words lol), but it seems unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to lift themselves out of poverty with personal responsibility in an economy like ours. There aren't enough jobs for everyone. Some people are going to be out of work, and not for lack of trying. And the jobs we do have largely pay worse than those in the past, and often have fewer hours so people have to try to get two or three to get by - and again there aren't jobs for everyone, let alone two or three for everyone.

So given the reality of the world, it feels dismissive of people's real struggles to say they just need to take "personal responsibility." I think there are tons of people struggling and relying on assistance who would love to take personal responsibility but are unable.