or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 53

post #1041 of 1188
Oh -- and my father's office was in Michigan. He couldn't get someone with a college degree to even apply.
post #1042 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I also know certain states have many hoops for families to jump through when homeschooling.

I don't even see a correlative link, let alone a causative one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Azuralea View Post
Yes, I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again: the difference between high- and low- quality daycare is like night and day. I've spent a lot of time investigating and visiting daycares. The high-quality daycares are amazing places: full of people who carry babies, who have advanced degrees, with ratios of 1:3 to 1:6 at most. They have almost no turnover, because the staff get full vacation, health, retirement, and education benefits. They often have waiting lists that stretch out one to two years. The food is unprocessed and healthy. The kids are clearly happy, clearly benefiting, and the parents who leave their kids don't spend their working hours worrying about whether their children are safe, let alone loved and well-cared-for. And these places are very, very expensive, prohibitively so.

Contrast that to the low-quality daycares I've seen. The TV is on. The ratio is bad. Often, if it's a home daycare, there is one overworked woman managing it who is looking to cut corners where she can. She can't give individualized attention to the children. The parents are in jobs that are extremely strict with arrival and departure times, so the kids can't be eased into the daycare situation as their needs dictate. They eat processed food. The discipline is far from gentle. Kids are left on their own to resolve problems because the overworked caregivers can't handle it. The staff undergoes frequent turnover because there's no incentive to stay.

It's just not the same, and frankly, if my choice was receiving welfare for a period of time when my children were too young for school and one of those low-quality daycares, it would be a pretty easy choice for me.
I agree.
post #1043 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
Just found this on the BLS website and found it of interest:

"Family structure
Among families with at least one member in the labor force for 27 weeks or more in 2000, 3.4 million, or 5.6 percent, had incomes at or below the poverty line, down from 6.2 percent in 1999. The poverty threshold for families is based on both the total family income and the number of family members; thus, the larger the family, the higher the level of income needed to keep the family out of poverty. This, coupled with the fact that the presence of children tends to reduce the overall labor supply of a family, contributes to the relatively high incidence of poverty among families with children. Consequently, families with at least one child under the age of 18 were much more likely to have incomes below the poverty level than were families without children (8.5 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively).

Families with more workers are less likely to be below the poverty line. In 2000, 11.4 percent of families with only one member in the labor force for 27 weeks or more were in poverty, while only 1.8 percent of families with two labor force participants, and 1.1 percent of families with three or more participants were in poverty. (See table 6.)"

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2000.htm
What is so interesting about it? I think it is pretty obvious that with a 2 parent working household the numbers are likely to look better, but they are not taking into consideration the actual bills being paid, or the quality of childcare, or other important factors that families use to decide to have a one parent working household. Also those figures are 6+ years old...things have gotten worse in even the last few years.
post #1044 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
"The government" is not in a position to support anybody, the taxpayers are. Since the tax pool isn't bottomless, somebody has to judge who is "worthy" of help and who isn't.

I was talking about my own person support of who I help I dont judge. I do think of course there has to be requirements for assitance. I do believe in free health care thats more of what I was talking about support. I dont see why the government shouldent support its people but my definition of support could be way different.


post #1045 of 1188
Wow, this thread has really given me a lot to think about!

I've been in the middle of a sort of moral dilemma regarding public assistance for a while now. Midwifery is all but illegal (there is one legal practicing CNM who does homebirths within traveling distance) in my state - which we didn't know when we decided to forgo paying $475/month to put me on my husbands health insurance - and there are no free-standing birth centers near. That leaves hospitals for us to deliver (some with very nice birthing centers attached), but we can't afford them. We currently make about $500/month more than we can to be eligible for medicaid. We decided to travel to a low-income birthing center across the state border to deliver, but we recently had a bit of an ordeal with that midwife and no longer feel comfortable with her delivering the baby. So... my dilemma has been: should I quit working so that we qualify for medicaid and I can get adequate (ad legal) care during delivery? Or should I suck it up, continue working, and let the midwife who two weeks ago made the mistake of calling my baby "non-viable" (when baby is perfectly fine according to the second-opinion ultrasounds) deliver so that I don't have to use tax-payer money?

I've realized after reading this thread that a lot of my problem deciding is rooted in my perception of "welfare." My mother received every kind of assistance possible while sitting at home all day getting drunk and burning through packs of cigarrettes and never cooking us a meal when I was a kid. Her life circumstances were hard, and depression drove her to these things, but I still felt she was abusing the system and we (my sisters and I) weren't benefiting from it. My current job is working with mostly low-income pregnant women and I unfortunately see a lot of the same. So, I think I am afraid of also "abusing" the system because I am able to work.

Funny thing is, I know I won't feel that way when my baby is here - I already plan on being a SAHM. I don't necessarily plan to receive public assistance, but I would do it if needed rather than go to work without feeling guilty b/c I think my baby needs ME. I appreciate all of you making the important distinction that we need to invest in our children for the sake of our future - all of our futures - and that often means investing in mom's choice to stay at home and parent. It is unfortunate when moms stay at home and then neglect to parent - but people are bound to make poor choices and we should still support those who chose more wisely even if it means some will abuse it.

I *think* you all have helped me clear my head a little about my upcoming decision - I see it more now as investing in my baby's future by making sure his or her entry into this world is safe and doesn't put us into so much debt that we'll be forced into poverty later just to pay it off. I do need to make sure I'm examining my motives though - I still feel a bit guilty knowing that I *could* afford to give birth at the birthing center with the dreaded midwife (as long as nothing went wrong and I had to be admitted to the hospital). *sigh*

Sorry for the ramble. And thanks for all of your insightful perspectives.
post #1046 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetsyS
Well, I think one of the things perpetuating generations of poverty is the attitude that "poor people don't deserve to own a house." So, you have a family that can never afford to buy a house. Children grow up and leave, mama (and maybe daddy, too) are still renting.
No one is entitled to own a home. I can get an argument that everyone deserves a certain baseline of shelter, but no one "deserves" to own a house. If you can pay the mortgage and taxes, you can own a house. If you can't, then yes, you do miss out on a powerful form of wealth-building, and you rent.

No one is prevented from buying a house if they can pay for it, and often there are really great government programs to help lower-income people buy houses. I can't buy a house, either, and it's my own fault because of career choices I made and some post-college financial stupidity. I'm not worthy of getting a loan for $800k, the bank has every right to judge that.

The vast majority of home sales are between individuals. Should individual people have to sell their house at less than the market rate because some random family can't afford the asking price? How is that fair? It's only a question of public policy on the most meta level (interest rates, etc.). The government wants people to own homes, because it's good for the community, and it especially wants lower-income people to be included in that. If I made $20k less a year, I'd probably be closer to buying a house right now, because of everything I would qualify for. Sure there are a lot of hoops to jump through, classes, etc., but we're talking down-payment matching grants, silent second mortgages, some below-market-rate units in new construction, and a ton of education and financial planning help. So it's not a conspiracy against poor people to keep them out of the housing market.
post #1047 of 1188
Things don't always turn out the way you think they will. My DH went from having a good job to being unemployed to getting a job that paid crap but had good healthcare benefits. We went on Food Stamps, WIC, and Medicaid when ds1 was almost a year old and I was pregnant with ds2. So from about May 06 to March 07 we recieved those benefits. We started making more money from self employment ( music gigs ) so we let the Food Stamps run out and didn't reapply, even though we still would've qualified. We didn't believe in raping the system. If we can afford it, we'll take care of it on our own. Things are tight again because its summer, and I'm also starting school at the end of this month, so we reapplied for Food Stamps and also childcare assistance because I will be in school for half a day, 5 days a week.
I don't feel bad about it one bit. I'm not recieving cash assistance, I work my tail off and do what I can. I'm going to college and working towards getting myself in a better situation in life, so that someday I don't have to be on any assistance. I feel that the help is there for people like me who are working hard but have run into hard times. And besides, I've paid taxes, so I've already paid for these benefits IMO. It isn't like I'm someone who uses welfare as their only way of life and stay on it for years and years and years, never even attempting to move up in life.
post #1048 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by RileysmamaNM View Post
I dont see why the government shouldent support its people but my definition of support could be way different.
The government doesn't create wealth, so it can't support anybody. People give money to the government. Therefore people are supporting other people. Every dollar that someone gets in assistance is a dollar that an actual living, working person earned to give to the government to give to the person on assistance. I think sometimes people lose sight of that.
post #1049 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
The government doesn't create wealth, so it can't support anybody.
Hmm, except for the fact that the "government" takes in a sweet amount in interest every year from the money it collects from its citizens. Also, the "government" makes money by investing that money. And the "government" takes in a hefty tax revenue from our natural resources.

It ain't dollar for dollar.
post #1050 of 1188
Fair enough, but the dollar the gov't made the interest off of came from you and me. And it's not like the gov't has piles of money sitting around unused anyway. I'm not sure we're even covering the interest on our debt these days.
post #1051 of 1188
I am well aware of where tax revenue comes from.

Some governments do create wealth. We have Crown Corporations or government owned businesses that create wealth too.
post #1052 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I am well aware of where tax revenue comes from.
I'm sure you are. Other people seem less clear on the concept.
post #1053 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
I'm sure you are. Other people seem less clear on the concept.
Really? Do you mean folks on this thread?
post #1054 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
And it's not like the gov't has piles of money sitting around unused anyway.
I dunno. I'm from Canada, and it p!sses me off whenever the gov't announces there's a "surplus".
post #1055 of 1188
Me too.
post #1056 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Really? Do you mean folks on this thread?
People in general.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
I dunno. I'm from Canada, and it p!sses me off whenever the gov't announces there's a "surplus".
[insert wistful sigh here] I remember when we used to have a surplus. The Clinton era was good times.
post #1057 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
People in general.



[insert wistful sigh here] I remember when we used to have a surplus. The Clinton era was good times.
But a surplus is BAD. It means the gov't hasn't spent OUR money wisely. yk? Whether it's pay down the debt, invest in social programs....DO SOMETHING! Don't announce a surplus...geesh.
post #1058 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
But a surplus is BAD. It means the gov't hasn't spent OUR money wisely. yk? Whether it's pay down the debt, invest in social programs....DO SOMETHING! Don't announce a surplus...geesh.
I'll take Clinton surplus over Bush debt any day of the week.
post #1059 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_lissa View Post
I didn't think you were trying to be snarky or "Go America."

I was also providing info.

There are places with good social services that don't have strings attached, and there are places that have heavy restrictions on family related things despite having poor social services. So I don't think there is any link at all.

Really?

Can you name few places that have better ss, fewer strings attached, and don't tax their citizens in the 50+ percent bracket? I'm very curious.
post #1060 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
nak...

exactly. and, this of course, goes back to the discussion about "productivity", and what "getting ahead" means. of course, it means different things to different families.

we are not all interested in suckling at the capitalist teat. some of us would like to spend more time with the families we have created. i think that deserves support.

eta~before someone tries to flame me. no, i don't believe wm's are suckling at the capitalist teat, or that they don't want to spend time with their families...just so we are clear. mmkay.
What does "support" mean, though?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Stay at Home Parents
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Stay at Home Parents › Staying at Home "On Welfare"