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 59

post #1161 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godaime View Post
tell that to the starving kids in other countries... kids in America are lucky to have welfare programs...

if you mean kids can't take care of themselves and their parents/guardian needs to provide basic necessities for then YES

but if their guardian can't provide then they're not entitled to anything
Are you kidding me? So if their guardian can't provide for them then oh well, they starve. I guess if we are going to have that attitude then get rid of CPS, who cares what happens to the children.

Comparing children in other countries is a ridiculous response.

If we want to talk about other countries there are countries that give mothers a year paid maternity leave.
post #1162 of 1188
Quote:
If something happens to my husband tomorrow and we're in this situation, I promise you I will go on welfare so I can continue to watch my daughter if I can't find a good daycare situation. My responsibility to her is greater than any perceived responsibility to stay off welfare. Her right to not be hurt is greater than any perceived responsibility to stay off welfare. If I am not pretty darn certain that I can afford a safe and beneficial child care situation, she simply will not be in child care.
if welfare was there to help you get through this tragedy and helped you become self sufficient and be able to provide for your family, then welfare's purpose has been served.

but it seems like theres a lot more abuse of the system than I had thought. There definitely needs to be more welfare reforms and limits. There also needs to be more closer monitoring so that we are helping the people to be self sufficient and not relying on welfare forever.
post #1163 of 1188

Something to think about

A few posts have mentioned staying at home on welfare for as long as your children need you, or if you have more children down the road, or if you plan to home school.

I'm just wondering, though, if this would allow you to become self-sufficient when your children are adults so that you do not burden them with your economic needs.

I think about the long term...like if you're not saving for retirement, drawing a pension through a job, investing in a matching 401k through a job, or even just investing more in Social Security so you will get a higher montly retirement income (if SS even exists in the future)...how will you be self-sufficient in your retirement years?

I would feel just terrible if my children ended up having to support me, and quite possibly, if they had to support me and that prevented THEM from being a stay at home parent.
post #1164 of 1188
I agree with this and posted the same thing earlier. I'm not naive enough to think that my job could not be outsourced, divorce might not happen, one of us could become terminally ill, etc, etc. Tragedy does happen and, knock on wood, it doesn't happen too often that we couldn't recover.

I would go on welfare in a heart beat to prevent my children from starving, etc. I think nearly all mothers would. But that was not the original question in the original post and that is not the same thing as using welfare as a means to SAH.

But, I would scramble and work my tail off to find gainful employment as soon as I could, if I could, to improve my situation.

It is also the reason I pay premiums for life insurance, disability, etc that I would rather not pay, but, I feel I have to to be prepared for the what ifs in life.
post #1165 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I think about the long term...like if you're not saving for retirement, drawing a pension through a job, investing in a matching 401k through a job, or even just investing more in Social Security so you will get a higher montly retirement income (if SS even exists in the future)...how will you be self-sufficient in your retirement years?
Oh, hell yeah. I had a talk with my mom recently about how she hopes she dies first because of the massive income hit she'll be facing when my dad dies and his pension all but dries up. My husband and I will probably end up helping to support her if my father goes first. And he has a union-negotiated pension! I just have an underfunded 401(k) and some backup cyanide as my retirement plan.
post #1166 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by gracesmommy View Post
Oh, hell yeah. I had a talk with my mom recently about how she hopes she dies first because of the massive income hit she'll be facing when my dad dies and his pension all but dries up. My husband and I will probably end up helping to support her if my father goes first. And he has a union-negotiated pension! I just have an underfunded 401(k) and some backup cyanide as my retirement plan.
Yeah, elder care is becoming an increasingly important issue. I think about this a lot because I had a growing retirement fund while I worked in the years I had children, but now that I am staying at home, I am not drawing a retirement.

I certainly do not want to be a burden to anyone in my retirement, and definitely do not want to burden my children with my care.

I just wonder if you're not self-sufficient and receiving welfare to stay at home, will you at some point return to work to, among other financial obligations, save for retirement so you don't burden your children 20/30/40 years down the road?

Edited to add: For some reason I keep thinking of this scenario: A parent chooses to stay home on welfare for her children for all the benefits of SAH that we recognize, but then isn't self-sufficient, doesn't have the means to be self-sufficient in the retirement years, burdens the children with their care, AND causes the children to not be able to SAH with their own children because they must work to support grandma or grandpa. That makes me so sad.
post #1167 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I certainly do not want to be a burden to anyone in my retirement, and definitely do not want to burden my children with my care.
I just wonder if you're not self-sufficient and receiving welfare to stay at home, will you at some point return to work to, among other financial obligations, save for retirement so you don't burden your children 20/30/40 years down the road?
I completely agree.
I have a meager 401k from only one of the jobs I've worked.
They had an employer-match program.
It was wonderful.
I also have some SSI that I know I could never live off of if I never returned to work.
I fully intend to expand my education and find myself an actual career that I enjoy.
I just don't currently know when that will be.
Nor do I know what I will educate myself in.
post #1168 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godaime View Post
You cannot expect society to pay/fund/reimburse/ (can't find the right word) you for a situation resulting from a choice that you made.
Godaime~You are missing my point. I am arguing that unpaid caregivers deserve compensation for the time they spend out of the labour force, caring for their children, or, as it's been pointed out, the elderly members of society.

I agree with Crittenden's analysis that "work" should be re-defined to include those who engage in the "unpaid care and services to dependent children and adults". As such, unpaid caregivers should be "entitled" to receive the same benefits (SS, unemployment insurance, WC) as those in the traditional labour market.

Children and the elderly will always need to be cared for. I don't see why mothers and women should be expected to provide that care on the basis of our nurturing "capabilities", or take advantage of mothers' love for their children, or caring "sensibilities". We should make demands not on WOMEN, but on the society as a whole, to invest in the care of the most vunerable. That requires some radical change to our thinking, and to the social structure at large.

Did you know that when Al Gore was running for president, he proposed a "caregiver's credit". It was a credit for stay-at-home parents, in the amount of 16, 500 annual income for up to five years.


I am not going to address the rhetoric of "choice" argument. I just don't want to go down that road right now.
post #1169 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I just want to clarify that I didn't say my mother was neglectful and on aid. And I certainly wasn't inferring all mother's on aid are neglectful.

Actually, I told the story of how I had many relatives who used welfare. Some of them used it temporarily, while taking advantage of the education opportunities also offered. Those relatives became self-sufficient, tax paying citizens who are still contributing at greater amounts to this day than they would have with the job potential they had before receiving public assistance and educational benefits.

Others in my family overused the system and didn't use it in a temporary fashion to improve their lot in life. They are still not entirely self-sufficient, but they are no longer eligible for welfare.

My point was that it's ok to use the system when you need it if it coincides with working towards a self-sufficient life in the long term.

I hate to rely on anecdotal evidence only, but, in this case the anecdotes jive with what I've read in the newspaper, magazines, books, and studied in college, and what I'm hearing from other posters on this board, to some extent.
I thought I read in one of your posts how your mother did sit on welfare and did not use the funds appropriately, and you were often cold and hungry, sorry if I mistook you for someone else's post.

But, why do you think the media plays stories like that up? The same reason they use scare tactics about vax's and pertussis outbreaks(even though most of teh people that get it are already vaccinated), etc. The welfare mom has been villanized since the begining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cycle View Post
See, I think this is a good use of welfare.


The thing is, in situations like yours you may qualify for childcare assistance, so you would still be collecting from the government. So how does it make sense that if it is better for your family for you to stay home, for you to go to work and probably collect the same amount of assistance.

I guess only mothers whose husbands make enough to support the family get to stay home. Single moms and moms whose husbands don't make enough to support the whole family are SOL. Equal opportunities for all citizens right?

Maybe one husband works as a Doc in a free clinic and doesn't make enough to support his family on his income alone. Another Doc has a private practice and makes more than enough money for his wife to stay home with their children. Poor Doc has to send his kids to daycare even though ever fiber in he and his wives being is against it. I bet in this situation some of the pps would be ok with the poor Doc's family getting welfare.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazee View Post
We're not talking about other countries - that is completely irrelevant.

If something happens to my husband tomorrow and we're in this situation, I promise you I will go on welfare so I can continue to watch my daughter if I can't find a good daycare situation. My responsibility to her is greater than any perceived responsibility to stay off welfare. Her right to not be hurt is greater than any perceived responsibility to stay off welfare. If I am not pretty darn certain that I can afford a safe and beneficial child care situation, she simply will not be in child care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Godaime View Post
if welfare was there to help you get through this tragedy and helped you become self sufficient and be able to provide for your family, then welfare's purpose has been served.

but it seems like theres a lot more abuse of the system than I had thought. There definitely needs to be more welfare reforms and limits. There also needs to be more closer monitoring so that we are helping the people to be self sufficient and not relying on welfare forever.
abuse of the system? are you saying that staying home on welfare, when you qualify is abusing it? you never did actually answer if you have children or not.
There *have* been reforms and limits *are* in place. Are you not ready the posts? You keep bringing things up that have already been pointed out to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Yeah, elder care is becoming an increasingly important issue. I think about this a lot because I had a growing retirement fund while I worked in the years I had children, but now that I am staying at home, I am not drawing a retirement.

I certainly do not want to be a burden to anyone in my retirement, and definitely do not want to burden my children with my care.

I just wonder if you're not self-sufficient and receiving welfare to stay at home, will you at some point return to work to, among other financial obligations, save for retirement so you don't burden your children 20/30/40 years down the road?

Edited to add: For some reason I keep thinking of this scenario: A parent chooses to stay home on welfare for her children for all the benefits of SAH that we recognize, but then isn't self-sufficient, doesn't have the means to be self-sufficient in the retirement years, burdens the children with their care, AND causes the children to not be able to SAH with their own children because they must work to support grandma or grandpa. That makes me so sad.
This is another aspect of society here in the US that I think is so sad. Just about every where else in teh world is it just known and accepted that they take care of their elderly. Why is that unreasonable here? We sure are a selfish nation. I fully expect and will take care of my mom if she needs it. She took care of me, and will have mothered me for far more many years than I will need to help her. I think it is the right thing to do.
post #1170 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Godaime~You are missing my point. I am arguing that unpaid caregivers deserve compensation for the time they spend out of the labour force, caring for their children, or, as it's been pointed out, the elderly members of society.

I agree with Crittenden's analysis that "work" should be re-defined to include those who engage in the "unpaid care and services to dependent children and adults". As such, unpaid caregivers should be "entitled" to receive the same benefits (SS, unemployment insurance, WC) as those in the traditional labour market.

Children and the elderly will always need to be cared for. I don't see why mothers and women should be expected to provide that care on the basis of our nurturing "capabilities", or take advantage of mothers' love for their children, or caring "sensibilities". We should make demands not on WOMEN, but on the society as a whole, to invest in the care of the most vunerable. That requires some radical change to our thinking, and to the social structure at large.

Did you know that when Al Gore was running for president, he proposed a "caregiver's credit". It was a credit for stay-at-home parents, in the amount of 16, 500 annual income for up to five years.


I am not going to address the rhetoric of "choice" argument. I just don't want to go down that road right now.

I love you.
post #1171 of 1188
I guess I will be serial posting, because I am not smart enough to figure out how to do the multi quote.




Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
My concern is: if mothering were treated equally (meaning the same in every way) to paid employment, I could be fired. My work could be evaluated by someone who's ideologically very different from me -- and that "supervisor" could then tell me I need to do things her way, or be out of a job (and lose my kids).

Since the majority of taxpayers don't believe in unschooling, I wonder if my supervisor would let me homeschool in this manner, or if I'd be expected to follow a state-approved curriculum?

I certainly believe mothering is more important than virtually any job there is. I just don't think I should be treated the same as an employee. If I burn the fries too many times, or get stressed and raise my voice, I could be replaced or demoted? No thanks!

Again, I wholeheartedly believe that low-income families (like mine) should be able to supplement earned income with food, healthcare, and shelter assistance as needed. I also believe moms who don't have a husband or partner in the home, should be able to get extra help with staying home, especially while their children are small.

I just don't agree that the government should treat mothers the same way the manager at McDonald's treats his workers -- not that all McDonald's managers are mean, it's just that managers can tell you how to do your job, and fire you if you don't do it their way.
I understand your concerns, I really do, I'm a Mama too.

My question to you, though, is, do you really feel that mothers are NOT under intense scrutiny already? I have read many threads, here on MDC, newspaper articles..etc..etc..of officals swooping in and taking children away from their mothers.

A neighbour can call CPS for no real reason, with no real evidence of harm, and officals have the right to inspect your home, your children, and assess your performance.

Women are so terrified of having their children taken away, that they will not admit when they need help. There was a news story recently about a woman who left her children in the car while she went to work, because she couldn't find a replacement sitter.

There's got to be a better way.
post #1172 of 1188
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Edited to add: For some reason I keep thinking of this scenario: A parent chooses to stay home on welfare for her children for all the benefits of SAH that we recognize, but then isn't self-sufficient, doesn't have the means to be self-sufficient in the retirement years, burdens the children with their care, AND causes the children to not be able to SAH with their own children because they must work to support grandma or grandpa. That makes me so sad.
I certainly wouldn't want my children to give up staying home with their children to support me -- and I don't see why they would have to. Dh and I do have a goal of getting our house paid off before retirement age. Other than that, we haven't been able to set aside anything for retirement.

We figure if our house is paid off, and all we have to do is keep up with real-estate taxes, home insurance, food, and other needs, we can find a way to manage somehow. We can manage without a car, if necessary, when dh no longer has to drive to the suburbs for work.

Of course, I don't know what we'll do about healthcare if there's an end to Medicare, Medicaid, and all medical discounts. I don't know if it's possible to make a good backup plan for that, it's just so prohibitively expensive.

Even so, I'd rather deal with my "ailments" at home, browsing the internet for cures, than have my grandchildren suffer. I'd want my children to put their own children first.

We actually want our children to feel welcome staying home as long as they want, and to feel they (and their families) can come stay with us whenever they need a chance to get on their feet.

I don't want to sound all "rosy-eyed" and idealistic -- but I don't think my children will see it as a hardship if we do need some help and care when we're older. I certainly wish my mom would rely on me for more help, not that I regret that she's in excellent health at age 82. I just think I might feel closer to her if she needed me sometimes.

There have been, and still are, societies where the "retirement plan" for elderly relatives consisted of children and other relatives pitching in and helping out as needed. I don't recall hearing that it "broke" the younger family members financially -- but then I guess healthcare costs didn't run into the gazillions as they do now.

After I raise my children, I hope to be around to help love and care for my grandchildren. But if I end up with some exhorbitantly expensive-to-treat illness, I'm at peace with God and I wouldn't be adverse to just letting things run their course. As I've already said, it would be unacceptable to me for my grandchildren to pay the cost by doing without a sahm.

I'm hoping I can stave off Alzheimer's by eating lots of salmon and avoiding the flu-shot -- but I realize there are things that happen beyond our control. And I guess they happen more frequently now that we're staying alive longer.

I don't have all the answers. From what I've heard, even people who've prepared really well, sometimes have to go through all their assets and end up on state care. I hope that never happens, no one ever wants it to -- but still, I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's early years just to make a stab at preparing for things that seem impossible to prepare for.
post #1173 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycle View Post
I agree with you - I think being a mother is the most important job in the world.

Enjoy your coffee


I did enjoy that coffee (and a piece of cheesecake, too ).
post #1174 of 1188
Quote:
mamamooI think sometimes the economics in the household should be questioned too. It is all a choice. If someone would rather go to work to sustain a certain level of living(two cars, big house, whatever)than to stay home with their child and receive state medical or food stamps then that is their choice, just like it is mine to choose to live at a lower level financially and get these benefits, so I can be home with them.
If someone is that unhappy(leaving a crying child, and crying themselves on the way to work) then they should reevaluate and try to find another solution. I have had to do that over and over.
Just because a person is planning on using the system to help them get by for x amount of years while their child is young, does not mean tehy are not going to be putting back into the pot later in life(or haven't already before having kids).


I think it is silly to say if everyone chose to stay home there would be no funding...it just wouldn't happen, not everyone wants or needs to stay home...
I agree. Not everyone would find it desirable to stay home anyway, so I think that argument is moot.
post #1175 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I am beginning to wonder what people think about self-sufficiency, self-reliance, independence, and also the role of public assistance or "welfare"?

I would be curious about your honest feelings about these...I don't know...attributes? Or virtues maybe? Feelings? I'm not sure what to call them.
Those are really interesting concepts. I'm going to think on them a bit more before I respond, but, I wanted to say that I think we place too much importance on "individuality" or "independence".

Living, and being in the world is more about interdependence. ykwim?
post #1176 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
you never did actually answer if you have children or not..
Actually, Godaime did state she does not yet have children.
She said she was raised as a single child in a low-income home, worked hard, graduated college, and is waiting for the right (financial?) time to have said children. Am I right, Godaime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Just about every where else in the world is it just known and accepted that they take care of their elderly. Why is that unreasonable here? We sure are a selfish nation. I fully expect and will take care of my mom if she needs it. She took care of me, and will have mothered me for far more many years than I will need to help her. I think it is the right thing to do.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
I am arguing that unpaid caregivers deserve compensation for the time they spend out of the labour force, caring for their children, or, as it's been pointed out, the elderly members of society.

I agree with Crittenden's analysis that "work" should be re-defined to include those who engage in the "unpaid care and services to dependent children and adults". As such, unpaid caregivers should be "entitled" to receive the same benefits (SS, unemployment insurance, WC) as those in the traditional labour market.

Children and the elderly will always need to be cared for. I don't see why mothers and women should be expected to provide that care on the basis of our nurturing "capabilities", or take advantage of mothers' love for their children, or caring "sensibilities". We should make demands not on WOMEN, but on the society as a whole, to invest in the care of the most vunerable. That requires some radical change to our thinking, and to the social structure at large.

Did you know that when Al Gore was running for president, he proposed a "caregiver's credit". It was a credit for stay-at-home parents, in the amount of 16, 500 annual income for up to five years.

I am not going to address the rhetoric of "choice" argument. I just don't want to go down that road right now.
You are so well-spoken, lolalola, and I love what you said here.
I feel the same way. Al Gore's plan, if a program such as that will ever exist in the US, IMO, is a wonderful plan.
5 years is so much better than what we have now and it acknowledges and gives credit (financially so) the work a mother does in her child's formative years.
It's obviously not a permanent, non-self-sufficient setup.
It's design is to encourage mothers to have the ability to raise their babes until school-age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
We actually want our children to feel welcome staying home as long as they want, and to feel they (and their families) can come stay with us whenever they need a chance to get on their feet.
That is exactly what I hope to do with our children, too.
The extended family is so important.
That is my goal, to someday own a house in which our children can live with us, and perhaps my grandchildren, too. Just one big, happy family.
Okay, so I'm guilty of idealism, too. :
post #1177 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Those are really interesting concepts. I'm going to think on them a bit more before I respond, but, I wanted to say that I think we place too much importance on "individuality" or "independence".
Living, and being in the world is more about interdependence.
You are so wise.
You just put into words a philosophy of mine.
I feel like the song "Imagine" from John Lennon will begin playing in the background at any moment.
post #1178 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
I love you.
Awwww:

Thank you. I love you too.
post #1179 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
You are so well-spoken, lolalola, and I love what you said here.
I feel the same way. Al Gore's plan, if a program such as that will ever exist in the US, IMO, is a wonderful plan.
5 years is so much better than what we have now and it acknowledges and gives credit (financially so) the work a mother does in her child's formative years.
It's obviously not a permanent, non-self-sufficient setup.
It's design is to encourage mothers to have the ability to raise their babes until school-age.



Okay, so I'm guilty of idealism, too. :
I agree

And, thank you for the compliment, Abi's Mom.

And, to the bolded, of course, you're not the only one!
post #1180 of 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
I feel like the song "Imagine" from John Lennon will begin playing in the background at any moment.

Did you read my last post to you? wierd.
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"