Mothering Forum banner

Staying at Home "On Welfare"

47K views 1K replies 124 participants last post by  sandra063 
#1 ·
Maybe someone can clue me in. I've sometimes heard people speak disdainfully of sahm's who choose to apply for, and receive, taxpayer-supported benefits such as WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid for their families. I've heard this referred to as "staying home on welfare."

Yet I've never heard anyone refer to public-school families as "welfare-recipients." There also seems to be little or no negativity expressed when low-income parents receive government subsidies for childcare costs.

Why this distinction? My dh works and pays taxes into all the various assistance programs -- and I did, too, until we started our own family. So if we choose to apply for Foodstamps when we're short money, how are we "on welfare" any more than our neighbors who send their children to public school?

Please note: I'm not criticizing public-school parents -- just honestly questioning why some taxpayer-supported programs are "welfare" and others aren't.

Edited to add: my purpose for starting this thread actually goes beyond just wanting answers to the above question. I want to hear from people on both sides of the issue -- and to each side I think there are many different facets: I'd like to hear from everyone.

This means, for people who frown on SAHM's who use public assistance -- I should prepare you that some of us will try to persuade you to look at things differently.

At the same time, I want to be open to changing my perspectives, too -- so I'm not asking anyone to be more flexible in their thinking than I am.
 
See less See more
#252 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by thismama View Post
You are not self reliant. None of us are. Humans are social and interdependent creatures. You simply hold a more privileged position in a society that is a web of interconnection and interdependence.

This is exactly the entitled, "I'm a better person than you" attitude, that has the more privileged in this culture judging and namecalling the less privileged. And withholding services and funding.

The fact is that the poor do not live on the avails of the rich. It is exactly the opposite.

Ahhhhhhh.....that IS love-worthy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

btw, we receive monthly disability checks for our two disabled sons, and with their medical expenses (Title 19 is their secondary insurance) we've probably spent tens of thousands of tax dollars, thankyouverymuch. We also got a government grant to buy adaptive equipment.

Know what? A great society cares for their less-abled. And they care for the families who are taking care of the less-abled. And it's insulting to think or say that people should be left to sink or swim. I've seen that kind of attitude at work in other countries....in those countries, our family would be destroyed by poverty, illness, and despair. In this country, we're supported and have hope. I've got my bones to pick with the good ol' US, and its current leanings, but at least the "sink or swim" motto isn't across the board policy. Lemme tell ya, if you had let us sink, we would have been A LOT more expensive to you in the long run. With a little support, we've stuck together, and in a couple of years I'll be back at work paying back into the system. I love that, in turn, I'm helping other families...and I'd rather have my $20 go toward helping someone else's child get dental care than have my $20 go for half a turn of a screw on a long-range missile, or $20 toward the executive bonus of a firm who managed to screw American farmers AND consumers while raking in billions in public agricultural assistance.

Ugh. As IF anyone could "swim" without a little help. It's pure ignorance to think that right now you are swimming without the support of everyone else. G** forbid you ever go through a rough patch, or become disabled, or need to assist someone who is.....
 
#253 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
I find the whole welfare debate to be completely ridiculous....money that goes to help families is such a teensy weensy proportion of the money spent by the government for "assistance." It's just easier to pick on the poor and disinfranchised than it is the fortune 500 company with dozens of lobbyists and a PR firm.
Yup.

True story - I do contracting with USAID. I was at a presentation about using technology for development, and the presenter was talking about RFID chips. A bunch of us with child survival histories started thinking about using RFID for polio cold chain storage, etc - i.e. to save lives and limbs of children in the poorest of the poor countries.

The presenter uses an example of putting that chip on a million dollar missile. One missile is $1Mil. The audience was a tad stunned.

As we left, one of the other audience members quipped "You know they probably used that missile to blow up a school in Afghanistan, but they only gave us $200K to rebuild it, hire teachers, buy books..."

THESE ARE THE PRIORITIES we vote for when we agree to the current status quo. I do know there is a need for military defense. But first and foremost, if the role of government is to protect its people, why is physical protection from invaders prioritized over nurturing, emotional, and health protection?

After all, what is an economy for but to support families? Why else are we here, otherwise?
 
#254 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
I just have to say one more thing before I shut up. It really gets my hackles up when someone accuses me of being lucky to born in my station without knowing my background. My mother was one of 16 children born to an alcoholic tobacco farmer who didn't own a farm, but farmed other people's land. There was never a thought in anyone's head that she might go to college. She married my father who worked as a law enforcement officer for the state of Indiana. When he reported to his supervisor that they were going to have to go on food stamps in order to feed us (we qualified being at the poverty line), he was told he would be fired if he filed for them (lovely). Dad quit that job, spending what little he had in retirement, working at McDonalds before securing a factory job where he works 14 hour days. Then he made "too much" for me to get financial aid to go to school. I went to school on loans (that I'm paying back) and scholarship money (that I earned for good grades). I married dh who had a similar story. We now make a bit more than my parents - with dh working as an engineer and me staying home. Yeah, the life of priviledge has really distorted my view of the world...
If you are not coming from a place of significant social privileges, I will eat my hat. Coming from somewhat humble financial beginnings is NOT the same thing as not having social privilege.

And ironically, I don't feel you're judging ME at all. I am solidly middle class and even now as a single mom, I make more money than a lot of families and I have relatively few expenses. The financial future, for me, is bright. The reason it's bright is partly because I have worked to make it that way, and partly because despite being from humble financial beginnings myself, being white and middle class gives an individual a fair amount of social privilege. My main disadvantage is probably that I'm a single female mother - there's still quite a bit of institutional and just plain old sexism when it comes to my demographic.

The problem is that you're a bit out of touch with the reality of the world. We do NOT all start from Square A with an equal opportunity to go to Square B. If you honestly think that someone from a ghetto who has been immensely poor their whole life does not face essentially insurmountable challenges to becoming your standard upper-middle class family, which seems to be the premise behind your philosophy, I think that is really misguided.
 
#255 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post

Hopefully some day your children will realize the sacrifices you've made and thank you for it. I have made many sacrifices as well, although they have led me down a different path, one which is much more treacherous. I doubt our children will ever really realize what we do, though.
Well as Ariel Gore says, "She owes me nothing, not even a thank you."
 
#256 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
Yup.

True story - I do contracting with USAID. I was at a presentation about using technology for development, and the presenter was talking about RFID chips. A bunch of us with child survival histories started thinking about using RFID for polio cold chain storage, etc - i.e. to save lives and limbs of children in the poorest of the poor countries.

The presenter uses an example of putting that chip on a million dollar missile. One missile is $1Mil. The audience was a tad stunned.

As we left, one of the other audience members quipped "You know they probably used that missile to blow up a school in Afghanistan, but they only gave us $200K to rebuild it, hire teachers, buy books..."

THESE ARE THE PRIORITIES we vote for when we agree to the current status quo. I do know there is a need for military defense. But first and foremost, if the role of government is to protect its people, why is physical protection from invaders prioritized over nurturing, emotional, and health protection?

After all, what is an economy for but to support families? Why else are we here, otherwise?

Yes I agree with this too, and I also think that it would be better to make business comply with a living wage. BTW I had an old manger who decide to go be a manager at Wendy's and he makes $40,000 a year plus full benefits including tuition reimbursement! Maybe I shouldn't of spent 4 years racking up student loan debt
 
#257 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post

All of this rests on the assumption that we all are born from a relatively equal starting place in our country, and the only thing standing between us and a higher social class, status or financial income/stability is our desire to make wise decisions and work hard. And if you aren't financially stable, you have no one to blame but yourself, apparently.
:
Yep, which IMO is erroneous. We NEED a large poor class, our economic system would fall without it. SOMEBODY has to comprise that class, kwim? If it's not me and you, it will be the next guy. 2bluefish, if it's not you, it will be your sister.

Yes, you worked hard to get where you are. Lots of people work hard and get nowhere. This is reality. It is true that hard work and dedication, and working 'smart' help people get ahead, but it is also privilege and opportunity that help people get ahead. These things are not dealt out in equal quantity to every person.

I see it a bit as climbing over the bodies to get to the top. Once we reach the top we must convince ourselves that there is something special about *us* that we made it, that the others would have too had they tried as hard as us, been as smart, as dedicated, etc etc.

Otherwise we must face the reality that when we are at the top, we stand on the backs of other people. Without them we would crash to the ground. This is the reality of the economic system in which we live.
 
#258 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
Interesting that when we're giving our tax money to families, it's called the evil "welfare" word, but when it's going to businesses, corporations, or any of the dozens of systems that every family in the US benefits from (food, roads, etc.), it's given progressive and positive titles that make the programs seem like a birthright.
I haven't seen 2bluefish say any of this anywhere. In the post you are replying to, she specifically said she resents all of her taxes being taken and used for any gov't programme. "Pretty much anything my taxes are stolen to fund." She didn't say "except for that lovely progressive corporate subsidizing that means I can buy cheap food and buy whatever I want at WalMart."
 
#259 ·
nak

true, she didn't say that. I was disturbed, though, that she claimed self-reliance when in fact she receives and benefits from government aid every day. Truth is, she is not nor could she be self-reliant in this country. No one is. If people recognized that, and called subsidies/tax breaks/corporate assistance what it is (WELFARE), I think there woulud be less finger-pointing at the people who get it directly by the people (all of us) that get it indirectly by the boatfull. I'm also disturbed that people point at welfare recipients and complain about them relying on the government, when the truth is that much of corporate America depends on our tax dollars, too. Why should these corporations be a glorified part of our capitalist democracy, when families that rely on government income are looked at as leeches and losers?
 
#260 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
nak

true, she didn't say that. I was disturbed, though, that she claimed self-reliance when in fact she receives and benefits from government aid every day. Truth is, she is not nor could she be self-reliant in this country. No one is.
Yep. We are reliant on the government, and upon each other. The rich rely on the hard work of the poor. Without it our system would collapse.
 
#261 ·
[QUOTE\] I think it is highly unfair that my sister who flunked out of college because she was playing around gets the gov't to pay to feed her children while she plays video games and eats fast food. [/QUOTE]

[btw...I'm not saying bluefish is the only one talking about this kind of "stereotyped" welfare mother....I just went back and looked for an example.]

I've been thinking about this kind of talk all day (while making black bean soup, which requires a lot of veggie chopping, which induces a lot of thinking
), and it really bugs me. Why do "we" look at, and sterotype welfare moms as societal leeches? Why do "we", when we talk about welfare, always bring up the people who abuse the system?

People from all walks of life abuse the system and take money from the government. Perhaps, bluefish, your sister really is abusing the system (I'm not in the position to know). Other people have talked about friends with high income getting welfare, or people with foodstamps driving off in a Lexus. Okay, but so what? Like the middle and upper class don't have people who leech from the system? I mean, how many of us have friends that found some bizarre way to justify taking their personal-use cell phone bills as a deduction from their taxes? Or a way to deduct things you KNOW shouldn't be deducted....but are they leeches? Are they condemned and stereotyped for "stealing" from the rest of us? No! They're looked at as sneaky, but kinda clever and resourceful, and I bet many of us have secretly thought "wow, I need to find myself THAT kind of tax accountant."

Stealing from the government, leeching from the system, abusing programs, laws, and tax codes takes place in all economic classes. It's the poor people, though, that bear the brunt of the public disgust. It's the poor that get stereotyped as all being of the rip-off-the-government sort. We talk down about "welfare families," but you rarely hear any kind of slur about other classes and how they take advantage of the system....especially of the middle class to which most of us belong. We can be "clever," and find ways to pad our pockets with a little of the money the government should have had, but let's point our mean and nasty fingers at those lower-class welfare families, and the big-wig Enron exec types, that are the REAL losers.

Ugh.
I'm sick of people picking on the poor, or the elderly, or the disabled, or the moms who are taking care of their children....so they get federal help for a while...so what?! What, I ask, is the government THERE FOR, if not to help people and families in need? Abusers of the system exist everywhere....we shouldn't act as if poor people have the corner on that market.
 
#262 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
nak
Truth is, she is not nor could she be self-reliant in this country. No one is.
This is not true. There are those who have succeeded on living off the grid and without the gov't - very few - but there are some. (People used to do it all the time, so it's obviously not a human requirement to be dependent on others - save perhaps a few close fellows.) The Amish do pretty well with only marignal contact with the system. Just because something is hard to do, does not make it a less worthy goal. I get into these discussion periennially and I have been told by various wise people that many people are just not capable of autonomy and self reliance - I hate to believe that. If that is so then I am indeed priviledged - not by the gov't - but by God, to at least be able to set my eyes upon that goal. It is because I care for people that I want the best for them - not just survival but self actualization. And I just don't think you get that through an imperfect gov't.
 
#263 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
This is not true. The Amish do pretty well with only marignal contact with the system. .
First of all, going off the grid can require an immense investment. I dare you to come up with that money if you haven't been in, relied on, or benefited greatly from your place in this society.

Second of all, I live very near an Amish community, and my mother taught some Amish students (so that for several years I had a lot of contact with the Amish community.) While yes, they do a lot that is separate from the system, they still rely HEAVILY on the system...including purchasing many of their goods, hardware, materials, etc. from the system.

If you want to go truly off the grid (energy subsidies), grow all your own food (agricultural subsidies), weave your own clothing (textile and cotton subsidies), forge your own tools, motors, and metals (heavy industry subsidies), drive on roads you have cleared and constructed yourself (transportation subsidies), and create a home from lumber you cut and mill (construction subsidies), and avoid all contact with the US healthcare system (healthcare subsidies) then by all means....go ahead and call yourself self-reliant. Until then, you're benefiting from government welfare (though it has prettier names when it helps the middle and upper class). Until then, in a very real way, you're a welfare mom.
 
#264 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by RedOakMomma View Post
We talk down about "welfare families," but you rarely hear any kind of slur about other classes and how they take advantage of the system....especially of the middle class to which most of us belong.
I hear slurs all the time. Too rich and priviledged to hang with one crowd to much a country bumpkin to hang with another. Please, no one is spared judgement. If you are rich, everyone hates you. If you are poor, everyone's hard on you. Those in between are richer than some and poorer than others - so they get both hated and criticized.
 
#265 ·
And even the Amish buy fabric from retail fabric stores to make clothing, last I heard. Dacron, too, not even natural fibers these days.

Cuz the ironing involved would just suck, and even Amish women have better things to do than stand around and iron 15 dresses and pants a week.

Anyway, I agree that the poor are much more systematically scorned than middle-class landowners. Sorry.

--Middle-class chicken-raising vegetable-growing clothing-sewing landowner.

And hey, my sewing machine in is the shop this week, again.
No seamstress is an island.

 
#267 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
The difference is we *all* benefit from these things you mention - they are not welfare, but group equity.
but the richer and more connected you are, the more you benefit.

Agricultural subsidies don't benefit us equally by any stretch of the imagination, to use just one example. Corporate farming interests push those subsidies through-- the little bit of money that the consumer saves by having government-subsidized agriculture is nothing compared to the money that these businessmen can rake in with those programs.

And small farmers? pshaw. They can't begin to compete, in most cases.
 
#269 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
but the richer and more connected you are, the more you benefit.
And the more you put into the gov't fund to begin with. Not to say there aren't people out there who are way over paid - but as dh has figured out, if you don't want to work so hard to make Joe CIO so much money so he can take off work and go fishing every Friday, then start your own business.
 
#272 ·
Bluefish, I think you're kind of inappropriately personalizing this issue. It's not all about either you or me or either of our obnoxious siblings-- I think what people are talking about here are broader sorts of social and economic controls.

And yes, if nobody is totally autonomous, then yes, total autonomy is kind of a sham of a concept. Especially as a political ideology. I admire people who strive to lead a more... back-to-the-land lifestyle, but I don't admire people who push that as the cure to ail all society's problems.

AFAIK, at *no* time in our nation's history have we been particularly "self-sufficient." We've always imported things and depended on the underpaid labor of people with little choice to make us wealthy.

Like, we make a lot of nostalgic noise here on MDC about how women used to spin and weave and knit with their innocent children underfoot... but the last I read, the historical reality was the the lions-share of the nation's cloth was always imported from India or China. Sure, we had some domestic textile manufacturers, but... well, that scene wasn't noted for its equitable worker's rights history anyway.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, though.
 
#273 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Aura_Kitten View Post
We would also all benefit from an entire population of well-fed, well-cared for, and well-educated children who grow up to be competent, secure, and healthy adults, but I guess that's not an investment worth taking people's hard-earned tax dollars for.

:
well goshdarnit, if everyone has acreage and a mule and a forge on the property, then you never have to deal with your illiterate abusive neighbors a-tall, do you?

See, people. If you all would just shell out for land, none of this-here welfare discussion would be necessary.
 
#274 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bluefish View Post
And the more you put into the gov't fund to begin with. Not to say there aren't people out there who are way over paid - but as dh has figured out, if you don't want to work so hard to make Joe CIO so much money so he can take off work and go fishing every Friday, then start your own business.
Um, OK, are you in touch with reality here? Or maybe you're being facetious? Because, having your own business is :

1. Risky
2. Takes a HUGE amount of hours
3. Very little pay
4. No benefits
5. and has very little chance of success in most industries

That's pretty flip, to say people who don't want to feed Joe CIO's alpaca herd can just go start their own business. I mean, give me a break. And, that's even more true for people who DON'T already have the social privilege, web of social support and wealth of contacts that the more advantaged in a culture do.
 
#275 ·
Yeah, starting a small biz is nothing to take lightly. I've never met a successful small-business owner say they started the biz so they could "go fishing" on Fridays.


My husband talks about starting one, too. Men are funny like that. But he knows he'd certainly spend the first five years working 80-plus hours a week. And me, too!
 
#276 ·
My ex- started his own business, to "support us."

He "borrowed" over $2000 of my personal money (grant money from college, gifts for my birthday and christmas from parents) to start it up..... then blew all the money and closed his business, and also screwed over all his customers and refused to tell them why they were no longer getting service.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top