Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 25 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#721 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 11:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
So the economic factors limiting the middle class family size, don't come into play with the same force for her. That's why I find the concern on this thread towards poor family size (in light of our current economic/political realities) to be misdirected.
The fact that some couples are eager to embrace as many children as God gives them, regardless of whether all the math says they can afford college, ballet lessons, mini-vans, etc., may be the very thing that saves social security.

So I agree that trying to limit family size is pretty misdirected.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is online now  
#722 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 11:27 AM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is how I see welfare. Like any other government programs, I am sure it has people who abuse the system *but* having said that, I know there are people who need it and I am glad its there.

If i was in a situation where I needed to use welfare to keep us off the streets, or to keep food on the table I would do so.

But what happens to families when the SAHM welfare runs out? Then you do have to find childcare and go back to work?

BTW I was at the grocery store the other day and this woman in front of me was using foodstamps. She bought 3 premade hoagies and 5 bottles of soda. I always thought you couldn't buy that kind of stuff with food stamps?
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#723 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 11:42 AM
 
gracesmommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
How is it offensive? Do you think the decision process isn't different based on your SES and what you expect to be able/required (by convention, anyway) to provide for your kid(s)?

DD is going to be an only child, and one of the main considerations that we can afford to give her a reasonably financially secure life, whatever activities she wants (well, no pony in our 2BR condo!), help with college, not be too stressed over surprise expenses, etc. The math doesn't work for us for more than one, though. That's life.

BUT, if we had different expectations for what we needed to be able to provide, we could come to a different conclusion and have a whole herd of kids. We'd be sweating every bill, though, and the kids would be on their own for college and sports and spending money. DH grew up that way, and he isn't willing to have his child experience that kind of stress.

If we had made different choices about education/careers (love that English degree!), we might be able to make a different choice now, but we didn't, that horse is out of the proverbial barn. So our family is three people.

How is our process of choosing not to have more kids offensive to you? It's the result of all the options which are open to us, based on our previous choices. Natural consequence of living in a high COL area and having cool but not especially lucrative jobs...hard choices about family size.
gracesmommy is offline  
#724 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 11:43 AM
 
ShadowMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
Quite frankly, I was finding the sheer level of the feeling of entitlement (I reproduced! Everyone ELSE pay up!) and denying of the fact that an essential part of parenting is to provide economically for your child on this thread to be troubling.

This was not surprising of course, when the major voices in the discussion were payees rather than payors.
Maybe you are making some assumptions about the major voices in the discussion. I work FT and have been strongly advocating in this thread for the moral "rightness" of choosing to get assistance while staying home with children.

Although, honestly, the people who would know the most about the challenges and issues someone faces in that situation are gonna be... well, the people in that situation. So it's no surprise.

There's also the law of the "Morals of Convenience". Most everyone has a moral code which is most convenient for them. So the people least likely to benefit from a welfare system are the going to tend to be the staunchest advocates AGAINST it.

Quote:
"work that I can feel good about"/moms "depressed" about working --

Is exactly the sort of thing that gets my goat. Do you think that all those working people out there feel good about their jobs? That its hugs, and rainbowz and spiritually fulfilling anything more than about 1% of the time for most of them? There were days when I was working where it seemed the hardest thing in the world was to get dressed and into the car for work. But I had a goal of $X saved before kids, so I butched up and did it and so do they.
I think advocating that people continue to work FT if it is causing serious clinical depression is not a road I would want to go down, personally. The discussion was around the serious anxiety and depression new mothers can have when forced to return to work when their babies are very young. I experienced that firsthand myself (returned to work after 1 month) and it is truly horrible. Babies and mamas are meant to be close together, especially when they are newborns, and the fact is that when they aren't it can really be a serious issue for both the baby and the mama.
ShadowMom is offline  
#725 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 12:04 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 View Post
But what happens to families when the SAHM welfare runs out? Then you do have to find childcare and go back to work?
I don't think the U.S. has any such thing as "SAHM welfare." From my understanding, there are food stamps which you can get whenever you qualify because of income and family size.

At the point when all your children reach school age, all parents living in the home would have to be employed or seeking work in order to keep qualifying -- but as long there's a child under 5, I don't think there's any limit to how long you can get food stamps.

We stopped receiving fs when dh got his raise, but if his income was reduced again, we'd qualify (with me staying home) for as long as we had a child under 5.

With WIC, it's all just based on income and family size -- but of course it's only for pregnant and nursing mothers, and children up to the age of 5. But you can get it for each of your children, for 5 years each, if your income qualifies you.

Then there's section 8 housing, and I'm not familiar with those rules so I don't know if there's a 5-year limit or not.

With Medicaid, I think you qualify based on income and family-size, and I don't think there's any time-limit. In our case, dh's income is low enough (based on our family-size) for our daughters to qualify, but not low enough for dh and me to qualify.

I probably could have qualified for Medicaid during my last pregnancy, but chose to do a homebirth and get all my care with my midwife. She was willing to wait for our tax-return to get payment.

Dh does get a 100% discount for any care he needs at our local hospital, and a partial discount on his medicines. And I've never heard of there being a 5-year limit, but it's been less than 5 years that he's had this discount. Of course, he's not a SAHM: he works full-time but still qualifies because of income and family-size.

The only mother I know who is able to stay home, without the support of a husband or other family member, is my friend who has a physical disability. She will continue to get her disability checks for the rest of her life, whether she has children in the home or not: they're for her, not for her kids.

Before this friend qualified for disability for herself, two of her children were classified as developmentally disabled, and the whole family lived on these checks, food stamps, and WIC. They also lived in section 8 housing and got Medicaid.

I don't know anyone who gets TANF, so I don't think it's very common anymore.

Quote:
BTW I was at the grocery store the other day and this woman in front of me was using foodstamps. She bought 3 premade hoagies and 5 bottles of soda. I always thought you couldn't buy that kind of stuff with food stamps?
How nice that she could, though! It sounds like maybe she and her kids were on their way to the park for a picnic. ALL kids love picnics, regardless of what side of the tracks they're born on!

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is online now  
#726 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Grace's mommy, I don't think anyone's offended at your choice to have just one child. Some of us were responding to the poster who said she had a problem with people who get public assistance having large families, and to the other poster who talked about the difference income-level makes in parents' processes of deciding how many children to have.

Some of us just believe in leaving it up to God. I personally think the decision to have sex is a decision to possibly get pregnant. I just know too many who get pregnant on birth-control -- sometimes even on more than one form of birth-control -- to think there's any such thing as 100% effectiveness!

So, don't feel bad about just having one child. And don't feel bad about having twelve, either. Children are a gift!

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is online now  
#727 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 12:25 PM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
I don't think the U.S. has any such thing as "SAHM welfare." From my understanding, there are food stamps which you can get whenever you qualify because of income and family size.

At the point when all your children reach school age, all parents living in the home would have to be employed or seeking work in order to keep qualifying -- but as long there's a child under 5, I don't think there's any limit to how long you can get food stamps.

We stopped receiving fs when dh got his raise, but if his income was reduced again, we'd qualify (with me staying home) for as long as we had a child under 5.

With WIC, it's all just based on income and family size -- but of course it's only for pregnant and nursing mothers, and children up to the age of 5. But you can get it for each of your children, for 5 years each, if your income qualifies you.

Then there's section 8 housing, and I'm not familiar with those rules so I don't know if there's a 5-year limit or not.

With Medicaid, I think you qualify based on income and family-size, and I don't think there's any time-limit. In our case, dh's income is low enough (based on our family-size) for our daughters to qualify, but not low enough for dh and me to qualify.

I probably could have qualified for Medicaid during my last pregnancy, but chose to do a homebirth and get all my care with my midwife. She was willing to wait for our tax-return to get payment.

Dh does get a 100% discount for any care he needs at our local hospital, and a partial discount on his medicines. And I've never heard of there being a 5-year limit, but it's been less than 5 years that he's had this discount. Of course, he's not a SAHM: he works full-time but still qualifies because of income and family-size.

The only mother I know who is able to stay home, without the support of a husband or other family member, is my friend who has a physical disability. She will continue to get her disability checks for the rest of her life, whether she has children in the home or not: they're for her, not for her kids.

Before this friend qualified for disability for herself, two of her children were classified as developmentally disabled, and the whole family lived on these checks, food stamps, and WIC. They also lived in section 8 housing and got Medicaid.

I don't know anyone who gets TANF, so I don't think it's very common anymore.



How nice that she could, though! It sounds like maybe she and her kids were on their way to the park for a picnic. ALL kids love picnics, regardless of what side of the tracks they're born on!

Should of phrased it better sorryBut I have my 3 year old at work with me today, so I am a little worn. What I meant to write was "What happens when a stay at home mom/dad who is on welfare has to go back to work"


As to the premade food, I just thought buying premade food on foodstamps was not allowed in PA, and since I was curious I checked. Apparently only premade hot food is ineligible.

I found this article on the US government website about limiting what you can buy with foodstamps.
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#728 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 01:41 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 View Post
Here is how I see welfare. Like any other government programs, I am sure it has people who abuse the system *but* having said that, I know there are people who need it and I am glad its there.

If i was in a situation where I needed to use welfare to keep us off the streets, or to keep food on the table I would do so.

But what happens to families when the SAHM welfare runs out? Then you do have to find childcare and go back to work?

BTW I was at the grocery store the other day and this woman in front of me was using foodstamps. She bought 3 premade hoagies and 5 bottles of soda. I always thought you couldn't buy that kind of stuff with food stamps?
If you are on the tanf grant(cash assistance that has a 60 month limit), you have to be working or looking for work Full time, unless. YOu are in your third trimester of pregnancy, or up to 4 months post partum(they will sometimes extend this to 6 months), or if you have a medical reason(either physical or mental)that you can not work, but there is a whole packet of paperwork that the medical provider has to fill out.
If there are two people in the house that are on the tanf grant, they BOTH have to be looking for work or working full time.

There is no sah welfare(cash) in the us at all. And all tanf has a 60 month lifetime limit. Once that is up you can not recieve it anymore.


YOu can buy any food on foodstamps except Hot premade foods I believe.

I have many times(over months) gone to the store on the way to the park and picked up sanwiches and a salad, and lots of fruit and bottled water to bring with us to the park. My kids love it when we can do that. I don't do it that often because we need the fs for regular food at home, but on a bad day, when I just can't pull it together, that is what we do.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#729 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 01:45 PM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
If you are on the tanf grant(cash assistance that has a 60 month limit), you have to be working or looking for work Full time, unless. YOu are in your third trimester of pregnancy, or up to 4 months post partum(they will sometimes extend this to 6 months), or if you have a medical reason(either physical or mental)that you can not work, but there is a whole packet of paperwork that the medical provider has to fill out.
If there are two people in the house that are on the tanf grant, they BOTH have to be looking for work or working full time.

There is no sah welfare(cash) in the us at all. And all tanf has a 60 month lifetime limit. Once that is up you can not recieve it anymore.


YOu can buy any food on foodstamps except Hot premade foods I believe.

I have many times(over months) gone to the store on the way to the park and picked up sanwiches and a salad, and lots of fruit and bottled water to bring with us to the park. My kids love it when we can do that. I don't do it that often because we need the fs for regular food at home, but on a bad day, when I just can't pull it together, that is what we do.

Please see my post before yours
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#730 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 01:48 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I did.

SO what do you mean by "what happens when the sahm/dad has to go back to work"? Do you mean after the baby is older? Because they are always having to work if on cash assistance. Or do you mean from other forms of assistance?

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#731 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:05 PM
 
Nature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In Aspieville
Posts: 6,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 View Post
Here is how I see welfare. Like any other government programs, I am sure it has people who abuse the system *but* having said that, I know there are people who need it and I am glad its there.

If i was in a situation where I needed to use welfare to keep us off the streets, or to keep food on the table I would do so.

But what happens to families when the SAHM welfare runs out? Then you do have to find childcare and go back to work?

BTW I was at the grocery store the other day and this woman in front of me was using foodstamps. She bought 3 premade hoagies and 5 bottles of soda. I always thought you couldn't buy that kind of stuff with food stamps?
You can buy anything cold. You cannot buy things that are hot. For instance, you can buy a sub sandwhich but cannot buy a BLT that is heated up. Our local store does a "foodstamp BLT" that uses cooked but cold bacon. You can buy a cold pre cooked rotessiere chicken, but not a hot one. Understand?

And so what? Again.. judging the food we decide to buy really sucks.

treehugger.gifAutistic pagan mama with five kiddos on the spectrum, learning through living life. autismribbon.gif  computergeek2.gif

Nature is offline  
#732 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:08 PM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
I did.

SO what do you mean by "what happens when the sahm/dad has to go back to work"? Do you mean after the baby is older? Because they are always having to work if on cash assistance. Or do you mean from other forms of assistance?
Like said my brain is a little muddled, my poor son is stuck at work with me today.

Ok, so bear with me please (and I am hoping that I am not derailing this thread) SO if you are still "forced" to work while on cash assistance I don't really understand the issue some people seem to be having with welfare.

I can see how foodstamps would help, but most people that I have seen don't get more than $400 (I am sure there are families who do get more though, especially if they are very large)and that was for a family of 4.

WIC I know is just to supplement your diet and not made to live off of, although I guess you could in a desperate situation.
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#733 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:10 PM
 
Nature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In Aspieville
Posts: 6,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 View Post
Like said my brain is a little muddled, my poor son is stuck at work with me today.

Ok, so bear with me please (and I am hoping that I am not derailing this thread) SO if you are still "forced" to work while on cash assistance I don't really understand the issue some people seem to be having with welfare.

I can see how foodstamps would help, but most people that I have seen don't get more than $400 (I am sure there are families who do get more though, especially if they are very large)and that was for a family of 4.

WIC I know is just to supplement your diet and not made to live off of, although I guess you could in a desperate situation.
Wow. Where do you live? We only get 120 for a family of five.

treehugger.gifAutistic pagan mama with five kiddos on the spectrum, learning through living life. autismribbon.gif  computergeek2.gif

Nature is offline  
#734 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:12 PM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
You can buy anything cold. You cannot buy things that are hot. For instance, you can buy a sub sandwhich but cannot buy a BLT that is heated up. Our local store does a "foodstamp BLT" that uses cooked but cold bacon. You can buy a cold pre cooked rotessiere chicken, but not a hot one. Understand?

And so what? Again.. judging the food we decide to buy really sucks.
Please read my post #727. And just to clarify for everyone else it was more of a curiousity thing, as my SIL was on foodstamps in another state and she was telling me one time how they went to buy hoagies at a store and weren't allowed to. But I did the research, and actually read an interesting article about limiting food choices for people on foodstamps. Again please refer to post #727
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#735 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:14 PM
 
sonrisaa29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 972
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
Wow. Where do you live? We only get 120 for a family of five.
I live in PA, but a girl who was on foodstamps that I used to work with said she got 400 a month for a family of four. I didn't know her that well, so maybe she was making up figures who knows?
sonrisaa29 is offline  
#736 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:18 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 View Post
Like said my brain is a little muddled, my poor son is stuck at work with me today.

Ok, so bear with me please (and I am hoping that I am not derailing this thread) SO if you are still "forced" to work while on cash assistance I don't really understand the issue some people seem to be having with welfare.

I can see how foodstamps would help, but most people that I have seen don't get more than $400 (I am sure there are families who do get more though, especially if they are very large)and that was for a family of 4.

WIC I know is just to supplement your diet and not made to live off of, although I guess you could in a desperate situation.
Well, that is kind of the point. The people though, who are upset about us staying at home on welfare are concerned about all forms of welfare, not just the cash grant.

Wic does help to stretch the budget for sure, and I am really lucky because in my state I can get organic milk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
Wow. Where do you live? We only get 120 for a family of five.
We actually get a bit over $500 for a family of five in foodstamps right now.
it is based on the income you have coming in, and I am only recieving $200 a week for child support. That is why mine benefit is so high.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#737 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:32 PM
 
Nature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In Aspieville
Posts: 6,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Well, that is kind of the point. The people though, who are upset about us staying at home on welfare are concerned about all forms of welfare, not just the cash grant.

Wic does help to stretch the budget for sure, and I am really lucky because in my state I can get organic milk.



We actually get a bit over $500 for a family of five in foodstamps right now.
it is based on the income you have coming in, and I am only recieving $200 a week for child support. That is why mine benefit is so high.
Hmm... 200 a week in child support... adds up to almost exactly what dh and I get in SSDI a month. Weird.

treehugger.gifAutistic pagan mama with five kiddos on the spectrum, learning through living life. autismribbon.gif  computergeek2.gif

Nature is offline  
#738 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 02:41 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
Hmm... 200 a week in child support... adds up to almost exactly what dh and I get in SSDI a month. Weird.

That is weird. Are you a family of five? Are any of your other expenses paid for? Any other income at all? There are a lot of factors that go into figuring it out.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#739 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:12 PM
 
Nature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In Aspieville
Posts: 6,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
That is weird. Are you a family of five? Are any of your other expenses paid for? Any other income at all? There are a lot of factors that go into figuring it out.
Well, we do have a housing subsidy so I assume thats a large part of it. Yes, we are a family of 5. Both dh and I are disabled.

treehugger.gifAutistic pagan mama with five kiddos on the spectrum, learning through living life. autismribbon.gif  computergeek2.gif

Nature is offline  
#740 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:14 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hmmm...my housing is subsidized too though. I don't pay any rent right now.

I wonder if they count disability differently than child support? I'm sorry. I feel guilty now. Why should I get so much, and you have the same amount of people and everything?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
Well, we do have a housing subsidy so I assume thats a large part of it. Yes, we are a family of 5. Both dh and I are disabled.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#741 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:18 PM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 16,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Gracesmommy, I was in no wise referring to people who choose to limit their family size, only that I don't like being judged because I don't. And that particular post I was referencing seemed to do that.

Especially the comment about her having "FIVE unplanned children" and being on FS. Having unplanned children means only that they were not planned, not that they were unwanted or 'accidents'. I don't know how to explain it, but several of the comments made in the post were highly insensitive.

As for FS, at the current moment we get them, just over $600 a month. But we are in the process of moving to a less expensive place, and my DH just got a promotion with a raise, so I am sure that we will no longer qualify.

However, my number of children and my qualifying have little to do with each other (other than the amount), because I would qualify financially with only one child.

And I find that the ones most qualified to comment have BTDT, because first hand knowledge can not be beat by reading studies and reports. Having been through the system is the only real way of understanding it. At least that is the only way I have really learned to understand it. My first hand knowledge has changed all my preconceived notions about it.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
#742 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:26 PM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
And I find that the ones most qualified to comment have BTDT, because first hand knowledge can not be beat by reading studies and reports. Having been through the system is the only real way of understanding it. At least that is the only way I have really learned to understand it. My first hand knowledge has changed all my preconceived notions about it.

So true!!

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#743 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:43 PM
 
Nature's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: In Aspieville
Posts: 6,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Hmmm...my housing is subsidized too though. I don't pay any rent right now.

I wonder if they count disability differently than child support? I'm sorry. I feel guilty now. Why should I get so much, and you have the same amount of people and everything?
Oh gosh! Don't feel guilty. Its just the way the cookie crumbles when it comes to the government.

A lot of things aren't fair really. My dh and I lived together before we were married, we were both on disability. We lived together for three years. As soon as we got married, they cut his disability check in half. They said there is a marriage penalty for disabled couples. We're only allowed to have $800 a month for disabled couples. So even though nothing at all changed except a piece of paper, we were seriously financially in trouble because a quarter of our monthly income was now gone. Talk about : Had I known beforehand I never would have gotten married because it has been THAT difficult.

treehugger.gifAutistic pagan mama with five kiddos on the spectrum, learning through living life. autismribbon.gif  computergeek2.gif

Nature is offline  
#744 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:43 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
<snip>
They'll start to add up the costs of braces, ballet lessons, soccer lessons, SAT prep, college, family vacations, saving for retirement, buying that mini-van and decide not to go for that third or fourth or fifth kid.

However, she's already poor. In all likelihood, she's not providing (or planning to provide) any of the items listed above to her kids. Probably that third, fourth or fifth kid isn't going to make her substantially poorer than she already is. So why not have more?

So the economic factors limiting the middle class family size, don't come into play with the same force for her. That's why I find the concern on this thread towards poor family size (in light of our current economic/political realities) to be misdirected.
You're assuming that the "middle-class" all share the same value-set of 'needing' to provide things like ballet lessons, college prep, etc. I grew up squarely in the upper region of the middle-class, and I didn't need braces, didn't take ballet, didn't take SAT's, didn't have college prep, and my folks never had a mini-van. Now, married to a small business owner, I live within a few breaths of the poverty-line... but dd will be taking ballet lessons.

You have no idea what that mother might aspire toward for her children.

You say "she's already poor" like that's any determination as to what her plans are. And, in a poor family, that 3rd, 4th, or 5th kid will create a significant drag on her limited income... which btw, she is earning through wroking... I noticed you neglected to comment on the fact that she's working. I've still yet to hear from you what that mother would need to do to qualify for your understanding or acceptance of her life, since apparently she's already working which is what prly enables her to receive some of her state granted assistance.

This line of thinking seems to assume there is a clear delineation between the middle class and the "poor"... and there's not really. The middle class is disappearing... the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows bigger every year. You have painted an interesting picture here, by inferring that the middle-class has some sort of ethical trump-card; that the middle-class makes better decisions than the poor, and the poor are just, well, poor, and ought to know they're poor, so ought to make better decisions about having children based on their poorness. Booooo.

Quote:
"What qualifies you or any other individual to determine who is deserving of welfare and who is not?"

Being a citizen. Believe it or not, I am "allowed" to have all sorts of opinions about governmental social policy schemes. Or even about the "fantasy" social policy schemes bruited about here. Quite frankly, I was finding the sheer level of the feeling of entitlement (I reproduced! Everyone ELSE pay up!) and denying of the fact that an essential part of parenting is to provide economically for your child on this thread to be troubling.

This was not surprising of course, when the major voices in the discussion were payees rather than payors.
"everyone else pay up!"?? This is not an "everyone else" situation... I paid into this system myself, and deserve the rights to the same benfits anyone else would have. I have contributed to your livelihood in some respects, I'm sure, via taxes and consumerism... That is the way our current system works... we all pay in, and all reap benefits, however trifling they may be.

I specifically asked after your qualifications to determine deserving and not deserving, not whether you have a right to your opinion. I think my neighbors down the street are meth users. This is my opinion. But my opinion is biased, based on my paradigm. No way would I just call the cops and say The neighbors are using meth! BUT, I am forming a neighborhood watch to better work with local law enforcement; thus the proper authorities can have a better view of what's happening on our block, and take action if need be. Your opinion doesn't present a case, kwim? If you're really bent about welfare in it's current form and those who utilize assistance programs, well, educate yourself. Find out the truth, maybe get involved in your own local low-income community via out-reach programs, or something... that might give you a new perspective on the welfare situation and who is actually utilizing these programs. THEN when you have more concise info, take it up with the proper authorities to make the changes you feel are necessary.

I asked you about your qualifications to make determinations, because it seemed like that was what you were doing... these people over here deserve assistance because they are really down and out and pathetic, but these folks don't, because they could totally just put their kids in day care and work. This is what came across to me. If I am mistaken, please clarify your position.

Quote:
"work that I can feel good about"/moms "depressed" about working --

Is exactly the sort of thing that gets my goat. Do you think that all those working people out there feel good about their jobs? That its hugs, and rainbowz and spiritually fulfilling anything more than about 1% of the time for most of them? There were days when I was working where it seemed the hardest thing in the world was to get dressed and into the car for work. But I had a goal of $X saved before kids, so I butched up and did it and so do they.
Ah... and here is the crux of it. You did not feel good, 100% of the time, in the decisions you made... the decisions you made for your own life were tough, weren't they? And you toughed it out. And good on you. And you're happy with where those decisions have taken you? Because I too am happy with where my decisions have taken me. And yet I sense you would fault me that happiness... maybe because I didn't "butch up" and do things I hated so that I could attain some pre-set ideal of where one "ought to be" in order to have children? If I had an abortion when I became pregnant on birth control would that sit better with you? SO that I could plan better? The reality is, I may never have planned. Some people don't. Is that what you're mad at? There's a lot of venom in your posts. You seem pretty angry. Is it because you had to endure your path (via your moral compass re; $X that would enable you to have your children) even though it was hard, and others don't and manage to be happy, even on welfare? Do you begrudge us that happiness because we didn't "earn it" like you did?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nature View Post
Wow. Where do you live? We only get 120 for a family of five.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Well, that is kind of the point. The people though, who are upset about us staying at home on welfare are concerned about all forms of welfare, not just the cash grant.

Wic does help to stretch the budget for sure, and I am really lucky because in my state I can get organic milk.

We actually get a bit over $500 for a family of five in foodstamps right now.
it is based on the income you have coming in, and I am only recieving $200 a week for child support. That is why mine benefit is so high.

We're in Oregon, and receive just over $300/mo in Food Stamps, for our fam of 3 and dd is on medical, but dh and I don't qualify.

Just to clarify, for those of you on the other side of this issue, what exactly is it that you find disagreeable about welfare, which programs, and are there distinctions that make one family in the "right" and another in the "wrong" for receiving these benfits, what are they, and how would you rather see the gov't handle these assistance programs?
PrennaMama is offline  
#745 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 04:47 PM
 
PrennaMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aloha, OR
Posts: 1,142
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
<snip>
My first hand knowledge has changed all my preconceived notions about it.
Me too! Wow, was I wrong 4 years ago.
PrennaMama is offline  
#746 of 1188 Old 07-20-2007, 11:46 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrennaMama View Post

Just to clarify, for those of you on the other side of this issue, what exactly is it that you find disagreeable about welfare, which programs, and are there distinctions that make one family in the "right" and another in the "wrong" for receiving these benfits, what are they, and how would you rather see the gov't handle these assistance programs?
Fabulous probing questions, Penna!

I'd like to know the answers to these questions as well. Especially the last one
lolalola is offline  
#747 of 1188 Old 07-21-2007, 12:30 AM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,006
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I think the issue there is that in middle class families, people are economically constrained as to the number of kids they'll have. They'll start to add up the costs of braces, ballet lessons, soccer lessons, SAT prep, college, family vacations, saving for retirement, buying that mini-van and decide not to go for that third or fourth or fifth kid.
Well, sociologically speaking, I find this very interesting. You are assuming the middle-class (and normative) position that having children is an "individual choice". The notion that motherhood is a choice, therefore presumes that ALL women weigh the "pros and cons" of having children.

Quote:
However, she's already poor. In all likelihood, she's not providing (or planning to provide) any of the items listed above to her kids. Probably that third, fourth or fifth kid isn't going to make her substantially poorer than she already is. So why not have more?
This is very offensive, in so many ways.

Is a woman required to articulate her reasons for wanting children?

Quote:
So the economic factors limiting the middle class family size, don't come into play with the same force for her. That's why I find the concern on this thread towards poor family size (in light of our current economic/political realities) to be misdirected.
Hmmmm....I could argue that the constraints are self-imposed (to a certain degree).

Quote:
Being a citizen. Believe it or not, I am "allowed" to have all sorts of opinions about governmental social policy schemes. Or even about the "fantasy" social policy schemes bruited about here. Quite frankly, I was finding the sheer level of the feeling of entitlement (I reproduced! Everyone ELSE pay up!) and denying of the fact that an essential part of parenting is to provide economically for your child on this thread to be troubling.
Of course you are allowed to have opinions. And, despite your obvious contempt for the "lower classes", your opinion is equally as valid as those of us who talk of "fantasy" social programs, or those of us who accept welfare.

Quote:
This was not surprising of course, when the major voices in the discussion were payees rather than payors.
You don't know this to be the case, and it doesn't matter anyway.


Quote:
Is exactly the sort of thing that gets my goat. Do you think that all those working people out there feel good about their jobs? That its hugs, and rainbowz and spiritually fulfilling anything more than about 1% of the time for most of them? There were days when I was working where it seemed the hardest thing in the world was to get dressed and into the car for work. But I had a goal of $X saved before kids, so I butched up and did it and so do they.
Well, forgive me for "fantasizing" about a world wherein folks didn't have to compromise their mental/emotional health in order to fulfill their basic needs. Crazy, I know.
lolalola is offline  
#748 of 1188 Old 07-21-2007, 10:38 AM
 
Em T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, forgive me for "fantasizing" about a world wherein folks didn't have to compromise their mental/emotional health in order to fulfill their basic needs. Crazy, I know.

Don't you think for most of the whole course of human history just surviving, staying fed, sheltered, having water & elemental needs has been the case? As it is indeed still so in many parts of the world today? Hasn't being able to consider mental & emotional issues been a relatively recent component of life, versus work to stay alive?
Em T is offline  
#749 of 1188 Old 07-21-2007, 11:11 AM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Em T View Post
Don't you think for most of the whole course of human history just surviving, staying fed, sheltered, having water & elemental needs has been the case? As it is indeed still so in many parts of the world today? Hasn't being able to consider mental & emotional issues been a relatively recent component of life, versus work to stay alive?
Have you read Jean Liedloff's Continuum Concept? It's interesting to me that the people groups who are still living in primitive societies today, don't have the mental and emotional issues that are so rampant in our modern culture.

And although a hunter-gatherer or stone-age lifestyle is much more physically demanding than our modern lifestyle, there seems to be overall better physical health in these cultures.

Of course, I'm not claiming my dh and I could adapt to this way of life now -- though I think our dd's are young enough and would probably love it.

It's just, reading CC has me questioning all my assumptions about pre-modern life being so hard and so unkind.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is online now  
#750 of 1188 Old 07-21-2007, 11:34 AM
 
Kidzaplenty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Writing my Happily Ever After
Posts: 16,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
One thing about premodern life and this thread is that yes, there was harder physical work and there were not the emotional conceptions involved; however, the mothers were also not required to leave their babies behind to do the work. They slung them. To me, that is a big thing.

Any misspellings or grammatical errors in the above statement are intentional;
they are placed there for the amusement of those who like to point them out.
Kidzaplenty is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off