Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 29 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#841 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 03:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
So, since the overall scheme of many in power is to get by with paying less-than-livable wages -- why is it wrong for us to supplement our (or our husbands') salaries by availing ourselves of whatever taxpayer-supported benefits we qualify for?

I agree that it would be nicer if employers just paid livable wages (and provided decent insurance benefits) in the first place -- but since they don't want to do that (and the few who do often can't because of the way those who don't want to have structured things) --

Well, then, why complain about some tax dollars going to make up the difference?

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#842 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 03:08 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 mammal_mama View Post
So, since the overall scheme of many in power is to get by with paying less-than-livable wages -- why is it wrong for us to supplement our (or our husbands') salaries by availing ourselves of whatever taxpayer-supported benefits we qualify for?

I agree that it would be nicer if employers just paid livable wages (and provided decent insurance benefits) in the first place -- but since they don't want to do that (and the few who do often can't because of the way those who don't want to have structured things) --

Well, then, why complain about some tax dollars going to make up the difference?
No kidding. And it's not like our families won't be contributing to help the next person down the line when the kids are older, or grown...seems like just something to complain about to me.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#843 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 03:31 PM
 
Lady Lilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
So, since the overall scheme of many in power is to get by with paying less-than-livable wages -- why is it wrong for us to supplement our (or our husbands') salaries by availing ourselves of whatever taxpayer-supported benefits we qualify for?

I agree that it would be nicer if employers just paid livable wages (and provided decent insurance benefits) in the first place -- but since they don't want to do that (and the few who do often can't because of the way those who don't want to have structured things) --

Well, then, why complain about some tax dollars going to make up the difference?
Since THEY are sucking off the system, why shouldn't WE too? Sounds fair, but doesn't sound sustainable in the long run. What happens when the resources are all consumed?

Better would be to overhaul the whole mess. But, neither party has any incentive to do so, since they are sucking off of it. We will never have change as long as so many people see themselves as benefiting from the status quo.

What I want is for everyone to be self-sufficient and independent. If they don't NEED the system to help them survive, they can then be more critical of the system. They will then be less tolerant of the bad behavior of the system. At the current time, people tolerate lots of abuses because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.

Leigh, mama to Rostislav homeborn Aug 9 2007, and Oksana homeborn Feb 24 2011.
Lady Lilya is offline  
#844 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 03:56 PM
 
lyttlewon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,307
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Women who are getting child support are less likely to need the welfare though, the state only collects for actual TANF(which has a five year limit), food stamps and medical are available to families without the child support being affected. Also, not to be mean, but $150 a child is not really a fair amount to raise a child monthly. I think absent parents are getting off pretty dang easy. I know it costs far more than $150 a month to raise one kid, so the custodial parent is paying far more than half of the support in the first place.

: Yes I agree. My post was in agreement with yours sorry .

When I had custody of my Neice and collecting TANF her mom only had to pay $25 a month child support. Yes child support is a good thing to enforce but in many ways it is a joke.
lyttlewon is offline  
#845 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 04:19 PM
 
Lady Lilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As far as I know, child support amounts are based on ability. If the person ordered to pay has a low income, the amount ordered will be low.

Leigh, mama to Rostislav homeborn Aug 9 2007, and Oksana homeborn Feb 24 2011.
Lady Lilya is offline  
#846 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 04:28 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Lilya View Post
Better would be to overhaul the whole mess. But, neither party has any incentive to do so, since they are sucking off of it. We will never have change as long as so many people see themselves as benefiting from the status quo.
Except that I don't perceive myself, or others who utilize public assistance, as "sucking off of" the system or "benefiting from the status quo."

My only concerns about an "overhaul" are that I wouldn't want to see a loss of freedom as a result of it. WHO is doing the overhaul? Do they have similar values to mine?

It seems like things can go a whole lot of different directions in a revolution, and outcomes may be way way different from stated goals. I have a hard time trusting people in power, and that includes revolutionary leaders.

It almost seems better to just educate ourselves about economics, and prepare ourselves for the eventual crash by reducing our attachments to "stuff."

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#847 of 1188 Old 08-02-2007, 05:51 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 Lady Lilya View Post
As far as I know, child support amounts are based on ability. If the person ordered to pay has a low income, the amount ordered will be low.
So it's ok for the absent parents to not have to fully support(their fair share)the kids they are making, but it's bad for a mother(or other custodial parent) to need to get assistance when the absent parentisn't "capable" of doing their part?
I am so confused with this thread.
It is not based on low income, exactly. It is based on what both parents make, or what they are capable of making, and then a formula is used to determine amounts. If the custodial parent makes more than the non custodial than they have to pay a higher percentage of the support.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#848 of 1188 Old 08-03-2007, 07:34 AM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"But isn't this attitude at least partially responsible for the fact that our social security system is now "on its last legs?" I keep hearing how we don't have enough generation x-ers to support the baby-boomers who are now nearing retirement."

No -- the problem is that the baby boomers were unwilling (during their highest earning years, usually the 40s and 50s) to tax themselves at an appropriate rate to ensure social security. They decided to pass the burden on to the Gen-X'ers and their own kids so they could have their cake and eat it too. Additionally, the US has one of the highest proportions of under-5s in the industrialized world and your argument is better suited to places like Italy.

Besides -- if (as people here continue to state) the kids of the poor stay poor, they won't "save ss", because what they're contributing to the tax base will be much less than what they take out (even if they are nominally providing income via payroll taxes). The better solution would be to expand the H1-B visa holders (skilled workers) and encourage them to take on citizenship if you want to increase the workforce to increase payroll tax receipts by the government.
bczmama is offline  
#849 of 1188 Old 08-03-2007, 04:01 PM
 
Lady Lilya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,721
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
So it's ok for the absent parents to not have to fully support(their fair share)the kids they are making, but it's bad for a mother(or other custodial parent) to need to get assistance when the absent parentisn't "capable" of doing their part?
I am so confused with this thread.
It is not based on low income, exactly. It is based on what both parents make, or what they are capable of making, and then a formula is used to determine amounts. If the custodial parent makes more than the non custodial than they have to pay a higher percentage of the support.
I was not making a value judgment either way. Just trying to explain why some people noticed that amounts were so low.

------------

Food for thought:

The government was very much in favor of getting women into the work force in order to increase the labor supply and decrease wages. In the past, one blue collar working man could earned more in real-wages than today 2 working parents do.

Increasing visas to foreign nationals just increases the labor supply more. More people making barely enough to survive. Better to have tight supply of labor, so wages go up and people can have a livable salary.

Leigh, mama to Rostislav homeborn Aug 9 2007, and Oksana homeborn Feb 24 2011.
Lady Lilya is offline  
#850 of 1188 Old 08-03-2007, 06:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Lilya View Post
Better to have tight supply of labor, so wages go up and people can have a livable salary.
Great idea! It's good to know I'm doing my part by staying out of the workforce, since I have no desire to be there anyway.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#851 of 1188 Old 08-03-2007, 11:44 PM
 
rachellanigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Gilbert AZ
Posts: 268
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm a SAHM all with the help of my hubbie, but have a sister who also was a SAHM and received welfare, food stamps and attended school at the same time. I don't make any distinction from her choices than mine. She now has her LPN and will go on to get her RN soon and fully support herself. I don't judge her. I'm just glad she could breastfeed her daughter until 2 and cosleep with her for 5 years...all without AP books or newsgroups like this. She was an attached mom just on her on instincts and accord.
rachellanigh is offline  
#852 of 1188 Old 08-04-2007, 12:27 AM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelBee View Post
In MN visitation and child support have NOTHING to do with each other. Bio dads can have FULL visitation rights even if they do not pay a dime.
Don't you mean bio parents?

Visitation and child support should remain separate.
The noncustodial parent pays 20% of their income, typically, to the custodial parent.
That has nothing at all to do with visitation.
And the one should never affect the other.

Child support enforcement is quite good these days.
When I was a child, it wasn't so good.
My bio father still owes my brother and I $22,000 each.
Oh, what I would do with that money now!

If a NCP doesn't pay child support:
there is a lien put on taxes to pay off arrearages.
non-payment is reported to credit reporting agencies.
Child support is garnished from the NCP's wages if the NCP has not paid.

I don't see a problem there.
And I don't see how any of that has anything to do with visitations.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#853 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 12:51 AM
 
dallaschildren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,991
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread has been returned. We do not and will not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled.

Dallaschildren
dallaschildren is offline  
#854 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 11:28 AM
Banned
 
MamaNosBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
Every person deserves a fair, living wage for their job, reguardless of education, or how they got there. Who gets to decide that the doc that preforms a surgery is worth so much more than the janitor that cleans up after him/her? They need each other, and both jobs are important. I really wish people could look step back and look at our society as one big entity, and we really all do need each other.
About CS: I honestly don't understand how a woman can choose to procreate with a unemployable or low-earning person, or one who is an addict or simply unwilling to work....and then, upon disassociating themselves from that person, be shocked! shocke d! that the person with whom they procreated is....unemployable or low-earning, and addict, or simly unwilling to work. I don't get it.

Re: the quote above about who gets to decide that a doc who performs surgery is worth so much more than the janitor that cleans up after him.....Well, common sense and social safety decides.

A surgeon goes to school for 10 years, accumulates massive debt, has almost certainly had to put off having children while still in school or interning, accepts the responsibility for and is held accountable for nothing less than human lives every day of their career -- and lives with the stress of that --- depending on specialty must remain available and/or on call for despite being "off," must pay in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance annually, has sucyh unpredictable hours that it is almost incumbent that they have a SAH spouse if they want to raise their kids.

A janitor needs zero training, accumulates no debt in preparation for the job, has virtually no responsibility of any import thus little or no job-related stress, works a straight, dependable shift, has no work related expenses, can split child care with a spouse because of dependable hours.

Now, I'm not saying that I'd rather be a janitor than a doctor, not at all. But to pretend that they are equally demanding positions that incur equally demanding sacrifices is absurd.

Let's say we set a "living wage" at 30K per year. That's what the janitor makes. That's what the surgeon makes.

The surgeon will be living in a shelter, if he is stupid enough to go to med school at all, because 30K a year doesn't cover the INTEREST on med school loans. And frankly, anyone who is stupid enough to put themselves and their family in that position, when they have the choice to be a janitor, incur no debt, and be home with their family at 5 pm everyday, isn't someone I want operating on me or my kids.

YKWIM?
MamaNosBest is offline  
#855 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:18 PM
 
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 MamaNosBest View Post
About CS: I honestly don't understand how a woman can choose to procreate with a unemployable or low-earning person, or one who is an addict or simply unwilling to work....and then, upon disassociating themselves from that person, be shocked! shocke d! that the person with whom they procreated is....unemployable or low-earning, and addict, or simly unwilling to work. I don't get it.
I seriously doubt many of them are shocked. Continually disgusted, perhaps.

Quote:
Re: the quote above about who gets to decide that a doc who performs surgery is worth so much more than the janitor that cleans up after him.....Well, common sense and social safety decides.

A surgeon goes to school for 10 years, accumulates massive debt, has almost certainly had to put off having children while still in school or interning, accepts the responsibility for and is held accountable for nothing less than human lives every day of their career -- and lives with the stress of that --- depending on specialty must remain available and/or on call for despite being "off," must pay in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance annually, has sucyh unpredictable hours that it is almost incumbent that they have a SAH spouse if they want to raise their kids.

A janitor needs zero training, accumulates no debt in preparation for the job, has virtually no responsibility of any import thus little or no job-related stress, works a straight, dependable shift, has no work related expenses, can split child care with a spouse because of dependable hours.

Now, I'm not saying that I'd rather be a janitor than a doctor, not at all. But to pretend that they are equally demanding positions that incur equally demanding sacrifices is absurd.
Great, that works for the janitor analogy. However, surely you in your line of work are well aware that there are many jobs which require a lot of education and preparation, contribute a lot to society, and still pay absolutely SQUAT...

Social work, anyone? That's just one example and a very typical one... you generally have to have a masters degree to qualify for a relatively low-paying job (relative to the amount of education required) in the $30ies or $40ies.

So I hope you are not implying that the way salaries are structured is fair or adequate.
ShadowMom is offline  
#856 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:34 PM
Banned
 
MamaNosBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMom View Post
I seriously doubt many of them are shocked. Continually disgusted, perhaps.



Great, that works for the janitor analogy. However, surely you in your line of work are well aware that there are many jobs which require a lot of education and preparation, contribute a lot to society, and still pay absolutely SQUAT...

Social work, anyone? That's just one example and a very typical one... you generally have to have a masters degree to qualify for a relatively low-paying job (relative to the amount of education required) in the $30ies or $40ies.

So I hope you are not implying that the way salaries are structured is fair or adequate.
Oh sure, I can think of lots of jobs that require an investment that is, in some ways, outsized for it's financial payout. My own situation, for instance -- I don't maximize my income, I quit litigating so that I could do something that I feel is more useful. But I get a different payout, as does the janitor in the above scenario, and as do social workers (I assume).

I'm not sure what you mean by the way salaries are structured, though -- except for govt work, salaries are structured differently in most areas of employment.
MamaNosBest is offline  
#857 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:38 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
So it's ok for the absent parents to not have to fully support(their fair share)the kids they are making, but it's bad for a mother(or other custodial parent) to need to get assistance when the absent parentisn't "capable" of doing their part?
I am so confused with this thread.
It is not based on low income, exactly. It is based on what both parents make, or what they are capable of making, and then a formula is used to determine amounts. If the custodial parent makes more than the non custodial than they have to pay a higher percentage of the support.
Yeah, this gets me, too. At last count, my ex owes $32k in back support. He has paid less than $1k EVER. And that was all taken from taxes. While he is off basically scot free having fun, changing jobs when they take out the cs, there are people like me who cry at night because I can't afford dance or music lessons for our dc who desperately want them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
Don't you mean bio parents?

Visitation and child support should remain separate.
The noncustodial parent pays 20% of their income, typically, to the custodial parent.
That has nothing at all to do with visitation.
And the one should never affect the other.

Child support enforcement is quite good these days.
When I was a child, it wasn't so good.
My bio father still owes my brother and I $22,000 each.
Oh, what I would do with that money now!

If a NCP doesn't pay child support:
there is a lien put on taxes to pay off arrearages.
non-payment is reported to credit reporting agencies.
Child support is garnished from the NCP's wages if the NCP has not paid.

I don't see a problem there.
And I don't see how any of that has anything to do with visitations.
You are either entirely too optimistic and in the dark about how cs is actually run, or you live in the only state that enforces cs. Check out the Illinois Child Support Enforcement site. Whether or not you *say* you will take their tax returns, garnish wages, etc. does not mean you *do*. I was told there is nothing I can do about the cs I am owed because my ex gives the wrong home address, even if he shows up at court for other things, like his DUI and they have him there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaNosBest View Post
About CS: I honestly don't understand how a woman can choose to procreate with a unemployable or low-earning person, or one who is an addict or simply unwilling to work....and then, upon disassociating themselves from that person, be shocked! shocke d! that the person with whom they procreated is....unemployable or low-earning, and addict, or simly unwilling to work. I don't get it.
You do realize that not everyone plans on getting pg, right? And that people change? Like my mother who turned into a meth head and abused and neglected us? Or my ex who became a druggie and turned out to not be the person I remember dating for years?

Some people also do it just out of spite for having to pay cs or alimony, too.

I am just amazed at the classism and how people who have obviously never been in the position can judge.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#858 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:47 PM
 
californiajenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread is very interested and it has certainly given me many things to think about.

I think we should all step back for a moment and consider what welfare is to each of us. Is it for for a parent to SAH or only for when someone cannot work?

Do you consider Medicaid/Medicare welfare?
Food stamps?
Daycare payment?
Cash assistance?
Government housing?
Grants for college?

For me, I was assigning a different value to each of the above forms of assistance but I'm in the process of re-evaluating.

Also, what limits (time, $$, etc.) would you place on each of the above programs, if any? *Do this without judging people who use assistance OR assuming someone is judging you (collective) for using assistance*,

I think if we each examined WHY we feel a certain way about different types of assistance, we may come to a greater level of acceptance or realize what changes are needed in the system.

If I should start a new thread, please feel free to tell me.
californiajenn is offline  
#859 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
You do realize that not everyone plans on getting pg, right? And that people change? Like my mother who turned into a meth head and abused and neglected us? Or my ex who became a druggie and turned out to not be the person I remember dating for years?

Some people also do it just out of spite for having to pay cs or alimony, too.

I am just amazed at the classism and how people who have obviously never been in the position can judge.
Yes, it just sounds like more blaming the victim.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#860 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:53 PM
Banned
 
MamaNosBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 524
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnw826 View Post
You do realize that not everyone plans on getting pg, right? And that people change? Like my mother who turned into a meth head and abused and neglected us? Or my ex who became a druggie and turned out to not be the person I remember dating for years?

Some people also do it just out of spite for having to pay cs or alimony, too.

I am just amazed at the classism and how people who have obviously never been in the position can judge.
Um, my first son was an oops with a man that I had no relationship with to speak of, so I think I've been in the position to judge.

And sure, things happen, people change. If the post doesn't apply to you, great! But it DOES apply to other people, and yes, it makes me scratch my head. If one marries a person that, say, drops his minimum wage job to follow a ska band for a year living in a rusted out van, then how does it come as such a shock that he "can't" pay child support because this week he's living off the grid? Or can only be forced to pay $25 a week because he works a part time minimum wage job?
MamaNosBest is offline  
#861 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:54 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,780
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by californiajenn View Post
I think if we each examined WHY we feel a certain way about different types of assistance, we may come to a greater level of acceptance or realize what changes are needed in the system.
Yes, I agree.

Quote:
If I should start a new thread, please feel free to tell me.
I think what you're saying is totally applicable to this thread.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#862 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:56 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
I think having to pay more than $25 a week will certainly encourage him to get a better paying job.

Honestly, I would take that over the nothing we have though, or the security of him giving me over all parental rights (he refuses to see them anyways). But it really irritates me that if he did want to see them, that I would be forced to share custody when he refuses to even help me buy school uniforms.

I know lots of people who make bad judgement calls, but hindsight is 20/20, right? Just like lots of people you would never "expect" to make good, responsible parents do it everyday.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#863 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 01:57 PM
 
Godaime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Welfare to me is a safety net to help out people who can't work or who has just gotten laid off and needs to support a family for the time being but will find another job asap. If a person is capable of working he/she should not be collecting welfare forever. I would definitely like to see a limit/cut off on welfare for those who are capable of working. I like how CA has the 5 yr limit and I think that should be enforced in more places.
Godaime is offline  
#864 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 02:01 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,493
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godaime View Post
Welfare to me is a safety net to help out people who can't work or who has just gotten laid off and needs to support a family for the time being but will find another job asap. If a person is capable of working he/she should not be collecting welfare forever. I would definitely like to see a limit/cut off on welfare for those who are capable of working. I like how CA has the 5 yr limit and I think that should be enforced in more places.
I agree, but I think it also depends on your definition of what welfare includes. Maybe for TANF or something, but I know many capable, hard working (overtime every week) people who can barely scrape by once their job was laid-off or outsources, and who have the only other option of $700+ month insurance or medicaid.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
#865 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 02:59 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 Godaime View Post
Welfare to me is a safety net to help out people who can't work or who has just gotten laid off and needs to support a family for the time being but will find another job asap. If a person is capable of working he/she should not be collecting welfare forever. I would definitely like to see a limit/cut off on welfare for those who are capable of working. I like how CA has the 5 yr limit and I think that should be enforced in more places.
The five year limit is a federal thing, every single state has to follow that.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#866 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 03:07 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 MamaNosBest View Post
About CS: I honestly don't understand how a woman can choose to procreate with a unemployable or low-earning person, or one who is an addict or simply unwilling to work....and then, upon disassociating themselves from that person, be shocked! shocke d! that the person with whom they procreated is....unemployable or low-earning, and addict, or simly unwilling to work. I don't get it.

Re: the quote above about who gets to decide that a doc who performs surgery is worth so much more than the janitor that cleans up after him.....Well, common sense and social safety decides.

A surgeon goes to school for 10 years, accumulates massive debt, has almost certainly had to put off having children while still in school or interning, accepts the responsibility for and is held accountable for nothing less than human lives every day of their career -- and lives with the stress of that --- depending on specialty must remain available and/or on call for despite being "off," must pay in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance annually, has sucyh unpredictable hours that it is almost incumbent that they have a SAH spouse if they want to raise their kids.

A janitor needs zero training, accumulates no debt in preparation for the job, has virtually no responsibility of any import thus little or no job-related stress, works a straight, dependable shift, has no work related expenses, can split child care with a spouse because of dependable hours.

Now, I'm not saying that I'd rather be a janitor than a doctor, not at all. But to pretend that they are equally demanding positions that incur equally demanding sacrifices is absurd.

Let's say we set a "living wage" at 30K per year. That's what the janitor makes. That's what the surgeon makes.

The surgeon will be living in a shelter, if he is stupid enough to go to med school at all, because 30K a year doesn't cover the INTEREST on med school loans. And frankly, anyone who is stupid enough to put themselves and their family in that position, when they have the choice to be a janitor, incur no debt, and be home with their family at 5 pm everyday, isn't someone I want operating on me or my kids.

YKWIM?
This is all part of the screwed up system we have. If schooling was not so expensive(why do schools need to make a profit??!! Same for health care!!), if we valued people and their talents then the loans and debt would not even be a problem. If we put people through school to do these important jobs because the job is fullfilling and the person is skilled, then they would not need to make 100,00+ a year. They would be doing the job because it is what they love to do. Many, many docs go into the feild because it is so profitable. The bottom dollar.
I do understand in our current system, with loans being needed for higher education(and btw who are the majority of the people who get to go to college, to be docs, and who are the majority that stay around to be janitors), that they would need a higher income. I am saying the system is NOT working. And I don't believe you got the point at all that I was trying to make, and that is that all of our jobs are important, we all need each other to survive. If that janitor is not there to clean up after the surgery, then who is going to do it??? The doc who makes 100,000?!?! I very highly doubt it! We all need each other, and it is not ok to put a value judgement on the work we do, when it is all needed to make the world livable.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#867 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 04:39 PM
 
rutabega's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 98
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
why do schools need to make a profit??!!
Not all do. The institute of higher learning that employees me is a not-for-profit, and yet tuition is $13k a semester. And that is just tuition - it does not cover housing, food, and fees.
rutabega is offline  
#868 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 06:41 PM
 
ShadowMom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This article has some relevance :

"The war on obesity is a war on the poor"
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p.../article/3674/

Once you get to the part about working mothers, it gets interesting.

Some unfortunate working mom-hating going on in the article though. : I'm sure that SINGLE working mothers like me are even worse, but what else is new.
ShadowMom is offline  
#869 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 07:13 PM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"I think we should all step back for a moment and consider what welfare is to each of us. Is it for for a parent to SAH or only for when someone cannot work?

Do you consider Medicaid/Medicare welfare?
Food stamps?
Daycare payment?
Cash assistance?
Government housing?
Grants for college?

For me, I was assigning a different value to each of the above forms of assistance but I'm in the process of re-evaluating."

For myself personally -- I don't have a problem with "welfare" that I view as being an investment in the individual -- that is helping them move from a state of poverty or dependence to independence. That would include grants for college, daycare payments and (while someone is getting job or professional training things) like housing and food stamps. I also don't have a problem with assisting through food stamps/housing those families that are working and are still unable to meet the cost of living. However, as I don't view SAHM-ing as being an investment that moves someone from dependence to independence, I don't have an interest in subsidizing it.

------

Also -- what many of the previous posters don't seem to acknowledge is that you can't simply raise wages in a vaccuum. My understanding is that increasing labor costs have an inflationary effect -- while you may be technically earning more, what your $ buys remains unchanged.

Naturally, increased labor costs also encourage relocation of work (outside the US) and automation of work.
bczmama is offline  
#870 of 1188 Old 08-07-2007, 08:10 PM
 
siennasmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
If that janitor is not there to clean up after the surgery, then who is going to do it??? The doc who makes 100,000?!?! I very highly doubt it! We all need each other, and it is not ok to put a value judgement on the work we do, when it is all needed to make the world livable.
The surgeon can do the janitor's job. The janitor cannot do the surgeon's job. There's the difference.
siennasmom 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