Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Page 40 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2007, 09:54 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess I will be serial posting, because I am not smart enough to figure out how to do the multi quote.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's got to be a better way.
lolalola is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-10-2007, 10:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
Edited to add: For some reason I keep thinking of this scenario: A parent chooses to stay home on welfare for her children for all the benefits of SAH that we recognize, but then isn't self-sufficient, doesn't have the means to be self-sufficient in the retirement years, burdens the children with their care, AND causes the children to not be able to SAH with their own children because they must work to support grandma or grandpa. That makes me so sad.
I certainly wouldn't want my children to give up staying home with their children to support me -- and I don't see why they would have to. Dh and I do have a goal of getting our house paid off before retirement age. Other than that, we haven't been able to set aside anything for retirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't have all the answers. From what I've heard, even people who've prepared really well, sometimes have to go through all their assets and end up on state care. I hope that never happens, no one ever wants it to -- but still, I'm not willing to sacrifice my children's early years just to make a stab at preparing for things that seem impossible to prepare for.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:04 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycle View Post
I agree with you - I think being a mother is the most important job in the world.

Enjoy your coffee


I did enjoy that coffee (and a piece of cheesecake, too ).
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:08 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
mamamooI think sometimes the economics in the household should be questioned too. It is all a choice. If someone would rather go to work to sustain a certain level of living(two cars, big house, whatever)than to stay home with their child and receive state medical or food stamps then that is their choice, just like it is mine to choose to live at a lower level financially and get these benefits, so I can be home with them.
If someone is that unhappy(leaving a crying child, and crying themselves on the way to work) then they should reevaluate and try to find another solution. I have had to do that over and over.
Just because a person is planning on using the system to help them get by for x amount of years while their child is young, does not mean tehy are not going to be putting back into the pot later in life(or haven't already before having kids).


I think it is silly to say if everyone chose to stay home there would be no funding...it just wouldn't happen, not everyone wants or needs to stay home...
I agree. Not everyone would find it desirable to stay home anyway, so I think that argument is moot.
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:14 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Flower View Post
I am beginning to wonder what people think about self-sufficiency, self-reliance, independence, and also the role of public assistance or "welfare"?

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

Living, and being in the world is more about interdependence. ykwim?
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:18 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
you never did actually answer if you have children or not..
Actually, Godaime did state she does not yet have children.
She said she was raised as a single child in a low-income home, worked hard, graduated college, and is waiting for the right (financial?) time to have said children. Am I right, Godaime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
We actually want our children to feel welcome staying home as long as they want, and to feel they (and their families) can come stay with us whenever they need a chance to get on their feet.
That is exactly what I hope to do with our children, too.
The extended family is so important.
That is my goal, to someday own a house in which our children can live with us, and perhaps my grandchildren, too. Just one big, happy family.
Okay, so I'm guilty of idealism, too. :

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:20 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
Those are really interesting concepts. I'm going to think on them a bit more before I respond, but, I wanted to say that I think we place too much importance on "individuality" or "independence".
Living, and being in the world is more about interdependence.
You are so wise.
You just put into words a philosophy of mine.
I feel like the song "Imagine" from John Lennon will begin playing in the background at any moment.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:22 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamamoo View Post
I love you.
Awwww:

Thank you. I love you too.
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:26 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
You are so well-spoken, lolalola, and I love what you said here.
I feel the same way. Al Gore's plan, if a program such as that will ever exist in the US, IMO, is a wonderful plan.
5 years is so much better than what we have now and it acknowledges and gives credit (financially so) the work a mother does in her child's formative years.
It's obviously not a permanent, non-self-sufficient setup.
It's design is to encourage mothers to have the ability to raise their babes until school-age.



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

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

And, to the bolded, of course, you're not the only one!
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:28 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abi's Mom View Post
I feel like the song "Imagine" from John Lennon will begin playing in the background at any moment.

Did you read my last post to you? wierd.
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 10:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolalola View Post
My question to you, though, is, do you really feel that mothers are NOT under intense scrutiny already?
Yes, I know we are.

Quote:
A neighbour can call CPS for no real reason, with no real evidence of harm, and officals have the right to inspect your home, your children, and assess your performance.
I realize many parents think they have to let CPS workers into their home -- but, at least in the U.S., you actually don't have to let anyone into your home without a search warrant.

Mind you, if a CPS worker gets a call they have to investigate, and it's their job to investigate to the full extent that you let them. So, most won't tell you you have a right to refuse them entry. They'll often tell the parent, "I can just get a warrant and come right back, but it'll be worse for you if I do" --

but the truth is, family court judges won't issue a search warrant without there being strong allegations that your children are in imminent danger of death or severe injury.

Also, you don't have to answer any questions without a lawyer present. So if they knock on your door without a warrant, you can simply take their number and offer to call and arrange an appointment in a neutral location (don't bring your kids, but do secure and bring a lawyer).

You don't have to sign any papers, such as a care plan, and you shouldn't sign anything.

Caseworkers would rather you let them in without a warrant because:

1)It's unlikely that they can get one, and

2)The warrant limits them in their search. A warrant clearly spells out what the worker is authorized to search for, and they're not as free to just sniff around for whatever turns up. Without a warrant, they can rule out the caller's allegations and close that case, but still find other "concerns" and open a whole new case.

Yes, I've heard all the jargon about how they're over-worked and just eager to close your case -- but the truth is, if you fit certain high-risk profiles, they're actually inclined to grasp at anything to keep their foot in the door. It's easier to grasp at stuff if their search isn't circumscribed by a warrant.

A lot of the horror-stories I've heard, happened when parents didn't know their rights and let the workers in without a warrant, and even signed care-plans, answered questions without a lawyer present, and allowed access to their kids. From my understanding, this basically authorized the workers to keep coming back.

If a CPS worker claims they have to see your children to make sure they're okay, I think you can offer to have your doctor write a letter. Virtually any "concern" about your children's wellbeing can be satisfied with a doctor visit.

Well, obviously if someone makes allegations that you're beating your child to death, they'll have to see your child right away, but in those cases they're likely to show up at your door, first visit, with a warrant and a couple of police officers.

Sexual-abuse allegations might also be an exception, though I think some forms of sexual abuse are discernable through medical examination. I think I'd still hold out for a court-order.

Sorry so long-winded! My point is that there are laws in the U.S. to protect families from unwarranted searches of their homes, and unwarranted seizure of their children. Not everyone knows about them, but they're there.

I'm wondering if increased socialization would change this. Do parents in most socialist countries have to let CPS workers in without a warrant, just because someone called them in?

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
Old 08-10-2007, 11:53 PM
 
lolalola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I'm wondering if increased socialization would change this. Do parents in most socialist countries have to let CPS workers in without a warrant, just because someone called them in?
Good question. I'm not sure, I'll have to do some searching.

Thank you for that information regarding CPS, as well. I wasn't aware of the laws, and actually, I am currently looking for info to that end, with respect to Canada.
lolalola is offline  
Old 08-15-2007, 01:14 AM
 
dallaschildren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,609
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread has been pulled numerous times for repeated UA violations. I believe it has run its course and will now be locked.

Thank you.
Dallaschildren
dallaschildren is offline  
Old 09-01-2013, 09:28 AM
 
curebaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't have a problem with people receiving benefits to help their family stay intact; I do have a problem with people who continue to have more children in order to keep benefits, or lie about their marital status, etc., to do the same.
curebaby is offline  
Old 09-01-2013, 10:01 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow: I certainly didn't read the entire thread but 'Welfare' is only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families & you are not allowed to 'stay home' on it, you have to be working, in school, or in a job training program, with only rare exceptions. So just tell anyone who says that that they need to check their facts!
dinahx is offline  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:35 AM
 
sillysapling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 809
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Wow: I certainly didn't read the entire thread but 'Welfare' is only Temporary Assistance for Needy Families & you are not allowed to 'stay home' on it, you have to be working, in school, or in a job training program, with only rare exceptions. So just tell anyone who says that that they need to check their facts!

The OP specifically said "WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid"- none of these, in my state, are things that require you to work or look for work. TANF is for cash assistance, it's a different thing.


sillysapling is online now  
Old 09-01-2013, 11:40 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But TANF is the only thing that actually qualifies as 'Welfare'. That's what I am saying.
dinahx is offline  
Old 09-03-2013, 05:21 AM
 
sandra063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Becoz welfare mamas are bad bad eval oh noes!

sandra063 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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