Staying at Home "On Welfare" - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 04:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Maybe someone can clue me in. I've sometimes heard people speak disdainfully of sahm's who choose to apply for, and receive, taxpayer-supported benefits such as WIC, Foodstamps, and Medicaid for their families. I've heard this referred to as "staying home on welfare."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#2 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 04:03 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Becoz welfare mamas are bad bad eval oh noes! Hope that clears it up for ya. :
thismama is offline  
#3 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 04:27 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the Circle K
Posts: 6,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't subscribe to this belief but perhaps it is because everyone is entitled to send their child to public school regardless of resources but not everyone is entitled to WIC/Medicaid/etc. So if DH or I have a good income, we could never benefit from these programs where we could from public schools. I do have a lot of childless friends and it is a popular talking point to complain about paying for public schools because "they don't have kids and would never benefit from them" or "they don't want to pay for someone else to breed."

Anyway, people don't really understand the intangible benefits from these programs and still don't after they are explained to them. I just shrug and walk away.

ETA: Some people don't believe in paying for a group road system or sewer system. :
lalaland42 is offline  
#4 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 04:30 PM
 
skueppers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Posts: 1,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because most people in our society put public schools in the same category as roads. They're part of the public infrastructure we've decided as a society to provide for everyone's use.

"Welfare" programs, on the other hand, are perceived by most people as being intended as a "safety net" to assist those who are unable to make ends meet without them, hopefully temporarily. The idea being that people ought to be trying their darnedest to make as little use of these programs as possible -- and therefore, that SAH parents ought to be getting jobs in order to improve their families' financial circumstances in the long run, so they won't have to continue to accept public assistance in the future.

Which, of course, ignores the fact that decent childcare is difficult to find and expensive, thus making the idea that a SAH parent should enter the paid workforce a little less practical than many people seem to think.

Sonja , 40, married to DH (42) since 5-29-93, DD born 11-3-2004, DS born 1-18-2007.
skueppers is offline  
#5 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 04:41 PM
 
forthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Becoz welfare mamas are bad bad eval oh noes! Hope that clears it up for ya.( quote thismama)





: Welfare moms/families are convenient scapegoats. Most are living below the poverty line whilst recieving 'benefits' ( a paltry little handout to prevent us all starving after we have been robbed of everything else including our rights to a decent, liveable wage, imo they do owe us a living )Social, economic and political policies prevent many families from earning a decent wage and so the myths are reinforced time and time again that welfare recipients are living an easy life. Oh spare me! Welfare moms are called parasites, this conveniently moves the focus away from who the real parasites are. Families on a regular enough wage who do not qualify for foodstamps, medicaid etc then turn their angst onto.....guess who? yep welfare recipients instead of us all focussing on the real culprits of our crappy systems, who decides who wins and who loses,the governments, who have a vested interest in perpetuating this system and who incidentally are rolling in it.
AllyFolsom likes this.
forthebest is offline  
#6 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 05:10 PM
 
aprons_and_acorns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: by the beautiful blue hills of WI
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthebest View Post
Welfare moms/families are convenient scapegoats. Most are living below the poverty line whilst recieving 'benefits' ( a paltry little handout to prevent us all starving after we have been robbed of everything else including our rights to a decent, liveable wage, imo they do owe us a living )Social, economic and political policies prevent many families from earning a decent wage and so the myths are reinforced time and time again that welfare recipients are living an easy life. Oh spare me! Welfare moms are called parasites, this conveniently moves the focus away from who the real parasites are. Families on a regular enough wage who do not qualify for foodstamps, medicaid etc then turn their angst onto.....guess who? yep welfare recipients instead of us all focussing on the real culprits of our crappy systems, who decides who wins and who loses,the governments, who have a vested interest in perpetuating this system and who incidentally are rolling in it.

Yes!! You tell it, Mama.

My Etsy Shop
Acorn Dolls~Wool Felt Crowns~Children's Craft Kits~Shooting Stars~Dancing Fairy Rings~Come On Over and Play!
aprons_and_acorns is offline  
#7 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 05:25 PM
 
aprons_and_acorns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: by the beautiful blue hills of WI
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lalaland42 View Post
I do have a lot of childless friends and it is a popular talking point to complain about paying for public schools because "they don't have kids and would never benefit from them" or "they don't want to pay for someone else to breed."
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Sure, they might not have children of their own, but the children--and not just your own-- of today are the backbone of tomorrow. When these child-free adults and their peers are 70, 80, 90 years old they will need health care providers, food producers, truck drivers, store merchants, hair cutters, road workers, manufacturers, bankers, utility workers, janitors, news reporters . . . Being a parent is not a "lifestyle choice". Children need the support of their whole community, and when things come full circle it will be the younger generation providing for all of us.

We are planning to homeschool and I SAH (for now anyway), but I believe in quality schools and child care *choices* for all.

My Etsy Shop
Acorn Dolls~Wool Felt Crowns~Children's Craft Kits~Shooting Stars~Dancing Fairy Rings~Come On Over and Play!
aprons_and_acorns is offline  
#8 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 05:35 PM
 
GalateaDunkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because SAH is seen as a privilege for the parentto enjoy, rather than as something the parent does for the child. This has to do with larger cultural messages that SAH is of no benefit to the child or the larger society, but essentially a frivolous, irrational lifestyle choice which others shouldn't have to 'pay for.' (Although they have no qualms paying for day care while mom is forced to perform minimum wage labor.)

I believe that it is a human right for women not to be forcibly separated from their young children for any length of time. Phrased like that it's a bit of a no-brainer huh? But our society's blind worship of $$ keeps people from seeing economic coercion for what it is.
GalateaDunkel is offline  
#9 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 06:49 PM
 
gargirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I used to be a welfare mommy. I left my 1st husband when I had a 3 year old and 6 week old. I spent 2 years on welfare, WIC, medicare, foodstamps... all of that. I knew some people looked down on me but I just shake my head sadly for them and hope they never need it and are forced to eat humble pie.

I was grateful for and careful with every cent they gave me. I am deeply thankful to the state of Massachusetts and all those who's taxes helped us get by for those years. If they begrudge me any of it, well, the energy they put out into the world will come back to them in some sad form. There is nothing I can do about that.
gargirl is offline  
#10 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 06:59 PM
 
RedWine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalateaDunkel View Post
I believe that it is a human right for women not to be forcibly separated from their young children for any length of time. Phrased like that it's a bit of a no-brainer huh? But our society's blind worship of $$ keeps people from seeing economic coercion for what it is.
Amen.
RedWine is offline  
#11 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 08:51 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lalaland42 View Post
I don't subscribe to this belief but perhaps it is because everyone is entitled to send their child to public school regardless of resources but not everyone is entitled to WIC/Medicaid/etc. So if DH or I have a good income, we could never benefit from these programs where we could from public schools.
And yet -- does ANYone really know they're ALWAYS going to have a great income, or even the ability to earn money? I paid into these programs for years, never dreaming I'd ever be on the receiving end. Of course, now that I recall, I DID do my unfair share of judging. I guess what goes around comes around.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#12 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 08:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gargirl View Post
I knew some people looked down on me but I just shake my head sadly for them and hope they never need it and are forced to eat humble pie.
Good point!

It's funny, I started this thread just outraged about some comments I'd heard some others make -- and now a little reflection is making me remember my OWN pre-kids days.

I guess some of us just don't understand 'til we're in line for the humble pie.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#13 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 11:05 PM
 
mommy2abigail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So what? Are people wanting a single mother to go to work for $7 an hour, use most of that for daycare, and THEN apply for foodstamps? Just so that she can say she 'worked' therefore 'contributing' to society? Geez. I think (jmho, so dont jump on me, k?) that a mother staying home is contributing FAR more to society than putting her child in a mediocre, overcrowded, under staffed daycare. But again, who am I, right?
lsk555 and bohemianmama21 like this.
mommy2abigail is offline  
#14 of 1188 Old 05-23-2007, 11:48 PM
 
bekkers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I was just recently talking about this with dh! It came up b/c I had been chatting with my friendly neighboorhood grocery store employee. She talks about her family sometimes and I found out that she is on public assistance, and has 5 kids from various fathers, etc. Initially I was really upset b/c I thought "how could this nice woman have put herself in such a situation and just expect us (the taxpayers) to take care of it?!" but, the more I thought about it the more upset I got that the state was paying out i am sure MUCH MUCH more than she is making at the grocery for childcare for her 5 kids (I don't know what assistence progarm she is in, but her chidcare is from the state). It just seems so rediculous that she can't just stay home with her kids and save everyone $$ and do a better job taking care of them!
btw, I was tOTALLY one of the childless who was disgusted with breeders and having to pay for "their public schools!", now I am just pissed about paying for public schools b/c they suck so often and we won't use them anyway!
bekkers is offline  
#15 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 01:30 AM
 
lilysmama1124's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 788
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that people choose to focus on stories of mothers on welfare having more kids to make more money(yeah, like that makes sense). Not that I don't think that there are a small amount of people who abuse the system by being dishonest...The majority of people receiving assistance (myslef included) are just trying to do what is best for there children and families. We don't qualify for all of it but my dd has Title XIX and I had it while I was pregnant. My mom had a fit that I was using Title XIX and hired a doula. I had an intervention free birth. I wanted to be like "do you know how much money I saved tax payers by not involving an anastesiologist?" so yeah I spent the money on a doula! I think that those people who are working and maybe don't have as much $$ or as many things as they want need to have someone to blame. Unfortunately they ignore the fact that 1% of the poplulation has like 95% of the wealth so I am not the reason they are struggling.

Also I don't think people know that financial aid for college comes from the same fund as other welfare federally. You don't hear anyone complaining about college students using that program. For example my sister got a federal need based scholarship of several thousand dollars and my mom didn't say BOO but she just bought herself an IPOD. Why is that any different than me being on Title XIX and hiring a doula?

I believe I have a right to stay home with my child and she has the right to be with me, maybe if our society had better maternity and paternity bennefits like other countries woman and families wouldn't have to use publice assistance as much. If I did go back to work I would have to try and get a block grant for childcare which would probably cost more than what I am receiving now.
lsk555 likes this.
lilysmama1124 is offline  
#16 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 01:37 AM
 
ledzepplon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 5,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It makes no sense to me how we subsidize so many programs for working/student mamas (which I agree we should), but begrudge moms who stay home. It should be about the best interest of children, not about a couple extra bucks.

People have their priorities so backwards!

Wife to a wonderful dh and mom to four beautiful kiddos, dd (3/04):, ds1 (1/06), ds2 (10/08), and ds3 (7/10)
ledzepplon is offline  
#17 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 01:53 AM
 
Azuralea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,072
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilysmama1124 View Post
I think that those people who are working and maybe don't have as much $$ or as many things as they want need to have someone to blame. Unfortunately they ignore the fact that 1% of the poplulation has like 95% of the wealth so I am not the reason they are struggling.
I think you hit the nail on the head. IME the people who really feel bitter towards women who receive welfare to SAH are those who are just above them on the income scale. That means they do have a steady income, but it's very little, and their kids are in substandard care while they work. So they look at the SAHMs on welfare and think, "What, I'm struggling and sending my kids to a daycare I hate so you can have welfare benefits and stay with your kids?"

I believe their bitterness is misplaced given the wealth distribution in this country, but I don't blame them for feeling angry. Yes, it's the wrong target, but the anger is valid.

That's why I think that if we had high quality subsidized childcare available for all, there would be less resentment of SAHMs on welfare. If people weren't so worried about their own kids, they could be more generous to people on welfare.

As for public school, I believe public school (and financial aid) is perceived differently because there is a sense that society at large benefits from those institutions, whereas there is not the same feeling about SAHMs (wrongly, IMO).
bohemianmama21 likes this.
Azuralea is offline  
#18 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 03:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: the Circle K
Posts: 6,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bekkers View Post
btw, I was tOTALLY one of the childless who was disgusted with breeders and having to pay for "their public schools!", now I am just pissed about paying for public schools b/c they suck so often and we won't use them anyway!
Yeah, but our country is better off having them. Every country needs to have free education for anyone who wants or needs it, now if we would just respect education in general rather laughing at it, we might have a better system.

Speaking of education, I think part of the problem is politicians have completely blown out of proportion how much of the federal budget welfare comprises. Compared to the price of the war, welfare is the money thrown into the tip jar at Starbucks.

Sometimes I sit back and wonder why people don't rise up against the 5% of people with all of the money. Is it easier to pick on someone who has less status in their minds or are they just stupid?

Oh, and one of my friends who hates every government program makes over $300k between him and his wife. I tried to tell him that he wouldn't be making that money if there weren't jobs for regular people to prop him up, but he wouldn't listen. I blame that on Ayn Rand though.

And as for the most rediculous thing anyone has ever heard, I used to work for this guy in WA that lives in a town that has declared itself sovereign from the US. They don't pay property taxes, car tabs, they made their own drivers licenses... They repudiated every tie to the US. Just ask them about their SS#. That is some funny stuff.
lalaland42 is offline  
#19 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 04:49 AM
 
libranbutterfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommy2abigail View Post
Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard. So what? Are people wanting a single mother to go to work for $7 an hour, use most of that for daycare, and THEN apply for foodstamps? Just so that she can say she 'worked' therefore 'contributing' to society? Geez. I think (jmho, so dont jump on me, k?) that a mother staying home is contributing FAR more to society than putting her child in a mediocre, overcrowded, under staffed daycare. But again, who am I, right?
That is my feelings exactly. I COULD go work somewhere, but by the time you take daycare and transportation into consideration, I may bring home $20 a week. Why bother? Esp. when it is so hard to find decent childcare. I worked in daycares for 4 years before finally being able to stay home with my dd, and I am so much happier now. My dd is also much happier. I am currently looking for a night shift job, because that is really the only time I really feel comfortable leaving them

jeneca mommy to kamille, 6 lexi, 4
#3 due 2/28/12

libranbutterfly is offline  
#20 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 10:50 AM
 
SashaBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by libranbutterfly View Post
That is my feelings exactly. I COULD go work somewhere, but by the time you take daycare and transportation into consideration, I may bring home $20 a week. Why bother? Esp. when it is so hard to find decent childcare.

Ditto! But I didn't even take into account transportation and I was going to have to use my own car for work! It was a really good job and I was very excited about it until I did the math.
SashaBear is offline  
#21 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 12:32 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,742
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I qualified for medicaid BEFORE I had my son and while working 40 hrs/wk. But MN is pretty good about making sure people have medical coverage. I worked (and still do, a little) for a small business that just cannot afford to offer health insurance for its employees.

I once heard that WIC is as much a subsidy for the dairy industry as it is assistance for needy families. Don't know if that is accurate but it sounds feasible.

love.gif

pinksprklybarefoot is offline  
#22 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 12:37 PM
 
PreggieUBA2C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: foothills, farm, deep wilderness
Posts: 1,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Since we're on the topic I have a similar complaint. Here in our small town of just over 200 (gasp- it used to be 350), our only doctor is paid $250,000/yr to treat about 5 patients per day, for about 35-40 weeks/year. The great majority of patients come in for things like a sore throat and headache (I know someone who works in the clinic), the great majority of whom are not recieving any kind of assistance from the government. The dr is not lisenced to treat emergencies- we have medics for that. We have socialised health care and you bet I find it completely ridiculous that people are costing my dh his wages to inform the dr that they don't feel well, who could just as well stay home and drink a glass of water. So us, receiving child tax benefits are leeches, not 'taking care of ourselves', but the ones costing our small community $250,000/yr for total negligence of their own health, but are 'entitled' by the same system ARE 'taking care of themselves?'

Our child tax benefits are far less than most families receive in 'care' from physicians every year. Nice. Not to mention, when I was eligible for maternity benefits (which are under employment insurance here- and therefore another 'assistance program'), 4 yrs ago, the amount I received every month was within one dollar of the amount that was taken from my dh's (very meagre) cheques every month. Nice, again. I should mention that my dh was counseling youth in a custody rehab centre for drug and alcohol addicts- certainly not worth more than $13/hr, right? Who needs healthy, productive children who will be our next generation of well, everything? I write that with tongue in cheek as though our pay scale is measured by true need and value contribution to society... yeah right.

It's funny to think of what a 'drain' we are on the 'system' when, if it is actually calculated, we cost taxpayers a whole lot less than most two-income families whose $$ 'contribution' is less the more they make. Triple nice.

I think the whole thing is messed up and in my little ideal world, we would all spread out over the land, and homestead because crowding and industry are what allow for this situation to persist. Dh and I worked out that he works 15 hours/week just for food. 15 HOURS! I said, why don't you just get a part-time job for utility bills and stay home, fish and help me with the garden. It wouldn't take more than 15 hours per week and oh my! wouldn't you rather be FISHING than behind a desk being belittled and used? It would actually put us ahead if he stayed home much more and we just did more for ourselves!

We'd also be 'contributing' less though, of course... :

Well, I've been absent for 8 months, and during that time, it turns out that I have completely transformed. You are all precious. Thank you for being here and sharing your lives. You are truly a gift. namaste.gif Jan. 23, 2012

PreggieUBA2C is offline  
#23 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 01:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bekkers View Post
but, the more I thought about it the more upset I got that the state was paying out i am sure MUCH MUCH more than she is making at the grocery for childcare for her 5 kids (I don't know what assistence progarm she is in, but her chidcare is from the state). It just seems so rediculous that she can't just stay home with her kids and save everyone $$ and do a better job taking care of them!
I don't get that, either. I mentioned the same thing to a friend who worked in childcare, when she was explaining how now (under the plan started by Clinton's administration) single mamas have to work to get assistance. I'm like, "Considering the childcare costs -- wouldn't it be cheaper to just help the mom stay home?"

She said, "Yeah, but what about the work ethic?"

Which, again, stems back to the way our society places no value on mothering. We can only learn the "work ethic" by leaving our children and doing work we care a lot less about.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#24 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azuralea View Post
I think you hit the nail on the head. IME the people who really feel bitter towards women who receive welfare to SAH are those who are just above them on the income scale. That means they do have a steady income, but it's very little, and their kids are in substandard care while they work. So they look at the SAHMs on welfare and think, "What, I'm struggling and sending my kids to a daycare I hate so you can have welfare benefits and stay with your kids?"
Yes, I think you're right. In many cases, if these struggling two-income families went to being one-income families, they'd qualify for the same benefits. But often they'd never dream of doing that.

I guess from that vantage point, it's easier to understand why so many favor supporting childcare costs, even if it's more costly. For a mom who's doing what she hates in order to "stay off welfare," it's somehow easier on the mind to think of lower-income mamas being just as miserable, than it is to think of us lying in bed nursing our babies while working mamas are strapping their babies in car-seats and heading off to daycare at 7am.

You're right that the rage is mis-directed -- but it's still real and still valid.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#25 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 02:01 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilysmama1124 View Post
Also I don't think people know that financial aid for college comes from the same fund as other welfare federally. You don't hear anyone complaining about college students using that program. For example my sister got a federal need based scholarship of several thousand dollars and my mom didn't say BOO but she just bought herself an IPOD. Why is that any different than me being on Title XIX and hiring a doula?
Excellent point! And not just "anyone" can qualify for student financial aid, either -- so it's not one of those programs like roads or public schools that everyone benefits from. More "double-standards" at work here!

I totally agree with you about the doula. We had a homebirth with our second child -- and I also did all my prenatal care with my midwife rather than going to a doctor. The total cost (for prenatal care and birth) was $1,450. Well, we also purchased our own birth-kit; I think that was maybe $25.00 or so. So, for under $1500 we had a wonderful birth and a healthy (and un-cut) mama and baby.

We paid our midwife out of our income-tax return. We saved the Medicaid program a whole lot of money, simply because we didn't utilize it. If complications had occurred, we would have gone to the hospital, and applied for Medicaid after the fact -- but, as with the majority of births, it was totally straightforward and no medical intervention was needed.

Of course, with things being so tight for us, I can totally understand why some low-income mamas who'd rather do homebirth, go with the hospital birth because that's the only kind Medicaid will cover.

The government could save itself so much money if it would cover homebirths for low-income mothers who'd like to go this route. Could it be that Medicaid is somewhat of a subsidy for the medical system (just as someone said WIC is a subsidy for dairy farmers)? If it isn't, then WHY won't Medicaid cover homebirths? It would save them a tremendous amount of money ... so all I can think is that the medical system doesn't want to lose the government money.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#26 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 02:15 PM
 
*Aimee*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I think you hit the nail on the head. IME the people who really feel bitter towards women who receive welfare to SAH are those who are just above them on the income scale. That means they do have a steady income, but it's very little, and their kids are in substandard care while they work. So they look at the SAHMs on welfare and think, "What, I'm struggling and sending my kids to a daycare I hate so you can have welfare benefits and stay with your kids?"
After my father left and my mother was a very struggling single mother that didnt qualify for benefits, our neighbor stayed home with her boys by using the system. To this day my mother is angry at that woman for getting to garden all day while she had to work so hard (her words not mine). We had to let our grass die, get rid of our pets, and pick 1 meal a day that we could eat, because she didnt qualify for help. Meanwhile the family next door always had food, clothes ect.

I think it should be every mothers right to stay home with their babies. It breaks my heart when I think about all the moms crying while their babies were crying when they left them with me at daycare so they could get to work. That being said the difference between public schools and welfare is that everyone can use public schools. DH and I dont qualify for public assistance, but we could def. use it. We're paying off so many medical bills that we're drowning. A small bit of money, or most importantly medicaid would help SO much. It does bother me that I cant afford to take my son to the doctor when I feel I need to because we cant afford it, yet my friends on assistance take their children to the ER for fevers or ear infections.

I think while its important to make aware the misconceptions of "welfare moms" its also important to remember that those that dont meet the gov. qualifications arent always rich. I wish that something could be done to balance it out equally. I've said it before and I'll say it again EVERY child deserves medical care.
*Aimee* is offline  
#27 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 02:24 PM
 
babylove2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: East Coast
Posts: 331
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This post won't apply to long-term SAHM'ing, but just thinking of those who SAH for a few short years to avoid infant/toddler daycare.

This is yet another area where longer, paid maternity leave would help a ton!! Can't anyone of the powers that be see that nobody REALLY wants to leave their six-week-old (or less in some cases)? Why is that still the only option for so many?? If we could get paid to take a year or 2 off, then it wouldn't be "welfare," it would be a job entitlement. But with the options we have, many moms would rather take a government benefit than have to send such young babies off to [often unaffordable] childcare and get back to work right away.

But the argument against paid mat. leave is similar to that against welfare, "I don't want to pay people not to work." : As if mothering and sitting on one's duff were the same thing.
babylove2007 is offline  
#28 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 02:29 PM
 
mommato5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I will admit that I get angry at some moms on assistance because it really feels like they have it better than we do. We have 5 kids and are doing everything ourselves. Our kids see the dentist routinely. When one had to have oral surgery it cost about $700 out of pocket after insurance. Obvuiously we have 5 kids and don't just have that laying around. We had to do without things in order to save it up. Our son needs routine cardiac care but our insurance does not cover his DR. It has now been a few years since his last ECHO, which he needs every year. He has to do without. How fair is that?? I cannot afford to fork out 2K for the tests. Without proper care he could die. Meanwhile one of my friends with more kids is telling me about how sick her kids have been and she's so thankful medicaid picks up the tab because she wouldn't be able to afford it and she's planning on more kids.

Mommy to ds12, dd11, ds8, ds6, dd4, ^dd^ HB Loss, and dd 1
mommato5 is offline  
#29 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 03:11 PM
 
Aura_Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down by the River...
Posts: 7,244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First ~ thismama "oh noes!"


And, not sure if this has been posted but it's pretty impossible to receive welfare and not work since welfare requires that you go to work min. 30 hours a week, plus there are time limits and strict sanctions, so, if you don't meet the work requirements immediately / demonstrate that you're looking for a job, they kick you off the program and it gets EXTREMELY difficult to get any kind of assistance after that. (This also applies if you're with a lazyass partner or significant other who refuses to work... if they are sanctioned while you're still together, and then you split up and apply for aid it will generally be immediately refused. Yes, this happened to me. )

I HATE HATE HATE it when people talk about "welfare queens" who are "staying home on welfare" or "on the taxpayer's dollars" because it's just not possible.
Aura_Kitten is offline  
#30 of 1188 Old 05-24-2007, 03:33 PM - Thread Starter
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,775
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Aura-Kitten -- it sounds like the work requirement really screws single moms. Until my husband got a raise at work, we qualified and got foodstamps. Nothing was said about me working, because our youngest is under 5. So low-income, married mamas can get a little cushion if they qualify -- but single mamas are just screwed and have to work, regardless?

What if a single mom got some child-support from her children's father(s)? Could she qualify for section 8 housing, foodstamps, WIC, and Medicaid -- and then use the child-support to cover whatever else they needed? I know if the fathers work at all, these days the state will automatically garnish their paychecks if they refuse to pay.

So, does the government just absolutely refuse to let a single mom go this route? She just has to work no matter what?

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama 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