Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 10 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#271 of 792 Old 06-09-2011, 09:45 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post




 

It is possible that we use the words differently. My kids go to private school, but my car has 130,000 miles on it and it isn't getting replaced any time soon! I live in a lovely home, but it isn't huge and I clean it myself. We have to set our priorities with our money, but we have more than many people and feel very blessed. We aren't rich. 

 

On this thread other posters have said that I must be on assistance to hold my views, so in a way it's funny that you said I must be wealthy.

 

Apology accepted. Lets go back to being buddies. thumb.gif

 


OT a little but I think a lot of assumptions are made in general where money is concerned.

 

I travel regularly.  It is where we spend our money (I am middle class).  DS has friends who call him rich because we travel a lot.  I know their parents make as much money as we do.  Money and perceptions are interesting things.

 

purslaine is offline  
#272 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 03:35 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post



And what do you value more?  Your freedom (whatever the heck that means) or your food stamps?  (fwiw, I wish freedom and social programs did not go hand and hand  (and they do not always).

 

We would need to define freedom to discuss this properly.  Freedom to do what, exactly?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.

 

CatsCradle, I do understand that the German government probably does look at everything from a different vangage point -- but, then, I've heard that homeschooling is also illegal or, at the least, very difficult, in Sweden and some other parts of Europe. True, every country has its own unique history so maybe it's not fair to compare.

 

And yet -- people do compare the helps that are available to many European families with the welfare system in the U.S., Given our different histories, maybe those kinds of comparisons are unfair, too.

 


Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#273 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 05:57 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post





I value my freedom more than my food stamps. And the specific freedom I was talking about was the freedom to give my children a learning environment where they are free to pursue their own interests and learn in their own ways. To me, this means the freedom to homeschool -- or, in our case, to unschool.

 

 

 



There are several programs that help families with less money in Canada.  Child tax, mat leave, universal child allowance and any provincial money does not relate at all to HSing.  You get them if you qualify, they are based on age of kids  or income or both and that is that.  Really, it is a check that comes in the mail.  They determine if I get in based on my tax form.

 

I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work.  There may be loopholes and exceptions.  I doubt this is different in the USA.  As noted upthread -  USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#274 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 10:31 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post





I do not think you can be on welfare and HS because you are supposed to be looking for work.  There may be loopholes and exceptions.  I doubt this is different in the USA.  As noted upthread -  USA and Canada are huge places, anyone would need to check into their local regulations.  

 

 



I think what you are saying is that in families who don't have any children under six (or whatever age is considered "school aged" in the state or region in question), both parents need to be working, looking for work, or getting some sort of training or education in order to qualify for government assistance. Yes, this is true in the U.S., too. At least, I'm pretty sure that it's true for the food stamps program, but I'm not sure whether it applies to things like children's Medicaid or adult medical discounts.

 

Of course, if both parents are working regular day shifts, Monday through Friday, this would most likely mean that the children need to go to school. However, I can tell you that back when dh and I were both working (before his health worsened), we worked opposite hours so that one of us could always be with our girls. So we kept homeschooling, and, even with two incomes, we still qualified for food stamps (though we naturally got less than we do now), Medicaid for the girls, and 100% hospital discounts for dh and me.

 

I'm not sure if, by welfare, you mean only TANF and not food or medical assistance. If that's your definition, then maybe you don't even see the help that my family is getting as welfare. I think the rules are a lot stricter with TANF, but, then again, TANF is only a short-term thing whereas, at least in the U.S., you can get food and medical assistance for however long you qualify based on each program's criteria.

 

That said, when I spoke of the freedom to home school, I was talking about straight-across-the-board freedom for everyone in that country. It's my understanding that, in some of the countries that are touted as being the most family-friendly, homeschooling is either illegal or very difficult -- not just for poor families, but for all families residing in those countries. Of course, I do get what the other poster said about every government growing into its own way of looking at things based on its own unique history.

 

So maybe there's no real way to compare or to accurately predict what might happen here if we were to start having three years of paid maternity leave, and so on. Maybe this would have absolutely no affect on our freedom to let our children direct their own educations if they so choose. Or maybe it would. Who really knows?

 

 


Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#275 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 12:14 PM
 
mamayogibear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

 

I do find it appalling how many 'by choice welfare moms because I do not want my kid in day care" make condescending remarks about moms who work outside home.



 


be good family...

mamayogibear is offline  
#276 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 03:27 PM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

mamayogibear, I think the poster you quoted was talking about one-income families, such as my own, where one parent is working and the family receives things like food stamps and Medicaid for the children. In these cases, as long as you have one child under school age (in our case in Missouri I think the cutoff is age 6), it's permissible to receive these non-cash benifits even if one parent is not earning any money. I think that once all the children are old enough to be in school all day, both parents are expected to be working, studying, or looking for work for the family to keep getting food stamps. This may also be the case for the chidlren's Medicaid.

 

Welfare includes more than just cash assistance.


Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#277 of 792 Old 06-10-2011, 07:26 PM
 
joensally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda on the move View Post




Another poster said my views must be based on being wealthy, and I explained that they are based on having lived (and paid taxes) in both countries. Statistics from Canada aren't going to convince me that my real life experiences were different than they were!

 

I only skimmed your article, but it seemed to focus on federal income tax. The Provencial income tax in Quebec was the VERY highest taxes we've paved anywhere. It was equal to what we paid in Canadian federal tax. I've heard it is the highest in Canada. Additionally, we paid 15% sales tax, which also came as a huge shock.

 

Taxes vary in different parts of Canada, just as they do in different parts of the US. The cost of living varies widely as well within each country.

 

None the less, the higher taxes and less purchasing power of the dollars that were left was the difference between me being able to comfortable stay home with my kids, and me not being able to.

 

There are pros and cons to each system. There were some things I like about living in Canada, but the economic impact on my family wasn't one of them.


That makes sense.  I think it really does depend on where one sits economically. 

 

I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control.  Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada?  Those can off-set some of the tax burden.

 

Looking at OECD numbers, the US spends more per capita on health care than Canada by a long shot, at the government level and at the individual/employer level.  Yet, the life expectancy and child mortality rates are worse than in Canada.  I think it would likely be better to be poor in Canada than the US (ie no employer sponsored healthcare).  I don't have the energy to look up a bunch of numbers but it's when you look at the total tax burden + user fees + benefits in totality that one can conclude that for their circumstances one jurisdiction is better than another.

 

I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.

 

In principle, I would love to see more kids have a parent at home longer.  Tolerance for the stretching of the public purse that far would never happen though. 


 

 


Mom to a teenager and a middle schooler.

joensally is online now  
#278 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 03:33 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by joensally View Post



 


I don't believe that there's a single jurisdiction in N. America that doesn't have a work/school requirement for all welfare recipients, and some of them start years before school age.

 

 

 


As I keep saying, in Missouri, you can receive non-cash benefits and have one parent who's not working or going to school as long as there is a child in the home under school age.

 

About the lower mortality rates in Canada, I think this may be at least partially due to Canada's lower obesity rates. Are Canadians less likely to consume the standard American diet? I'm not saying that obesity accounts for the whole difference, since it looks like there's not any or much difference in childhood obesity, but I can't help wondering if there may be some other differences, such as in diet or lifestyle that impact health. Or, do you (whoever has an opinion) think mortality rates are pretty closely linked to medical care?

 

http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/united-states-vs-canada-which-has-the-lower-obesity-rate/
 

 


Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#279 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 12:07 PM
 
Lillitu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 583
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Mama to a 3 year old awesome kid, Rowan (aka Mister Boopy) and TTC another at 43!


fambedsingle1.gif gd.gifnovaxnocirc.gif vbac.gif goorganic.jpg

Herbalist, Acupuncture student, Mama, Blogger!

Lillitu is offline  
#280 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 12:11 PM
 
SuburbanHippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: finally out in the country
Posts: 1,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillitu View Post

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Just flag her posts.

 


Mom to REPlaySkateboard04HL.gif(12), bikenew.gif(7), energy.gif(5),  guitar.gif(4), baby.gif (born 7/8/11), dog2.gif, and chicken3.gif

 


 

SuburbanHippie is offline  
#281 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 12:39 PM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
She's gone, anyway - asked to have her account removed, so I doubt she'll be back.

Plenty of people take issue with welfare; there is, however, a way to argue your point respectfully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
#282 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 03:58 PM
 
azgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 386
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillitu View Post

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.


Can you define classist for me? I found the posts slightly offensive due to the aggressive style, but I didn't find them bigoted or classist. I'm not being argumentative or snarky, I want to understand your point of view. Could you point me to specific words or phrases that you feel where bigoted or classist?
azgirl is offline  
#283 of 792 Old 06-11-2011, 08:42 PM
 
Linda on the move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: basking in the sunshine
Posts: 10,517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joensally View Post
I don't know how long you were in Ontario, but Quebec is unique in Canada in terms of their structure, taxation and social control.  Were you eligible for any government transfers or subsidies while in Canada?  Those can off-set some of the tax burden.

 

 


yes, it is. It's one of the reasons it annoys me when people say "Canada does X" because so many things are at the provincial level. There isn't a "Canadian Health Care System," there's one system in Ontario, and one in Quebec, and one in Manitoba, etc. And they really differ in quality.  Americans tend to be very ignorant about Canada -- half of them don't know the capitol and couldn't tell you which provinces border the US, but they think they understand the health care system.

 

Canadians, though, are often ignorant about key aspects of what social supports to exist in the US, such as charity hospitals, clinics with sliding scales, etc. Some of the things people said to me when I was up there were pretty out there. We really aren't as barbaric as many Canadians have been led to believe.

 

However, Quebec is an excellence example of more social support, higher taxes, and more social control.

 

When we were living Quebec, the leading cause of death for adults under 45 was suicide. I don't know if that's related, but there seems to be a belief in the US that "if only the government did x, everyone could be happy," and that's clearly not the case. Quebec does everything, and a lot of people there are miserable.

 

We HATED living in Quebec. We ended up moving to Ontario and my DH commuted to his job in Quebec, which really screwed us up because we didn't qualify for anything from either province, and we paid Quebec taxes.

 

I would far rather the government let me keep my money and decide how to spend, than to take it away and then decide whether or not I can have it back. I like a capitalist system with floor. No one should go hungry. Everyone should receive basic medical care.

 

I am OK with the two tire system. The health care system in Quebec is similar to what poor people in the states get. I went to Canada a fan of universal health care, and came up thinking it meant "equally crappy care for all."  (Ontario's was better, but not in line with what we get in the US. Our providers in Ontario -- doctors and dentists -- were EXCELLENT. But the system isn't adequate for the number of people it serves. It just isn't.

 

We've lived in the UK as well as Canada, and we prefer living in the US.

 

 

 


but everything has pros and cons  shrug.gif

Linda on the move is online now  
#284 of 792 Old 06-12-2011, 07:12 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Quebec is different in many way than other provinces (I lived there for many years).  I do not like Quebec - much of what Linda said is very true.  I think the suicide rate is multi factorial.  

 

I have seen people on welfare in Quebec - and it is not pretty.  The government is so worried about fraud and people getting it when they do not need it that they are a total pain in the ass.  Lots of paperwork and rules.  People end up fighting with the government constantly.  Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption if you are on welfare that you are not very capable.  (My positive experience with welfare was in BC.  I have heard it is a little less positive now, but still. Yeah, B.C !.) The resources welfare offers are often borderline insulting - how to cook, how to budget, literacy.  I do know some people do not know these things - but there was no real retraining or anything similar for those that needed help finding a job, but actually know the food groups, thank you very much.  I also think it is common for governments to give people enough to survive (just) but hardly thrive.  Sadly I doubt this attitude is unique to Quebec.  

 

For individuals, I think it is a better to be off welfare.  It is not a great way of life and people who are not on welfare seem happier than those I have seen on welfare (although does welfare cause this, or are the issues that cause people to need welfare at the root?  Both, I think)

 

However, individual needs are not the same as provincial or state policy.  We need to feed and shelter people while they figure out how to get off welfare.  We need programs that support people in getting off welfare.  We need to figure out ways to break the poverty cycle/generational poverty.  To a degree we need to accept that poverty is always going to be with us.  We should not punish children for their parents being on welfare (no matter how they ended up on welfare).

 

OT - I have also had great medical care across the board in Ontario.  There can be long wait times, but I have never had trouble getting timely care in an emergency.  Quebec can be good or bad - but it is much less consistent in its care.  Whenever we visit Quebec we joke that if anyone gets sick we are driving to the nearest town over the Ontario border.   

 

And lastly, I think much of Canadians and Americans ignorance of each is thanks to the media, and extremists on issues, who paint the other country and their ideas as demonic.    

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#285 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 04:56 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Yesterday I had a great time reading John Stuart MIll's essay "On Liberty." (You can read it online here http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm if you want).

 

It really got me thinking about the different views we all have about the role of government in the life of the inidividual. I realize Mill would probably be appalled that there are now families, such as my own, receiving government assistance with things like food and medical care.

 

I think we are all really different in terms of where we draw the line on these things. For example, I've developed a personal code wherein, if I decide to help someone, I just help them and I no longer attach myself to what that person does with my help or whether that person is living as I think he or she should be living. It's so much less stressful that way, and I feel so much freer now that i realize I really do have a choice about whether to do things for people.

 

Of course, in the case of welfare, I realize the individual taxpayers don't have that moment by moment choice about where their money goes. If I were in a higher tax bracket, maybe I'd be better to understand the angst that some people feel about  their hard-earned taxes going to help families like mine. As it is, I've paid relatively little in taxes and, well, dh and I are usually in a big hurry to file our returns because of the huge chunk we currently get back every year...

 

So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides  (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.

 

But, about Mill, the thing that really impressed me was what he had to say about determining the extent to which the opinion of the majority should be allowed to constrain the individual. He felt that this should just be limited to cases of self-defense or defense of people who are being harmed and can't defend themselves.

 

And, of course, we all draw the line differently when it comes to defining harm and determining who we think is being harmed. For example, some in my family think that dh and I are harming our girls by unschooling them. Thankfully, the government in our area does not currently have much jurisdiction over homeschooling families, save for those cases in which social workers feel that there are signs of possble abuse or neglect. But then, I imagine social workers are individuals, too, and though they have some guidelines, there probably are some cases where one social worker might see a need to get involved with a family but another social worker wouldn't.

 

I just hope that all social workers have read Mill. :)

purslaine likes this.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#286 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 08:11 AM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 11,039
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillitu View Post

Lynnsg's posts are offensive and classist- in other words, bigoted. Where are the moderators in all this? I certainly hope she got a warning for making bigoted remarks against the poor. If she had targeted people of color or gays the issue would be truly obvious- but because Americans try really hard not to talk about class, she gets away with this crap? I am formally asking the mods to talk to her about her offensive remarks in this post.



 

The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post. 

shantimama is online now  
#287 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 08:32 AM
 
chaoticzenmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shantimama View Post





 

The moderators do not read every single post on MDC. When you see something that you believe violates the User Agreement please bring that specific post to the forum moderator's attention by clicking the red flag report button found at the bottom of every post. 



In this case, I've handled the situation.  I felt like the earlier offensive comments added too much to the conversation to pull it easily, so I left it.  If I had seen in in the first few minutes, I would have pulled it, but since many people put thoughtful posts afterwards, it didn't seem fair to remove it all.  A lot of it has actually been removed.


Our children make a study of us in a way no one else ever will.  If we don't act according to our values, they will know.~Starhawk Rainbow.gif  New  User Agreement! http://www.mothering.com/community/wiki/user-agreement

chaoticzenmom is offline  
#288 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 08:52 AM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

 

 

So I'll admit that I kind of lack empathy for the people who earn enough to actually have to pay a lot. And I'll admit that a little more empathy on both sides  (or every facet) of this issue would make for a much more respectful discussion.

 

Yes.  I have felt a lack of empathy for whining (judging perhaps, but it is how I felt) from wealthy folk on taxation, welfare, etc.  I have mellowed a bit as I age, but I still have no issues with any of my tax dollars going to social spending.  Sometimes I wish the money was spent differently within certain social spending programs, but I have no issues with it in general.  

 

Someone up tread mentioned classism and I wonder if this plays into it? Painting in very broad strokes - but different classes complaining about the other classes and how the government spends on it does look like classism.  

 

I think it is the governments job to try and meet the needs of its people - of all classes.  I do tend to think that because a) rich people have more power and influence and b) most government officials come from wealthy-ish backgrounds, that policy might sway slightly in favour of the rich.  Add in that some policy that helps the wealthy helps everybody (example - low taxes attracting businesses) and it is a whole big ball of wax.

 

 

 

 

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#289 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 11:55 AM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.

 

 

Linda on the move likes this.
Alenushka is offline  
#290 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 12:49 PM
 
purslaine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

I am not wealthy. I am lower middle class. I do not own a house snf never will. I pay taxes and because I am wage earner ratehr than an investor I pay a lot. Yes, I have right to whine. Middle class is...in the middle and get very little benefit for paying taxes.

 

 



You can whine if you want to orngbiggrin.gif  Indeed, me whining about wealthy whining is still whining.

 

I think mammal mama hit it on the head that empathy is what is needed.

 

I agree the middle class (particularly the lower middle class) has it rougher  financially than many others.  

 

 

purslaine is offline  
#291 of 792 Old 06-13-2011, 03:37 PM
 
aparent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 108
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

 

   I feel that as the other children of the world will

be my children's friends, countrymen, coworkers

and world citizens then my parenting should embody

a concern for all the world's children and if any parent

has a situation that allows them more time with

their children or less financial stress which lets

them parent more effectively than that's great.

I hope that efforts would be made so that more

and more parents are freed to focus on the next

generation as we all focus not on the gross national

product (GNP) but more and more on great national

parenting.


"Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make

   for our children." ~ Tatanka Iotanka

 Join and help start the nonprofit organization "World Parent"

   www.worldparent.org

aparent is offline  
#292 of 792 Old 01-17-2013, 10:25 AM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

If someone lacks skills or opportunities in their region to get a job that pays a wage that will cove living expenses and day care, I am happy to cover welfare costs for them so they can stay home and not starve.

 

However,ifis someones has skills, education and job available that will cover their living expenses and day care.... I am not interested in paying for their lifestyle while I am  working, paying day care and then doing all that mother do at home. I  my eyes it is a  fraud.

 

If you do not feel like working, but actually could, then stay home on your own dime. It is not my job to subsidize you lifestyle. 

Alenushka is offline  
#293 of 792 Old 01-18-2013, 04:08 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.

 

Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.

 

I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.

 

It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.


Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#294 of 792 Old 01-21-2013, 10:11 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,952
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't mind.  There is not enough welfare available for it to be "milking the system" or anything.  It's a very uncomfortable lifestyle, and welfare will not truly pay your way enough for a mom to just stay home.  If it's a couple and one is working, I am glad to help the other stay home because I think that they are doing enough if the child(ren) are young and one parent is fully employed--the investment is usually worth it--worth it often enough for me to gamble on it anyhow.

 

And having children with moms when young is valuable to society.  I hop they are being nurturing moms, anyway.  But it's not my business to judge.  I just think that taking good care of young children benefits society.  Being a mom is very important work, and I hate poverty to take away from a young vulnerable mom her feelings of connection with a young baby when it is maybe the only thing of value in her life t that time.

 

I was once a single mom and worked as a nanny five days a week part time to pay rent, my young (1yo) daughter was with me, and I also received welfare at that time without which I could not have made it work or been with my daughter.  It would have destroyed me to be forced out of that situation that preserved our relationship.  I would have been stretched near or beyond my breaking point and become a much worse parent without that temporary safety net.  It has been years since I received any public assistance, and for much of that period we've still qualified with our low income.

 

I make it a habit not to judge people who receive public assistance.  I have no idea how long they have received or will receive it, what their options are, and how well they would manage or how their children would do under the pressure of a different situation where that assistance weren't available.

 

I fully value a mother's work in caring for her own children.  That means I find it heartbreaking that so many mothers struggle with poverty and the shame of receiving public assistance in order to do what they know is right.  Money is only one ingredient of family stability.  Time and attention are essential and I know that I fall apart with a 40-hrs schedule plus parenting responsibilities--during the time I have I end up a terrible mom just trying to recover from that exhaustion.  I really don't mind contributing to the livelihoods of families in tenuous situations.  A stay at home mom brings a great deal of stability to a family on the edge of survival, and that means a better future for everyone. 

 

Her labor is NOT more valuable to society as an employee than with her children.  Employment is an acceptable choice as well.  Her choice.  There is no incentive money-wise really to stay on welfare for most people.  That means she is doing it as a compromise, and it is not easy to choose it either.

 

And to the PP who said that she doesn't think nonparents should have to contribute I think that is tragic.  When we are elderly we will be cared for by other people's children who have become doctors and farmers and service providers of all sorts.  If you haven't faced the work (UNPAID WORK) of contributing to the childrearing burden thus doing your part in raising future citizens, maybe you even owe those who are doing it a little bit more.  :)  Because our children will take care of you.


ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)
 
 

littlest birds is offline  
#295 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 02:26 AM
 
bmcneal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: in my own little world
Posts: 2,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannah32 View Post

I think the whole reason why the American way to doing things doesn't work is because those who do work and pay tons of money for private health insurance can look at those who stay home on Medicaid and food stamps and be like: "why can't I get some help." 

 

I refuse to play that game. I support paid parental leave for all and a better social safety net for all, including single-payer health care. 

 

I agree. I'm to the point where when I hear someone middle-class complaining about how people getting assistance are so "lucky" or "lazy" and "why can't *everyone* get help?" I want to say, "Okay, let's do it this way. The $100/month that I am/was *so* lucky/lazy to get, that is limited to 24 months in a lifetime, go ahead and use it. You can have it, right now. But when you lose your $32/hour job, and you are too "lazy" to be able to make your bills or whatever, *sorry* you wanted your help right then. Used it up. Never, in my entire *working* adult life, even with DF and I both working, have we even come *close* to $32/hour, even combined.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by treeoflife3 View Post

If having your tax dollars go to welfare bothers you then don't worry.  My tax dollars are going to welfare.  Yours are just going to roads and schools.  I'd prefer mine to go to welfare anyway.  Who, knows, I might need it someday.  Better to pay in now so I don't feel guilty later.  Problem solved.

 

bow.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azgirl View Post

Just night after night of people buying booze and cigarettes along with food with their food stamp card. People with fresh tattoos using food stamps. I am pretty shocked at people that think it's okay for people to get any assistance and also buy 100 dollar jeans. It's shocking. If you don't think that is abusing the system, then I guess I see why you don't think most people abuse the system...

 

So what you're saying is, if you get assistance, you don't deserve anything nice, and every bit of money you *do* have should *only* go to necessities? Now don't get me wrong, I think that $100 for a pair of jeans is frivolous, and I would never do it, but I don't think it's fair that if you are needing assistance, you should only have the bare minimum, and never anything nice. When you are having hard times, that is *especially* the time when I think you should do a little bit of something nice for yourself/your family. It keeps you from falling apart.

 

I don't think it's fair to call people who are angry about this issue "trolls" it is hard to remain respectful sometimes if you work tooth and nail for what you have while others have better stuff on your dime. Isn't it perfectly reasonable to be upset by that???? Explain how you address the inequity inherent in a working person deciding not to have more kids than they can pay for while someone receiving assistance chooses to continue having children? Or how it must feel to be working at 1 am at Walmart while yet another person with a brand-new iPhone uses food stamps (or card as it were) to buy groceries? It does explain the perplexing, to some, fact that so many struggling, working-class people are politically conservative.

 

How do you know the iPhone wasn't a gift? How do you know it wasn't acquired before whatever happened that they needed the assistance?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamayogibear View Post

The TANF program really pisses me off. You have to sign up when you dont' have a job or you have an income that disqualifies you. So you have to be jobless to get in the program. But while jobless you have to send your kids to a government funded daycare for at least 25 hours a week. No matter how much job searching you are not going to be in interviews for 25 hours a week! You can't be a stay at home mom and on TANF they make you leave your kid at a state run daycare for at least 25 hours a week and tried to make me leave my baby for 32 hours!!!

I did TANF for one month in April because I was looking for a job as a CNA and couldn't find one. I had two interviews a week about an hours each. So while my kids had to be in daycare all day everyday I had intereviews for two of the twenty-five hours! The rest of the time I was job searching online, calling places emailing my resume etc...

The worksource program seems like a sham to me, you have to go to their office every day when you could be doing something useful instead and you have to leave your kid in a state run daycare all day everyday. It seems like the only jobs that the TANF program helps create are ones in the over croweded state run daycares. I've had an interview since I dropped out of the program and had my one friend watch the kids. It sure seemed better than being away from them for 25 hours a week just to go to an interview!

Needless to say I've dropped out of their program, they can keep their three hundred dollars a month. I'd rather have no money and time with my baby! Aside from a few bills we don't have any expenses, we cloth diaper and use hand me downs for clothes and toys... I've found a work at home job but I'm not sure if it's a scam or not but hey I'd rather work online for ten hours a week and not get paid than be away from my kids all day and not get paid!

Maybe once I find a job but haven't started working I'll sign up for TANF again so I can afford to send my kids to daycare while I work (I doubt my income will be over the price of two kids in daycare though).

End of vent about how much TANF pisses me off.  Thanks for listening!

 

It must be different in different states, mamayogibear. I didn't have to send my kids to daycare, they stayed home with my mom. I didn't have to go to worksource program every day, I just had to go in every week and turn in my paper from filling out applications. I agree, though, that worksource didn't do anything for me with regards to finding a job. Their "assistance" at least from my experience, was directing me to indianacareerconnect.com and me, by myself, going through and filling out applications, which was the exact. same. thing. I was doing at home, from the exact. same. website...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonfirefaery View Post

Regarding the $100 pair of jeans, if I'm poor and collect welfare, and my loved one sends me birthday money, or I save $10 a week for 10 weeks, or I actually have $100 leftover after bills for once in my life and need a new pair of pants for work, then I damn sure have the right to buy those jeans. Poor people have the right to a few nice things; it's not like you don't deserve to have anything but the bare necessities ever if you're receiving help...what a ridiculous notion. Poor people should do nothing but be poor, I guess *eyeroll*

 
This is a *very* common attitude I have come across. To the extent of, "You shouldn't be able to buy certain foods with food stamps! If you want that, get off your arse and get a job, just like I did!"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamayogibear View Post

Here in the US this is not possible. To get cash assistance you have to put your kids in daycare for at least 25 hours a week so says the paperwork but they made me leave mine in daycare for 32 hours a week. It was very difficult to spend that much time searching for jobs since there just aren't that many here. I don't see how someone could be on welfare and stay at home with their kids, it's not possible. I would love to be a mom that works outside the home and will be putting my kids in daycare in September when I have a job lined up in another town. But for now there is no point in my leaving my kids in a state run daycare for 32 hours a week while I look for a job that does not exist that I would only work at for three months...
 



 

 

I don't know what state you are in, mamayogibear, but in Indiana, I did not have to put my children in daycare at all when I looked for work. I just had to spend 20 hours/week filling out applications, and either print out the "congratulations, you've completed the application" page if it was online, or copy the application (if it was paper copy), and turn that in with a paper that said what day I looked for work, from when to when did I work on what application, etc.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post

Wow! How interesting that this thread has revived after all this time! Honestly, Alenushka, I can't remember if this was talked about upthread -- but I think the only case where a mother can be drawing welfare with no one in the home working is in the case of TANF. And there are strict time limits on that. I think it's for women in crisis.

 

Most welfare cases these days involve households where at least one person is bringing in an income, and the family is using government assistance programs like Food Stamps and WIC to help with their grocery bill, and Medicaid to cover their children's medical needs. And In dh's and my case, I think I've already mentioned that we currently still get a 100% patient discount for any medical care he or I receive at one of our local hospitals. I'm not sure whether that will change in the near future.

 

I can see how it might be stressful for a family that makes a bit more than we do and doesn't qualify for any assistance with food or medical expenses. I can see how that slight difference in income between theirs and ours would get quickly eaten up by our nation's rising food costs, and by all the co-pays and so on that they'd have to pay for every time they took their kids to a doctor, or needed to see a doctor themselves.

 

It seems like the middle class does indeed get caught in the middle -- too rich to get any help, too poor to really be able to easily cover all the rising expenses of living and raising a family in America. I hope the current tax changes will be of some help for ALL the families that are struggling right now.

 

The limits here (Indiana) for TANF were for 24 months in a lifetime. It wasn't/isn't just for women. I'm not sure what the requirements/regulations are, but we were DH, DD, DS, and I.

 

We have used assistance before, and while I didn't feel guilty when we started using it (We were homeless, DH, DD, and I, after DH and I both lost our jobs), between the case workers "And how long has your husband been laz- I mean, unemployed for?" and the looks and comments we got from people at the grocery store... sometimes I felt like the scum of the earth. We are receiving food stamps now, and the kids and I get medicaid, but that wasn't how we wanted/planned for it to be. I was working a *very* nice job, albeit very physically demanding, and was planning to work until at least middle or end of February before going on leave for pregnancy, but I was being harassed at work, and when I went to Human Resources to get it resolved, they pretty much told me I should have expected it, and that it was my fault, and I would "get used to it in time." When I realized it was affecting not only my mental health (I was having anxiety attacks almost every day while getting ready and driving to work), but also my physical health (my blood pressure was reading around 160/110 the entire time I was dealing with the harassment), I realized I couldn't work there anymore. I have been looking for part-time work, something short-term, that would supplement what DF makes until April, but no such luck thus far, and we're struggling. While he is making more than he ever has in his life, I was the primary income, making almost twice as much as he does, so now, we're down to less than half of what our income was. I don't feel quite as guilty getting the assistance now, but I still do. I'm really only doing it for the kids. After the baby is born, I am going to go back to school, to get my CNA certification, then when the baby is old enough to not need me all the time, I'm going to look for work doing in-home care. I don't intend to be on assistance forever. I didn't even want to be now.

 

This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.


sleeping.gifMama to DD dust.gif(12.2005), DS1 sleepytime.gif (01.2009), DS2 babyboy.gif (04.28.2013) with DH heartbeat.gif04.10.13!!heartbeat.gif namaste.gif

bmcneal is offline  
#296 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 04:51 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

bmcneal, worrying over other people's opinions is so totally not worth it! Please do yourself and your little ones a favor and quit fretting over what people who obviously have too much time on their hands are saying about things they really know nothing about!

mamamoo and captain optimism like this.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#297 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 07:01 AM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcneal View Post

This whole thread is making me cry, both because I already feel weak for quitting my job, when it was a really good job, I feel like I should have sucked it up and gotten on with it, or whatever, and hoped nothing bad happened, and because I already felt/feel like a failure both for never being successful in college any of the times I tried, and for having to get *back* on assistance, when I finally thought we were finally able to do for ourselves, and the whole attitude some people have towards people who have or might have to use assistance.

hug.gif

Some people live very fortunate lives. How lucky for them, how wonderful, that they will never need to know what it's like to make the choices you've had to make. I don't wish anything bad on anyone but I know it's really hard to read some of the posts here & just look past the ignorance & assumptions. And sometimes I wish I could live in that same bubble they do. But we are stronger, more understanding, more compassionate people because we've had to make these tough choices, because we've had to humble ourselves & let go of our pride, because we've had to ask for help. This thread makes me so sad too, and I actually just typed up a lot of my (sad) story but then erased it, because mammal_mama is right, other people's opinions are not worth it, why open myself up to more criticism here? You did what you knew you needed to do for your health, your family, and the baby you are carrying. You deserve better than the hand you've been dealt, and I hope you can let go of any guilt or shame because it's not your fault. If your family is surviving, and you are all doing the best that you can given your circumstances, then you made the right choice.
mamamoo and littlest birds like this.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#298 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 07:55 AM
 
mammal_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Urban Midwestern USA
Posts: 6,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

You know, I've just realized that the initial theme of this thread was whether WE (meaning collective society) should be doing more to support mothers so that they can stay home (I know the original title didn't say "more;" however, in the U.S. at least, there really isn't enough support available to provide for a stay at home mom and her kids, so for it to be that kind of support, we'd have to be doing something "more" than we are now)...

 

Anyhow the theme is what WE (collective society) should be doing to help those less fortunate who are raising families, but we have somehow managed to turn it into a thread of judgment, for or against, people in poverty.

 

None of us is really in a position to judge another human being. We can only look at our own actions (as an individual and as a society) and determine whether we can and should be doing more for others. it's not about whether other people are living as we think they should. It's about whether WE are living and behaving towards others as our hearts tell us we should. 

 

And crunchy_momm -- great post!

journeymom likes this.

Susan -- married unschoolin' WAHMomma to two lovely girls (born 2000 and 2005).
mammal_mama is offline  
#299 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 08:06 AM
 
mamamoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Eastern WA
Posts: 12,741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The support on this thread is beautiful. I agree with mammal_mama and crunchy_mommy. bmcneal, be glad that you are not so prideful as to reject help that is needed for your family to make life a little easier. I think it's a sign of strength and courage to  accept help despite the backlash received when you get assistance. You are choosing what is best for your family, that is what is important. Thank you for speaking up. I left this thread a long time ago after basically being told it was my own fault I was in the situation I am in because the poster looked at my signature and decided I had too many kids. I know what people think, and I have finally gotten to the point where I don't care because they don't know me. They don't know my situation, or what the details of my life were before I got divorced. I think thier judgement of me only reflects thier own ignorance and intolerance. Good luck mama!

journeymom likes this.

Single mama to Alex(13), Maddy(12), Sam(8), Violet(6), and Ruby(3). fly-by-nursing1.gif
mamamoo is offline  
#300 of 792 Old 01-22-2013, 11:45 AM
 
Alenushka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CA
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I had jobs I did not like but they paid the bills  and medical insurance and I stuck with them. Yes, I feel good about doing that, and being a role model for my kids and not taking money for taxpayers that can be sued for someone who has not  job available. So, I stand my my words. I support welfare when it is a necessity but not when it is lifestyle choice.

One_Girl likes this.
Alenushka is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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