Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 15 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#421 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 03:21 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm going to try to answer the points above.

The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.

I think organics should be covered. I also eat potato chips, because some days that's my only fat source, so I'd hate to exclude snack foods, but I don't see the benefit of Doritos. So food restrictions are difficult.

Folks who make more money can afford accountants to help them find ways around paying more in taxes. Those loopholes should be closed. Maybe interest paid on the primary residence can be declared, but an R that's not your primary residence or other houses are not deductible. (I've never had a second house, so I don't know if I'm right about this, but my sister had a house and RV and declared the interest on both.) I'd have to make myself more knowledgeable about tax deductions to answer this one more intelligently.

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!

Yes, I think the current levels of who qualifies is too low. I hear this complaint from others, that the cost of living has gone up, but not the qualification levels.

Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.
pek64 is offline  
#422 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 03:35 PM
 
kitteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 1,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I still think home inspections would be problematic. We have nicer looking home furnishings, including a leather couch and matching bedroom set that my inlaws mostly paid for. We also have two flat screen tvs, dvd players and cable boxes with dvrs for both. We scrimp in other areas to make these expenditures fit within our means. Of course, my family isnt asking for food stamps, but the point is that looks can be deceptive and don't necessarily reflect your exact income.

Married 12/08 to Chilean DH and mama to DD 2/2/10. We're a bilingual home and we familybed1.gif and toddler.gif

 

Expecting #2 in late June!

kitteh is offline  
#423 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 03:35 PM
 
kitteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 1,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also have a (not so) smart phone that likes to double post.
bmcneal likes this.

Married 12/08 to Chilean DH and mama to DD 2/2/10. We're a bilingual home and we familybed1.gif and toddler.gif

 

Expecting #2 in late June!

kitteh is offline  
#424 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 03:50 PM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Also, people can have enough money to buy nice furniture, and then lose a job/jobs, and THEN need food stamps. A lot of people who need food stamps only need them temporarily, like between jobs. It would be ridiculous and economically stupid for them to sell their car/furniture/TV between jobs so they can look poor enough for the home study, and then buy new ones after their temporary need for food stamps is past.
littlest birds likes this.
mamazee is offline  
#425 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 04:18 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I have looked into finding funding for a business, and unless the business is already running, loans are not available. If I've missed something, PM me with the info, please!
 


Work from home is something for those with older children. I agree that young children need too much attention to allow for a work at home situation. But even if the child is at school, there may not be a job opportunity that wouldn't require before or after care. A work from home job could eliminate that problem. Again, this assumes no younger children.

 

http://www.sba.gov/content/microloan-program   These are actually distributed by community nonprofits.  For instance in my community I would go here: http://www.maced.org/loanproducts.htm  This organization has difficulty finding qualified applicants.  I have generally assumed such organizations existed in many places.  A private investor if you could find one to start trying to convince would be even more interested in risk and likely profit.

 

When a mom is getting welfare to help her stay at home with children, I assume the children are preschool aged or younger.  In my state your benefits would be extremely limited if your children were all above 5yo and you were not employed.  Homeschooling would not excuse you.  You would be expected to actively seek work and would have stricter time cutoffs.  I think if you couldn't get paying work, you would be expected to do at least 20 hours of volunteer work and also continue looking.  The 20 hours is definitely required for cash benefits because we live in a college town and I think starting in 2000 the single moms who were full time students here had to also work at least 20 hours to get benefits and many of them chose not to receive them and to instead go into debt with student loans to cover it.

 

Once children go to school part time jobs are a good option, but it can be difficult to match to the school schedule which would be the most important thing for saving on childcare. A lot of moms who may have gotten some state assistance when their kids were infants and toddlers are back in the work force at least part time by the time their kids go to school.  Being a SAHM getting state benefits is pretty much already a temporary thing confined to those youngest years, which is part of why I see no problems with it.


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

littlest birds is offline  
#426 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 04:37 PM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would not support home studies, I think poor people are already judged plenty & we certainly don't need to add to it.

I would support cross-referencing IRS data to cut back on fraud. And while we're at it, I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.

To get back to the original topic, I'd favor an automatic stipend for all parents of children under age 5, to help cover either SAH income losses or daycare costs. I suppose there could be income limits, but they'd have to be generous -- would depend on local COL but maybe something like after $50K the stipend lessens, eventually to $0 for those that make over $100K.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#427 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 04:59 PM
 
queenjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I'm going to try to answer the points above.

The home inspection is to make sure you're not living high while on assistance. Now that I'm thinking about it more, though, this wouldn't necessarily stop abuses. I'll have to think about that one.

 

This just doesnt make sense to me.

 

When you apply for assistance you need to meet certain qualifications. You show proof of income, bank statements, how much your car is worth, you are supposed to declare how much cash on hand you have, etc. If you meet the guidelines you usually get approved. What does "living high" mean? If your boyfriend buys you a big tv, or your parents buy you a leather sofa, how does this change whether you qualify? and how would a worker determine that? The guidelines are the guidelines, what you choose to do with the income you DO make is up to you.

 

Its like when people complain about people buying, say, junk food with food stamps. If you get 100 dollars a month in food stamps, thats what you get. If you spend it on junk, you dont get MORE money. Whether you shop at Aldi, or only buy organic, or just eat beans and rice, or eat a lot of meat, or *whatever*...you still get the same amount each month. If you make $12K/yr and qualify for FS, you qualify whether or not you take some of your own money to get your nails done. If you take rent money and get your nails done well you have bigger problems that have little to do with food stamps or welfare or medicaid.  And in terms of food stamps....i would guess that most people (or at least a high percentage) that receive food assistance are actually working at a job and have earned income. Or they have been recently laid off.

 

I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.

fruitfulmomma likes this.

Katherine, single homeschooling mom to Boy Genius (17) geek.gif  Thing One (6) and Thing Two (6) fencing.gif and one outgoing Girl (12) bikenew.gif and hoping for more through foster care and adoption homebirth.jpgadoptionheart-1.gif 
queenjane is offline  
#428 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 05:44 PM
 
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 queenjane View Post

I know someone who was commenting on a recent tv program/documentary about poor people...my friend commented negatively about the "big screen tv" the family had, how thats just SO WRONG. The thing is...if that family took their tv, their videogames, every single thing of value they owned...what would it amount to really? 1000K? 2000K? maybe?? So in two months or six months they will still be broke, will still need assistance, and will have nothing of value or much to enjoy while living their crappy poor existence.

 

We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.


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  
#429 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 06:40 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.
pek64 is offline  
#430 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 06:55 PM
 
queenjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmcneal View Post

 

We had big screen tv once. It cost $500+. When I sold it, I got $60. It was so hard, honestly, having saved for such a long time to buy it, then when we had to sell it to get money for gas, get *so* much less for it. The same with video games. We saved and saved to get a WII when it first came out. We bought each of us a wiimote (I hate that word...), and had four or five games, totaling ~$400. When I sold it, games, wiimotes, and all, we got $150. The depreciation on those things, as well as movies/television series/etc, is horrible, and it's *very* upsetting when it comes to that.

My nephew spent his childhood having his mom sell his videogames to pay the rent or gas. It must suck to have that be your childhood. greensad.gif  And she was only on assistance for a very short period of time because of how low it made her feel. She was a hard worker but as a single mom it was hard to make ends meet even working fulltime.


Katherine, single homeschooling mom to Boy Genius (17) geek.gif  Thing One (6) and Thing Two (6) fencing.gif and one outgoing Girl (12) bikenew.gif and hoping for more through foster care and adoption homebirth.jpgadoptionheart-1.gif 
queenjane is offline  
#431 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 08:56 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

OK
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work. I thought of someone getting assistance living in a large mansion, but it's owned by someone else. So yes, where you live and what you have doesn't mean you're cheating the system.


hug2.gif


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

littlest birds is offline  
#432 of 792 Old 01-26-2013, 10:52 PM
 
pek64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

hug2.gif

Thanks!
pek64 is offline  
#433 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 06:54 AM
 
captain optimism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Good Ship Lollipop
Posts: 7,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post
 I'd also consider sending out a notice to everyone in the database that's below the eligible income level telling them that they are eligible for food stamps/medicaid/etc. and can just simply sign a paper to receive them. I think it's sad that it's so complicated & confusing to apply and that some people don't even know they're eligible. Plus it costs money to apply as it stands -- to either get transportation to appear in person or make photocopies of everything and pay postage to mail a big packet of info. Even $5-10 is too much for some people.

 

In many states where there are a lot of income-eligible people, not everyone who could be is enrolled in the food stamp program. I knew this was true back when I was a grant writer, but it's still true. It means that a lot of families either go hungry or rely on other programs to subsidize their food costs. 

 

The political right has criticized the current presidential administration for having too many people on food stamps. It's true that this is an indicator of an economic downturn, but it's also a way of cushioning the whole economy against the downturn. It's a much better way than giving the money to very large banks. The banks returned the TARP money, but they withheld a lot of the business-expanding loans they were expected to lay out to keep cash flow moving. When we as a society cushion the impact of a high unemployment rate on the lowest income people, they put that money right back into the economy, essentially because they can't afford to save it. 

 

 

The thing is, no one would ever pass the idea of informing people below a certain income level of available programs based on their taxes. First, there are a lot of people on the left and on the right who would be worried that such a move is too invasive of people's privacy. There are also a lot of people in the country (as we've seen on this thread) who are concerned about robbing low-income people of their initiative to work. Also, the fact that the money flows back into the economy is not an argument for people who are unhappy with the idea of our taxes going back out to us in this way, for a variety of ideological reasons, some more savory than others. 

 

In any case, to tie this back to the topic of the thread, I don't think food stamps are a sufficient supplement to allow low-income single parents to stay home with their children for more than a short time. 


Divorced mom of one awesome boy born 2-3-2003.
captain optimism is offline  
#434 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 07:51 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
Enough about the home inspections, please. I already said that on second thought I didn't think it would work.

 

this already does happen - it's not some radical new idea- it's here for many- if you get assistance or not

 

if you live in public housing (family or senior citizen) you are subjected to inspections - one could even argue that it is discriminatory for non-assisted housing families to not be subjected to the same for receiving other "assistance"- mostly the cost to enforce this and the fact the govt owned property is just that - not private

 

regardless if you receive any or no govt help- and if you have children you can be subjected to inspection based on several things - local/state zoning laws, health hazards, suspicion of child neglect, etc - so if you are a crappy housekeeper and someone feels this might endanger your child they can report you

 

assets - you have to disclose this in most places anyhow, this again is not something radical or not going on, it is, in my state if you have a car with a huge car payment and want food stamps you will not be eligible 

 

the problem comes down to those who are committing fraud and doing what ever they can to make the "system" right for them and those who feel they can have a life style change entitling them to benefits at the expense of others - I see not all here feel fraud is not really fraud when those who need it to work for them do it and that making the system work for you is OK irked.gif what ever it takes!

 

Quote:
Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system.  We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that. 

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

 

we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about- we care far more about health care and making that accessible and affordable to all vs letting a mother stay home with their child - even in the countries that do help with this, they have accessible health care - maybe very bad but they do have more than we have - until we have that- this is a non-issue and in the meantime it there is growing interest to reform these systems of assistance 

 

ETA- I really see this far down on the radar for most given like I said health care being #1- if all the mothers that are working quit tomorrow there simply would be no more assistance to those already getting it-short or long- many struggle (without any assistance) for years to stay home once they have children and continue to not depend on assistance after the births- short term is what assistance in most cases is meant for not a a life style of several years


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#435 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 08:11 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 serenbat View Post

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should be subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

But others can do this.

It's not unfair that people take advantage of programs they are eligible for. You could choose to do the same -- anyone could choose to do this, as long as they are eligible. You could lose your job tomorrow and if your income falls below the limits, you could also receive assistance while being a SAHM.

I understand that you seem to be upset because you are just above the eligibility cut-offs but still paying a lot of taxes so you feel like you are funding others who are better off than you in the end. And I agree that in that regard, the system has majorly failed you. But you have a choice. You can keep working and doing your best to stay afloat and struggling just to get by, or you could leave your job, go on welfare, and deal with all the judgement & intrusiveness that goes along with that, and still struggle to get by. I know neither choice is great and that is exactly my point -- why fault someone for choosing what works for them out of two rough options?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

we do not make the playing field level and this really is a issue this country could careless about
I would argue that welfare programs are working on exactly that -- making the playing field level, making sure everyone has food to eat, a home to sleep in, and access to medical care. Yes, there are huge failings in this system, and I'd love to see improvements, but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#436 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 08:31 AM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

this really sums up why I feel the way I do irked.gif

actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.


 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is offline  
#437 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 08:33 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
but I don't agree with what you seem to be saying -- that not letting people accept welfare benefits will somehow level the playing field.

I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around- 

 

we simply are NOT at a level playing field - we are not like other countries that do allow this- not even close

 

If you think giving money makes thing even you are sadly mistaken, quitting a job to live off others is also not expectable on so many levels- first it simply is not that simple - you loose far more than you gain in many areas.

 

I can't imagine that others think people should not work as to get assistance. Getting assistance certainly does not make it "level" - we all do not have access to fee food, health care and housing.

 

I also never said people should not get assistance! You simply are choosing to think otherwise. There is a big difference IMO from giving assistance for a short term vs 6+ years that I know some are on.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#438 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 08:42 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)

I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.

 

Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#439 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 08:53 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 meemee View Post

actually the courts see it teh same way too. thus different sentencing for similar crimes.
Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I simply did not say that! You seem to want to twist everything around- 
I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I find it posturist to tell some to be SHAM and that others should just pay for it! And as a nation we don't support it either.

Loosing a job is a lot different than quitting. Only in extreme circumstance do you even qualify for unemployment if you quit. Getting assistance based on need (loosing a job, etc) is so much different than quitting to stay home as a "life style". Again, it is meant for short term-not a life style.
OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#440 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 09:11 AM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,500
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
A woman who was working minimum wage and got pregnant might very well find there is no way her work will pay for adequate child care, and therefore might very well "choose" to be a SAHM. Not a full choice but still, it would be a case of quitting rather than being fired.
mamazee is offline  
#441 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 09:19 AM
 
kitteh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Santa Monica
Posts: 1,540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mommy View Post


Yes. If someone steals a loaf of bread from the store because they are starving, that's looked on very differently than someone with plenty to eat that stole it just for fun.
I really, truly don't mean to twist things around. Honestly, for some reason I have a hard time deciphering your posts, something about the syntax just doesn't quite make sense to me, almost like reading a second language, so I do the best I can. I apologize if I've misinterpreted what you've said.

OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive? Maybe she made decent money or had great benefits as a long-term employee and no new jobs have comparable wages or benefits to make up for how much she'd have to pay in daycare, transportation, etc.


This kind of happened to me. I was working as a waitress when I found out I was pregnant with DD, and I worked up until the last month or so, and returned to work again after 6 weeks. I hated being a waitress, especially since I had completed my degree and wanted to get on with my career search, but I realized that providing for my family was more important than my career aspirations. I worked lunch shift and my DH worked afternoon/evenings. Luckily we had the same 2 days off together. It sucked for our relationship, but it was what we had to do in order to ensure that WE raised DD (not that we could have afforded daycare anyhow, but still.)

 

But then when my DD was about a year old I was fired out of the blue and went on unemployment for 6 months. Ultimately I decided not to stay at home 100% of the time, but found a part-time job working in a local elementary school. Because it is just a part-time (less than part-time, actually) job I am still eligible for partial unemployment and that has helped us bridge the gap until my annual 5% raises start to add up. DH has also had a raise during this time, which will help when the unemployment benefits end in a few months.

 

So my story isn't EXACTLY as you have described, but similar in that we have decided that I will not go back to looking for full-time work until both of our children are in school full-time. It just wouldn't make sense, financially, because most of the extra income would be going to childcare. That means at least another 4-5 years of working part-time. Although we don't receive TANF or food stamps, we do get WIC and live in public housing.


Married 12/08 to Chilean DH and mama to DD 2/2/10. We're a bilingual home and we familybed1.gif and toddler.gif

 

Expecting #2 in late June!

kitteh is offline  
#442 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
OK but what if someone does lose their job, and then decides to be a SAHM because financially it doesn't make sense for her to look for a new job since the economy took a nose-dive?

it is not the same as quitting to get assistance! not even close, this is not even supported in countries that do support mothers to stay (a short time) with their children- other countries often do not support homeschooling because they expect the parent to work and they do not support the parent to be a SAHM for 18 years as a paid life style choice

 

ETA- and as it was pointed out by another poster- in other countries you have to have worked so many months prior to receive assistance after a birth


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#443 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 10:46 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 serenbat View Post

it is not the same as quitting to get assistance! not even close

Right, and most of the situations where it might sound like someone quit specifically to get assistance, there are likely extenuating circumstances that you aren't privy to. My point is, if someone chooses to accept public assistance, most of the time they have already thought it through carefully & done the best they can to improve their circumstances & have good reason to be on welfare. I know you happen to know a few people cheating the system, but most of those on welfare are NOT doing so, most aren't bending the rules, most are people who had to make a tough choice.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make, and I'm not sure my efforts to clarify have been successful. My point is that we should reserve judgement of someone on welfare, no matter how it may look on the outside. We should expand welfare limits to encompass more of those just above the poverty line, and we should make it easier (and less stigmatizing) for people to apply for & receive benefits, while at the same time cross-referencing IRS data etc. to zero in on the small amount of fraud that does exist. We should look to what other countries are doing & consider adapting the system to better serve those who are struggling. But above all, we should allow people the freedom to make their own choices for their family -- stay at home, work, work part-time, buy lobster, get their nails done... as long as they are following the their state laws and successfully feeding their children etc. then they should not be criticized for their choices. That's my point and I don't understand whether you agree or not but even if not, there isn't really anything you could say that would change my mind on this aspect of welfare, it's pretty ingrained in my personal beliefs. So I don't understand what we are even debating anymore lol.
captain optimism likes this.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#444 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 01:58 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

Quote:

Now my kids are older and yet because of our "lifestyle choices" we are still poor and I am still juggling around being a SAHM because we homeschool and have an autistic child who did badly in the school system.  We haven't received any assistance in a very long time, though if we had medical problems we would have to seek help with that.

 

when you make a "life style" choice that causes someone else to pay for it there tends to be resentment because others can not do this- again, does your child count more over someone else's? it's not equal that your "life style" choice should subject  others to pay for it but it is happening and many do not like paying for this- when people just go to the ER the cost goes up for others

 

 

I do not know what you mean.  I am paying my own way.  I cannot afford health insurance and that, quite simply, is that.  At this time this is the shape of our lives and I will mot accept being judged by somebody with NO grounds to judge.  You do not know me and your words are ridiculous.

 

My husband and I operate our town's little independent bookstore seven days a week even though it teeters on the edge of survival--we are essentially keeping it open with willpower rather than money, we employ a single mom a few hours per week on a schedule made to meet her needs, I have a tiny but successful online craft business, and I am struggling to manage my children's needs as well.  We are also working on other plans.  There is hardly a day that goes by that someone doesn't express extreme gratitude for our efforts and willingness to keep our shop open when so many bookstores and small businesses have closed.  I am following through on a promise made.  When I bought this business, I created an income for the founder's widow and she has received a payment from me every month for 3.5 years so far while many months I have done without.  She can travel and go on trips but I cannot and I accept that completely because I made a commitment.  I may be a d*%# fool to do it as a businessperson but I am most certainly not making other people pay for me.  I am working my butt off but it ends up unpaid because of issues with our business expenses.  We are barely squeaking by and working on how to solve our challenges without jeopardizing any of our commitments.  I am contributing to our society and community in many ways by the measuring stick that counts.  My family lives 100% on self-employment income and I provide some income directly to two people who are not in my family--and I put their needs first.

 

Because my dh works about 60 hours per week at our bookstore I am able to be at home for homeschooling though many times I work late into the night on paperwork and other things.  Both of us end up paid for only a small fraction of our hours, perhaps 30%.  The only days we have both had together as a day off were Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter.  Those are our "weekends"   He does some other paid work that is occasional only so then I drop in and run the bookstore.  While I am a "SAHM" some of the time, I am also a WAHM and a WOHM and I am poor.  I spend two full days a week at our homeschool co-op, which means I am contributing to that community by teaching classes and helping coordinate the group, and although this is work that nourishes many people it is unpaid as well.  I don't receive state assistance for many reasons including the fact that I am paying for my own decisions.  The small risk of an ER visit is not enough for me to screw all of the people who are counting on me over by abandoning what I am doing.

 

Oh, the story I could tell.  You have NO idea how I have worked and what I have been through on the path to this place or where I am going next.  YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece.  I have been attempting to fix that one piece but so far we do not have a solution.  I think I'll just keep trying to do the right thing in the spot I am in and work on figuring things out.  So offended.  No one has EVER said anything like that about how I live.  Maybe because mostly I talk to people who actually know me.   


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

littlest birds is offline  
#445 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 02:15 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
 YOU have no right to decide that someone who cannot afford insurance should overturn every aspect their life that matters to them to fix that one piece. 

the govt decides and they are trying to change that

 

this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it

 

the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services 

 

this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true

 

if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....who do you think pays for it?

                                    Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#446 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 03:22 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)

Most of the medical care my family has used since I had no insurance has been simply paid for out of my pocket. I think we used a non-profit clinic once that had a sliding scale fee. It's independently funded.

 

In ANY health care system we are all paying for each other.  If we pay insurance companies, they spread the cost among all payers, those who consume less care are paying extra to cover those who use a lot of care.  We are paying for each other.  When we have people receive "free" charity care from hospitals (which our local hospital does), the hospital raises their charges to cover their average costs and so again we are all paying through that.  If we pay taxes and the government distributes care to the poor and elderly we are all paying for each other, too.  Where's the bad guy exactly? 

 

The ones who are paid for most by others are not those who access government-funded care so much as those who have major conditions and high expenses.  Collectively the less healthy people are taking away from everyone else by consuming a larger share of services.

 

I don't mind when others cost me and they shouldn't mind when I cost them whichever access point I happen to have.  I've done my part more than many insured just by taking better care of my health and my children's health so that we need a smaller portion of care from any source.  If I minded I'd have to go around pointing my finger at all the obese and inactive people and everyone with acquired lifestyle health problems and telling them that it is their fault that health insurance is too expensive for me.  If everyone used health care at the level I use it I could afford insurance.  Anytime I have paid for health insurance, I have paid much higher costs than what I use while others have used much more "at my expense."   I don't need to go around complaining about this because I just don't have problems with other people so much.  

 

You cannot identify who is and has done their fair share in this society based on whether they receive benefits for a period while being a SAHM. 

 

Sometimes we give, sometimes we receive.  Part of your life you might pay more and receive less, sometime you may pay less and receive more.  That is okay by me.

 

I've said this whole thread I don't judge other people's decisions because they receive assistance.  I trust moms to make the best decision for their family.  Even if they "might" be wrong I don't mind.  I'm glad they have the freedom to choose.


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

littlest birds is offline  
#447 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 03:33 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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

the govt decides and they are trying to change that

 

this is not some level playing field - I don't have the choice to not use my insurance if I have to go to the ER- my care would not be free- I can't say I just can't pay it and be done with it

 

the mother that has no insurance because they do not for not work or what ever reason, does cost others when they seek services 

 

this whole notion that some how by making a "choice" to stay home and still receive assistance vs not is some how equal simply is not true

 

if you have a "life style choice" that causes you to not have/afford medical care ....who do you think pays for it?

                                    Why do you think people want to change this if it is so great to not be covered?

 

We canceled our health insurance before my husband lost his job because we could not afford it.  Even spending a few hundred dollars on eye exams and glasses was less than one month of what our insurance cost us. 

 

If you were to visit the ER without health insurance they will let you set up a payment plan.  If you canceled your health insurance and put half of what it's been costing you each month into a savings account, you'd probably be able to pay on the spot for almost anything.  Major events are likely to max out many insurance plans anyway and you can end up paying them down for a decade or more whether you had insurance when they occurred or not.

 

Especially as the effort is being made to cover more and more people and obligate us all to pay toward that coverage, lifestyle choices that result in poorer physical health are the ones that cause someone to receive a large share of other people's dollars.  Not whether the share comes via private insurance or a government program.  (And as an added bonus, children at home with their mother probably consume fewer health care dollars than those in day care.)


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

littlest birds is offline  
#448 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 04:59 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)

Since there seems to be a problem with those without insurance paying there payment plan we are going to all paying.

 

When I "life style choice" cost others money it tends to not be viewed as favorable by the masses.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#449 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 05:32 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)

My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money.  Especially looked at as a whole.  Similarly I think anyone who chooses to be a SAHM who you may want to judge would have her entire life and all of the different things she has done and will contribute considered before you say she should not have that freedom.  Since making such judgments well is extremely complicated, better to let the woman who knows her own life best make her decision to the best of her ability.

 

If I needed assistance I would get it.  I don't so I don't.  That is its purpose.  But for years no one has paid a penny in that way to support my lifestyle choice.  Because of my low income I am vulnerable enough that someday I might need a safety net. 

 

That's exactly what it's for.  You make it sound like any lifestyle choice that might contribute to a family being poorer/needing benefits should be considered unethical.  I think life is not that simple and decisions like that have to take a lot of things into consideration.  Most people who receive benefits have contributed as well, and will contribute more int he future.  I don't think SAHMs receiving help should be spoken of as freeloaders.  Moms of young children should decide for themselves whether staying at home is worth using a safety net.


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

littlest birds is offline  
#450 of 792 Old 01-27-2013, 05:39 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 106 Post(s)
Quote:
My lifestyle choice simply does not cost others money.

you may not think so  but actually as a nation we are paying for the uninsured

 

so much so that we voted in effect to change that

 

 

We use to not have to have car insurance in my state, it cost those who had it too much to keep paying for those who chose not to, so now it is the law here.

 

 

I don't hear many American's saying they want to pay for other's life style choices that in fact do cost others money, I hear the complete opposite.


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat 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