Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 19 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#541 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 11:12 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents don't follow those rules.

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 


 

 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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#542 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 11:17 AM
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
this is an issue of public policy, not one of individual ethics.

 

I think this is a really important distinction for this conversation.

 


Edited, discovered a mistake.


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
#543 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 11:21 AM
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 

 

 

Don't do that. That's not what she said at all. 


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
#544 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 12:08 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

<<p>society should not enable dependance regardless if it's alcoholism or welfare dependance - (that does not mean letting children starve as some can not seem to understand what dependance means-ex. years of receiving aid, 8 years of a assistance vs using your owns saving, or not working to still get assistance, etc)

 

 

I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents don't follow those rules.

Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.

What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)

So, assuming Igor and Ivanka are not going to change their behavior in any way, what would The World According to Serenbat do with their kids? You may use both sides of the paper.

 

 

Quote:
Don't do that. That's not what she said at all. 

 

 

so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, are you encouraging dependance? you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance


 

 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  
#545 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 12:09 PM
 
mamaofthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

sorry you are so confused- dependance is just such a great thing- and we should just encourage and encourage it MORE!!!!!

 

doing nothing is just that 

you cont to not answer the question. you just come back with sassy sideways comments. what do we do with families who cont to have children while on assistance? how do you stop people from having kids? you said educate like has been done with smoking and alcohol... yet many women still drink A LOT and smoke while pregnant. yes it is viewed as bad by the general public (so is being on "welfare" as seen by many of your own comments), BUT it doesn't stop people from doing it. it seems there is only so much we can do...1.)  take their children from them after a certain period of time 2.)force sterilization on the them (most likely the women, because the men although they are needed to make the babies don't actually carry them.) 3.) kick their butts to the curb after a certain number of years whether they have a way to support themselves or not, kids be damned. 

all the other choices are pretty much just educate and hope for the best. 

and just an FYI we are all dependent on each other. all of us. i don't see that as an issue, but i know you do. unless you are really truly doing EVERY SINGLE THING yourself, you are also dependent on others. i think that view might be worth looking at. our feelings about dependency. how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. 


mama to 6 amazing children joy.gif married to my main man for 21 years love.gif and finally home FULL time dishes.gifhang.gifknit.gif

mamaofthree is offline  
#546 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 12:44 PM
 
captain optimism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Good Ship Lollipop
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

so what exactly is it? dependance is bad -IMO and doing nothing is just that-nothing, are you encouraging dependance? you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance

 

We have a massive political agenda to end dependence on government assistance. What we lack is sufficient political will to work on ending poverty. It's really easy to put restrictions on who can get money from the government to live, but it's a lot harder to reduce the actual need for government or charitable intervention. 

 

The US has the world's highest GDP and 20% of the children in the country live in poverty. We have the second highest child poverty level among developed countries--after Romania. (UNICEF measures it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/us-child-poverty-report-unicef_n_1555533.html) Of course, in our case they could only measure relative poverty, because we don't actually track some of the other indicators.  We do know that children in our country are at risk for hunger and homelessness. (A lot of the states with the highest rates of obesity also have the highest rates of food insecurity, which is pretty interesting.) 

 

On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy.  (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)

seaheroine likes this.

Divorced mom of one awesome boy born 2-3-2003.
captain optimism is online now  
#547 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 01:27 PM
 
journeymom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Having a Gilly Water with McGonagall
Posts: 7,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Quote:
you either try and solve what is a real existing state- welfare dependance by not encouraging it or you encourage it by supporting it's continuance

 

Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here.  What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?


Someone moved my effing cheese.
journeymom is offline  
#548 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 01:42 PM
 
MotheringBliss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern Idaho Mountains
Posts: 155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

"how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "

 

Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting  primal/innate/essential human needs.

 

Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:  

 

Oregon’s consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, “I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.” In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief” in the signing away of the patient’s reproductive capacity.

 

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807

 

 

Australia is now paving the way for children of any age to consent to sterilization — without parental consent. That’s right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is ‘sufficiently mature’, they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, there is no age minimum, as long as they are ‘mature‘ enough.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k

 

To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives?  Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper.  With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?  

 

I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance.  Where are we when we need each other?

MotheringBliss is offline  
#549 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 01:47 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by journeymom View Post

 

Who knows, maybe we're in agreement here.  What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

It's not clear what you are trying to achieve here. Do you want people to agree with you?


I, too would love to hear a clear answer from serenbat.  Good questions. 


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

littlest birds is offline  
#550 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 01:58 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MotheringBliss View Post

"how we so like to think we don't need each other, but in reality we truly do. "

 

Seems like if we collectively chose to be present for one another, rather than in our respective camps, maybe our concerns would center around fundamental solutions to meeting  primal/innate/essential human needs.

 

Or we can let those in power continue to decide for us using our children:  

 

Oregon’s consent form, specific for the sterilizations of 15 to 20-year-olds, reads, “I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children.” In the case that the patient does not speak or read English, an interpreter is permitted to assist the patient “to the best of [his] knowledge and belief” in the signing away of the patient’s reproductive capacity.

 

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34807

 

 

Australia is now paving the way for children of any age to consent to sterilization — without parental consent. That’s right, if a psychiatrist determines that a child under the age of 18 years is ‘sufficiently mature’, they will be sterilized without any say from the parents. Again, there is no age minimum, as long as they are ‘mature‘ enough.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/australian-bill-allows-for-sterilizations-without-parental-consent-at-any-age/#ixzz2JUoqv47k

 

To what degree are we going to hold ourselves accountable for anything in our lives?  Deferring to any system, professional, or societal expectation can become a crutch or keeper.  With many sinking into some measure of complacency, entrapping themselves exponentially, how would you best be helped, if you could understand fully how they got there and relate to their experience?  

 

I would wish to be taken under the wings of someone capable of empathy, compassion, and connective guidance.  Where are we when we need each other?


 Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children.  You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming.  Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section.  From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children.  Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.

 

I don't think that the current system glorifies or encourages dependence.  Thank goodness so many of us are willing to treat these "dependents" as decent human beings even during whatever period they receive assistance.  Few people like being dependent, they certainly do not want to be talked down to and preached at, and treating them like parasites is bringing poison into our communities.


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

littlest birds is offline  
#551 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 02:01 PM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain optimism View Post

On this forum, your position of blaming the poor is a minority position. Most people here wouldn't do that. In the public sphere, however, your position is the dominant one. That's why you're getting so much blowback around here. You're the voice for policies I think are ruining the country, and you don't even seem to realize that your opinion IS the policy.  (Can't always tell whether I'm reading you correctly.)

nod.gif well said. 

 

i find from my own experience the biggest opponents to welfare are those who are on the cusp where they just missed the qualification by a tad bit and their objection is fraud. while yes fraud goes on, is it going on so much that it makes the program more harmful? 

 

and the funniest part? that the government is doing something to help people from their dependency on the system. to me that is the biggest joke. just see how much help the govt. gives to get people off esp. in the southern states. 


 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is offline  
#552 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 02:41 PM
 
contactmaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj View Post

 

 

I'm basically for it too. But if we're specifically talking about discouraging "welfare moms" (the subject of this thread) from having more children, that's led to some pretty ugly practices historically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!

contactmaya is offline  
#553 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 02:56 PM
 
mamazee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: US midwest
Posts: 7,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I really just don't know specifically what is meant by "discouraging." I might agree, depending on how it would be discouraged.
journeymom likes this.
mamazee is offline  
#554 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 04:00 PM
 
captain optimism's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Good Ship Lollipop
Posts: 6,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

 Maybe we can just take away the option for stupid people who would abuse the system if they have children.  You can tell who will be dependent tomorrow just by seeing what they are already doing, or if their mother is dependent you know it's coming.  Sterilization is encouraged and utilized by many mothers, often a little add-on to a C-section.  From talking to people I know, it's strongly encouraged by doctors for mothers in poverty who already have a couple of children.  Many agree because they do not want hardship in their lives.

 

I don't like the idea of reviving sterilization as a public policy. We have a long history, in this country and elsewhere, of government bodies deciding to sterilize women because they are "unfit" in some way--"stupid" or "dependent." When doctors encourage women to accept sterilization, I think that's an abuse of their authority. 

 

Public policies that are really good for society have to make people happier. Taking away the fundamental choice of whether to have children is depriving them of one of the principles guaranteed in the Constitution--the pursuit of happiness. 

 

I believe that if we offer people appropriate options that they will make good choices, and that a young woman who is currently down on her luck can often recover. Not everyone will make the right choice, but if it's possible, most will. We want to do right by our kids.  

 

It's fundamentally wrong to abridge women's ability to choose whether or not to have sex and whether or not to have children. 

littlest birds likes this.

Divorced mom of one awesome boy born 2-3-2003.
captain optimism is online now  
#555 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 05:28 PM
 
mamaofthree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

dh was just telling me about his day at work. a co-worker just returned from a trip to Kibera ( the world's largest slum in Nairobi). 110,000 people in one square mile. they have no toilets so raw sewage runs in the streets, children starve everyday, there is constant sickness, hunger, violence, death... everywhere. there is no safety net for these people. none, no government help, hardly any education. it is sad, scary and just a pretty awful way to life. 

we are lucky to be here, here where we have a safety net. where you can get food, you have running water, you can send you kids to school. even if you are the poorest of the poor you can still get some help if you are willing to look for it and ask for it. and here we are fighting over pennies from everyone. pennies a year from your tax dollars goes to prevent that sort of situation here. 

how can anyone want to prevent people from getting help? who has the right to decide who is worthy of help and for how long? whose children are better? whose children get to eat, have a safe home, have medical acre? i am blessed beyond measure because we have food every night, and health insurance and a house. why would i want to deny anyone EVER of having that? because they are what? "stupid", "poor", making bad "life style choices"? who am i to say? who are you to say? where do we draw the line? 

geeze. this whole idea of fighting about who gets food is just so damn stupid it makes me sick. if i have to pay more in taxes so someone eats tonight then damn it, i will. and i will be damned if it will get my undies in a bunch, because no one on earth should have to live like that, no one should have to live in that sort of fear place. and all the complaining about how hard you ( a generalized you here) work and how "you" shouldn't have to work to help another human being is just sickening. because honestly there by the grace of god go you.

serebat: you have said more than once why is some "welfare mom's" kids more important then yours... they aren't, BUT they are not less important. no one is less. when we start seeing that we all want love and acceptance and help and togetherness then maybe this world will come around, but if we cont to have this "us against them" mentality all we will have is "haves and have nots" 

i am not sure how much more of this thread i can take. 

seaheroine and rightkindofme like this.

mama to 6 amazing children joy.gif married to my main man for 21 years love.gif and finally home FULL time dishes.gifhang.gifknit.gif

mamaofthree is offline  
#556 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 05:42 PM
 
glassesgirlnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by contactmaya View Post

Im gad you are here to post the thoughts flashing through my head as i skim through this, your above posts also. Thankyou!

 

You're welcome! :)  ...Prob won't hear much from me for a while, still trying to get my 14-month-old to fall asleep.  (At least reading "Mr. Seahorse" aloud is more productive than listening to regurgitated Fox talking points.) 

glassesgirlnj is offline  
#557 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 05:54 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
What does not encouraging welfare dependance look like to you?  How do you define it?  For example, what precisely does the social worker in the county office do to not encourage dependency? 

 

I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html

 

MAJOR GOAL

The four purposes of TANF are:

  • assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
  • reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
  • preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
  • encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

 

My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2

 

it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community  members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just  such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a  good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that. 


 

 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  
#558 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 06:38 PM
 
crunchy_mommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,460
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I really don't get why this is just such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most people are not committing fraud. And most are not long-term dependent on welfare, it's a temporary stop-gap. And families with young children just happen to be most in need of this temporary aid, because:

1. Little kids need to eat to grow, and, you know, SURVIVE.
2. Whether you work & pay for daycare, or stay home and lose an income, having a child seriously cuts into your financial resources. This is mitigated some when most kids reach school age.
3. Many with young children are also just starting out on their own as adults. Not only do they have to learn how to manage finances, but they either had to skip out on college and can't get a good-paying job, or they are under the weight of thousands & thousands of dollars in student loans, and still not making much money because jobs for those just out of college pay crap. In our society, families just starting out in life are at a huge disadvantage.

Whether you have 1 child or 10, the loss to income to be a SAHP is the same. (Working parents will obviously have more costs per child for daycare.) If someone wants 3 children, why not have them all around the same time, and then be able to re-enter the workforce as they hit school age? Having them years apart means they are constantly leaving & re-entering the workforce and just may not be in the family's best interest, financially or career-wise, and likely would cost society more in the long run (seeing as that's the thing you seem concerned about).

And, sometimes you can't wait to have another child without giving up on your dreams of multiple kids altogether. If you are a 43-year-old mom, there aren't exactly a ton of child-bearing years ahead of you while you wait 'til you're financially well-off. Same is true of people with certain health & fertility issues. I don't see a problem with a family already on assistance having another child while they still can. Then in a year or two they will be more financially stable & no longer relying on the system. I am appalled that you would imply a family should permanently limit their family size because they are temporarily in need of help.

Sterilizing parents, letting children starve... this conversation is making me sick. I swear this time I'm really done.

Co-sleeping is really wonderful when your child actually SLEEPS!! familybed1.gif
crunchy_mommy is offline  
#559 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 08:23 PM
 
Maisigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Guelph, ON
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Personally, I'm in favour of a different kind of system all together. I hear so often that this system is broken, that system is broken. Well, f***, why do we keep doing it then? We invest so much time and energy into this one and we don't even like it! Change it. There's been this marvelous idea popping up here and there and I seriously hope it will catch on like a wildfire gone even wilder! It's called sharing. We do it all the time anyway--sharing movies, music and whatever else on the internet, giving away stuff to goodwill, having people over for dinner and I'm sure there are plenty more examples of what people share on a regular basis...why don't we just start sharing even more? I have skills. I can trade them for a skill/service/something I value. Why do we need money to survive? We don't.

 

I think for the system we have, welfare is necessary but falls far short of what families need. That people abuse it is irrelevant because people will abuse/neglect anything they don't value. Every person has dignity and worth, no matter their income, gender, education, possessions etc. The welfare system in the states is mindbogglingly pathetic, the same for here in Canada I presume (although I'm not on it now, I was when I was a child and my family couldn't afford much of anything at all) and I never would wish that fate on anyone.

 

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results? Ya, that makes sense in this case...so...if we want a different result, we have to do something different. We can't rely on what isn't working. 

Maisigh is offline  
#560 of 792 Old 01-30-2013, 08:42 PM
 
littlest birds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

 

I define it like the govt (ASPE) does - Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than half of their total family income in one year from AFDC/TANF, food stamps and/or SSI.

 

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/tanf/tanf-overview.html

 

MAJOR GOAL

The four purposes of TANF are:

  • assisting needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
  • reducing the dependency of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage;
  • preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
  • encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

 

My state has this (as to other states) - http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/webcontent/documents/report/s_002763.pdf

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=3776&&PageID=417570&mode=2

 

it's happens to be a real problem - states are urged to limit the time assistance is given to end the cycle of dependency, length on and quickly back on is viewed as dependency, a cycle I and others see - and local agents do try and assess those children who are in families with a history of dependance and deem them at risk - teacher and other community  members do too- community have programs outside of the govt funded and some with, to mentor at risk children- education, I really don't get why this is just  such a hard idea to understand and why the assumption seem to be with this community that society has no role to play in discouraging further births for those on welfare, getting people off it and speaking up that it's not optimal for children and personal responsibility happens to be a  good thing? I don't understand why being dependent on others (in the form of finance) is such a good and positive aspect to so many....... but on other areas of the mothering community dependance in regards to a toxic relationship is view as not health. Making a system work for you is health and positive???- I simply don't get that. 


You have not only attacked TANF recipients.  You have attacked pretty much everybody getting any small portion of assistance.  Starting with attacking me because I am uninsured, then people who receive WIC, everyone who receives food stamps, and anyone who has another child while getting ANY kind of help at all.  Some of these are two-parent families with at least one parent fully employed no matter what their family composition, other responsibilities, or other plans for their future. In some families both parents may be working in some way but just not enough for you. I homeschool and work as well, as does my husband but I got scolded for being irresponsible because we can't afford health insurance.  We are not talking about people in the welfare system generation after generation, but someone who might get food stamps when her children are young even though her husband is the only one employed.  You are making broad generalizations about many people on many different paths and without the respect and decency to see that there are more issues in life than avoiding the littlest hint of dependence on others.  That is why your arguments don't make sense.  As if any kind of dependence at any time were some kind of hideous toxin. 

 

So if a woman has worked and has paid her share of taxes for years and then during her children's younger years she gets assistance and is home for a while, and then whn they are a little older she is employed again, "paying her share" again... what is the harm?  I see more benefits than harm and I am glad that we have that little bit of acceptance for helping people when they are at their most vulnerable.

 

Do you really despise everyone who receives any benefits if they do not behave according to your formula?  Earlier you suggested you only meant if that woman had the option of a job that would pay for all her bills, plus child care, plus insurance, and she just decided not to work at that job.  Very few women are poor because they are turning down those jobs, people on the edge rarely have those kind of employment opportunities.  Later the comments were more about those parasitic "welfare" moms milking the system and talk show quality generalizations.  Sounds like you just hate that undeserving 47% to me. 

 

Making the system work for you is healthy and positive? Well making whatever system you are part of NOT work for you is stupid. Its smart to get food stamps when poor nutrition, anxiety, and empty cabinets are the reward.  It's smart to apply for WIC or for health care assistance if that your children need that care and it helps you and it was meant to help.  It's not nasty and manipulative.  Whoever the abusers of the system are they are not most people, nor is any woman who is a SAHM and receives some kind of assistance.  Let people live a decent life.  We don't like seeing hungry children begging in the streets or being allowed to sicken because their parents are to proud to be "dependent" or secretly left at home as preschoolers because the mother is slipping away to a job and has no safe option for childcare that she can pay for herself.


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

littlest birds is offline  
#561 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 05:06 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Quote:
Sterilizing

this is being asked of all patients at our hospitable regardless- this is a service and they ask you at intake- same form for everyone, no one special - just like circa

 

many women do choose it, are only some to be asked?

 

 

 

Quote:
Earlier you suggested you only meant if that woman had the option of a job that would pay for all her bills, plus child care, plus insurance, and she just decided not to work at that job. 

I certainly did not say only. You seem proud not to work and depend- many do not feel this way. They want to be proud to take care of their children, you seem to not see that- clearly not all of the 47%  depend. You must also think all those who are part of the Occupy Movement don't have job either.  irked.gif


 

 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  
#562 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 05:14 AM
Administrator
 
cynthia mosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Arabia!
Posts: 38,740
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 112 Post(s)

Let's keep this a reasonably polite discussion without making it personal. If you can't, I'll have to restrict your participation in the thread.


cynthia mosher is online now  
#563 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:01 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by glassesgirlnj View Post

 

 

I'm still confused about what you think should happen to the children whose parents don't follow those rules.

Let's say Igor and Ivanka Irresponsible give birth to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta over an 8-year period. They're collecting public assistance the whole time (for any definition of "public assistance" you want to use). The adults are not going to school, and while Igor works part time, they're careful to keep their income under the minimum needed to keep their benefits.

What do you think should happen to Ivan, Inez and Ivetta? I guess you don't think they should starve (thank God), and it would be "crazy" to give them to a UMC adoptive family (thank God for that too, though I've heard otherwise rational people make that argument...)

 

 

Serebat….I highlighted the above question as I think it is a good one.  This is a long thread, so if you have answered it, my apologies.

 

There are 2 types of poor of people on welfare in N. America (with further subcategories).  Those who are on it temporarily, and those who are "generational poor."  This thread mostly seems to be around those who are generationally poor.  

 

Generational poverty is really hard to move out of.  

 

This is from wikipedia, but I like it:

 

 

"In economics, the cycle of poverty is the "set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention."[1]

The cycle of poverty has been defined as a phenomenon were poor families become trapped in poverty for at least three generations,i.e., for enough time that the family includes no surviving ancestors who possess and can transmit the intellectual, social, and cultural capital necessary to stay out of or escape poverty…."

 

Generational poverty is no way to live.  I do not know how to help people escape it, but if Wiki is to be believed, some of it must come from outside interventions.  Public policy initiatives.

 

It might be interesting to look at countries that have low generational poverty statistics and see what they are doing right.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#564 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:20 AM
 
rightkindofme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 4,600
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)

Apparently me recounting my personal experiences is too "jolting" so I'm going to stop participating in the thread. That's fine. It's pretty clear that this discussion is over anyway.


My advice may not be appropriate for you. That's ok. You are just fine how you are and I am the right kind of me.

rightkindofme is offline  
#565 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:25 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)

One more thought: on an individual level, I do think taking responsibility for oneself is the only way to climb out of poverty.  Governments can make policies that support this, or give people a fighting chance, or not. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#566 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:38 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,199
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 216 Post(s)

To answer the Op:

 

I think parents (one parent, family choice) should be supported nicely until about age 1.  This allows for a good breastfeeding relationship and optimal health.  There are lots of illnesses kicking around and daycares are breeding grounds. My 2 cents.

 

After age one or so, I think parents should get  enough money to meet needs of housing and food, but that is about it.  

 

Minimum wage (which should be a friggin living wage - and in most areas not under 10$ an hour) should be higher than the amount you get on welfare.  Daycare should be subsidized, as well as healthcare.  

 

Making more money than you would on welfare, while still being able to access some of the benefits of welfare (such as healthcare), would go a long way towards pushing people off of welfare.

 

OT, a little, but I was looking at healthcare stats the other day…and those on welfare had better access to healthcare than those who were poor but not on welfare.  To move people off of welfare and into working (which is a better lifestyle for most people…and takes less taxes, or at least allows taxes to be distributed more equitably) you need to remove the barriers to getting off welfare.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#567 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:52 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,404
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)

I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way. 

 

When you see personal (and starting to be a lot in our case) more and more examples of use/abuse you tend to have little to no sympathy anymore. This is coming from the class the works and seeing it directly effects perspective. I perfectly well know that corporations are getting massive tax breaks - I also know you can't be turned away at the ER and that is far cheaper than paying for your own health insurance, you see it, it's counts.


 

 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  
#568 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 06:56 AM
 
glassesgirlnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightkindofme View Post

Apparently me recounting my personal experiences is too "jolting" so I'm going to stop participating in the thread. That's fine. It's pretty clear that this discussion is over anyway.

 

Wow, I'm really sorry to hear that! You are one of the people on this thread who's actually talked about your experiences being on public assistance - and so, I would think, your opinions would be invaluable.

glassesgirlnj is offline  
#569 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 07:02 AM
 
glassesgirlnj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 309
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way.

 

 

TBH, I could "hear of someone who was told" a lot of things... but the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", as I'm sure you know.

This was in the Philly suburbs, right? Care to let us know who "someone" was? Or what pantry this was? Or what worker at the pantry would say such a thing? (I wonder if the people running the nonprofit would be interested in finding out what's being said to their donors...)

glassesgirlnj is offline  
#570 of 792 Old 01-31-2013, 07:08 AM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,620
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

I just heard of someone who was told when they dropped off a bag of items at a local pantry not to bother with certain item because they are not appreciated- they are just taken to be sold and to get cheaper stuff next time - it really does rub you the wrong way. 

just because you give doesnt mean it has to be appreciated. remember most of the food might be wierd to them. our local farm not only donates extra produce to the local pantry, but they also teach cooking classes to show them how to eat it. when you are used to the white crap from teh pantry - if you get artichoke hearts you would have no idea what to do with it. 

 

When you see personal (and starting to be a lot in our case) more and more examples of use/abuse you tend to have little to no sympathy anymore. This is coming from the class the works and seeing it directly effects perspective. I perfectly well know that corporations are getting massive tax breaks - I also know you can't be turned away at the ER and that is far cheaper than paying for your own health insurance, you see it, it's counts.

serenbat i sympathise with you. i understand what its like to see the abuse going on. esp when you are in the cusp of being in between - too rich to qualify but not rich enough to pay for it yourself. but remember dont throw teh baby out with the bathwater. abuse is not the major part of the welfare system. it IS helping many, many people out. just coz there are a few bad apples doesnt mean the whole basket is trash. it is not the best system. but at least it is a system. and you feel it more because it reflects your own personal situation. gosh esp. your kids. so i can see why it hurts and frustrates you so much. 

 

insurance. how can you pay for insurance when you cant even put food on the table?!! that's one thing. the other thing do you know how many families are sick? how many homeless are sick - chronic conditions, because they get seen perhaps at the ER (i wonder if they go there, coz i have never seen a homeless person at teh ER but at a clinic i have - the free clinics around me - people line up at 4 am for them to open at 8 am in the cold and then they take maybe 1 or 2 new patients and the rest returning) does not mean they get taken care of because there is no way of getting continuous care for their chronic condition. 

 

if my dd was to get cancer - she is on Medi-cal - and if it is pretty aggressive i know she will probably die - because they just dont move fast enough. i've seen it happen too many times - for both babies and adults. two people get breast cancer at teh same time. one gets seen almost immediately. the other has to wait a month. and then wait again. guess who doesnt make it. i try to get out of that poverty to make sure we have good health insurance but i just dont get those jobs. either i am over qualified or not qualified enough. so people do try. 

 

kathy i think welfare factors housing and food needs when they assign food stamps and TANF. 

 

see how much pressure Universal healthcare would take off of all our shoulders. how much healtheir people would be just never having to worry about health conditions and would have a choice of jobs they want to work in. 


 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee 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