Friday, April 25, 2008

Another Public Assistance Debate

>>>NOTE: This is from NBBC. The posters name is under their comment.<<<

SAHM/D Receiving Govt Assistance vs. Working Parents

What
are your opinions about a woman or man deciding to collect
low-income-based government assistance (food stamps, medicaid, cash
assistance, rental assistance, WIC, or any combination of the above) in
order to stay at home and be with their children?



Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?



Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?



If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views
on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt
assistance?



Please, no arguments about
how WIC is for women and children. I know WIC very well and it is STILL
for low-income people, and people making over a certain amount of money
dont qualify, so its included.

Happy 2 B Nappy
Posted on 4/23/08

Oh my. You're asking for it.

anonymice
Posted on 4/23/08
Report this

I for one don't consider SAHM a "privelege"; it is every bit as much of a job as any other but without the pay or perks. Raising children contributes to society, as children are an investment to the future. The better you can make your kid's childhood, the better his chances are of having a great future, and having one parent as a breadwinner and one as a homemaker IS the best thing for the child. If you would have to pay someone to do it, it's labor, isn't it? There is no reason why a full-time job should not be enough for a man (or woman) to support a family - spouse and child. I guarantee you Jake (who turns 3 on Friday) wouldn't be able to read several words already had I put him in a daycare. And that's just one example. Capitalism has failed you if both parents must work outside the home in order to provide for their families.



ETA: A full-time job is also much more in Amerika than it is in say, Europe. The French, for example have a 35-hour work week, they have paid sick time, 6 WEEKS of vacation a year, they have massive unemployment benefits to the point where you'd better have a DAMN good reason for firing someone - yet they still manage to have much more socialism there. Why is that?

anonymice
Posted on 4/23/08
Report this

What are your opinions about a woman or man deciding to collect low-income-based government assistance (food stamps, medicaid, cash assistance, rental assistance, WIC, or any combination of the above) in order to stay at home and be with their children?



I personally don't see a problem with it. I've been there and done that. It was a good thing, I am now in a better place than I was then. It was temporary. We did it because it was what was best for our family and we had all intentions of not being on government assistance forever.



Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?


That is a dumb question. Poor people shouldn't be able to decide if they want to raise their kids or stick them in daycare?! Its a personal choice for everyone not just people who can afford it.



Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?


Nope. Good for them, putting their kids first.



If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt assistance?


I am pro-whatever works best for the people involved. It should be up to the parents to decide what is best for their family, not the government or whether or not they are on assistance.

Report this

WELL SAID! (I think I am platonic love)

anonymice
Posted on 4/23/08
Report this

WTH is pro-SAH parenting? So now I have to decide if I'm pro-SAH or anti-SAH? Hummm.


Maybe I just want to raise my child and support my family the best way I can. Maybe I stay home, maybe I work. Maybe my husband and I work opposite shifts so that we can live the life we want and both spend a lot of time with our son. I'm sorry, I just don't see it as an all or nothing pro/anti issue.


Anyway, back to the original question... if it was a clear work-no gov't assistance/don't work-gov't assistance choice, "I" would choose to work. I don't think that for many low income families that this is the case. I have a feeling that many would receive assistance even if both parents worked.

Katters44
Posted on 4/23/08
Report this

Thank you, I don't think anyone can truly understand unless they have been there and had to make that choice.

Report this

I think it's a parents choice to stay home or work regardless of $. I do think that kids NEED their parents to be available to them - alot. How that is achieved is up to the parents.


I don't really think welfare, foodstamps, WIC, etc are intended to be permanent and when used long term, it takes advantage of the purpose. Yes, if a family cannot make it on one salary temporarily, then they should absolutely use a resource that the govt has provided! But....temporarily. It should not be something that goes beyond a few years unless a disability is also part of the equation.....and if there are quite a number of kiddos involved, it might be near impossible for one parent to make it w/o assistance, so that would absolutely be a reasonable use of aid.


It's more about how the children are brought up (with good ethics, respect, education, and the desire to make a difference) than whose money it is paying the bills.

beckyjimco
Posted on 4/23/08
Report this

Anonymice you didnt answer the questions. You did ramble a lot though ;)



"WTH is pro-SAH parenting"


Relax and think, love. I'm talking about the people who are VERY pro-SAH and are die hard folks who think you are ruining your children's lives if you work. I'm talking about the SAH crusaders. I guess I could be considered personally "anti"-SAH, because technically, the idea of staying home with my kid and not working isnt very appealing or in line with my personality, but its a personal choice for everyone. I tried it for a while and it just didnt work. So Im not against the idea, I just know it isnt for me. Thats what I meant. And I think you knew that :)



Let me clarify:


I am speaking about people who decide that having one parent at home is best for their children, and they want to do it no matter what it takes. So they do so knowing they can and probably will apply for some types of government assistance to help because the other partner doesnt make enough money to cover everything.

Report this

Often for low income families the cost of childcare (especially with multiple children) exceeds what the second WOHP could make. If this is the case, then it makes better financial sense for one of the parents not to work. I am neither pro nor anti SAH. I agree with the PP that said she's pro-whatever works for the people involved.

Report this

Well... I'm just a little wound up today since I've been working my tail off (at the office and at home).

Katters44
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I am speaking about people who decide that having one parent at home is best for their children, and they want to do it no matter what it takes. So they do so knowing they can and probably will apply for some types of government assistance to help because the other partner doesnt make enough money to cover everything.


Do you have a problem with people doing what they think is best for their children if it means they will have to be on government assistance? I guess I just don't understand why you are questioning something that amounts to two parents trying to do what is best for their kids.

Report this

Oh and the deciding factor for me was knowing that with my lack of education at the time I would not be able to find a job that could pay me enough to not raise my own kids. My kids are way worth staying home for if I'm only going to take home a couple dollars an hour after daycare. Why pay someone to take care of my kids when I WANT to take care of them?

Report this

here's my unpopular two cents. I work to bring in money to feed my family. We made a choice that means mine is the only reliable income for a few years. What pisses me off, and it does, is the people that say, 'well I had a good job with benefits, and I decided to quit and stay home because without my paycheck, we could get all kinds of government assistance that let's us make it and we wouldn't get that if I kept my job" I'm glad you decided to do what was best for your child, but your taking money away from my child by doing so. It's not like the government just prints the money. It comes from somewhere. my pocket. If I could stay at home, I would in a second. But how many more people staying at home and the system crashes?


Do I feel differant about people that do. Yes, actually I do. I think that they are abusing the system, (it's not a great system by any means), but people that are capable and choose not to work, but still want to draw a paycheck are being selfish in my opinion. And Yes, I know being a mom is work. I'm still a mom even though I work. We are fortunate enough that we are able to have my husband take care of our son at the retail store we own.


I completely respect the desire and will to stay home with your child, but I don't accept that it's great to do at someone elses expense.


"Why pay someone to take care of my kids when I WANT to take care of them?" I WANT to stay home and take care of my son too, but being a grown up has meant I've had to do a lot of things I don't want to do, such as forking over 1/3 of my income every week for the government to give to other people.


I'm not against temporary assistance, I'm glad it's there, everyone needs a hand. But I think it's obvious that it absolutely pisses me off when people plan to stay home and that plan is "because I can get government assistance, so we can afford it"

DawnMertise
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I will use my dh's brother and his wife as an example.


She stayed home full time until all of their kids were in school. They qualified for food stamps and medical assistance (medicaid and chip).


If she had gone to work while their children were infants, toddlers, preschoolers (needing child care) they would have ended up loosing money.


Daycare, higher taxes, having to have 2 vehicles instead of 1 ( when she needed the car she took him to work in the morning and picked him up after work), higher food bills (more likely to use convience foods or premade foods satistically than making own from scratch), higher amount needed for clothing and laundry especially if working an office job vs staying at home where jeans and sweatshirts would do.


I stay at home with our only income being what my dh brings home and am facing my family constantly telling me to go get a job. (We are not on any assistance btw unless you count a grant program I sought out and applied for for getting us into our own home). I figured by the time I paid the expenses of working: not having time to bargain shop for basics such as groceries, not having time to fix meals from scratch, day care (their bright idea work opposit dh-he works anywhere from 2-5 in the afternoon till sometimes as late as 5-6 in the morning especially in the summer. They think I can go to work at a fast food place from 9 am till 3 pm. Ok so we gamble on my dh making it on 3-4 hours of sleep or the kids sleeping) it would end up costing us.


Tammy



sweetpeama
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I think it is absolutely fine, if it is short term & not the "family plan". For instance, if my husband found himself out work & we needed assistance (or just stopped making as much money). We would take assistance toof hang on until he got better work.
The reason for this being, it wouldn't pay me to work. I would not make enough money to cover daycare (I still have 3 kids well under school age). I would not have a problem taking help *for a VERY little while* if I needed it, but I would NEVER just take help so I could stay home if DH had no plans or hope of getting better work.
If my children were older, I would likely look for work during times my husband was home (meaning, I would work the night shift or whatever). It is extremely important to me for my children not to be in public schools or daycare, but I would figure out a way to make two parents working WORK if it was truly necessary.
So in summary - short term need-based, no problem. Lifestyle choice- no way.


ETA: We are not on any assistance (including WIC - even though we qualify)

AndThenThereWereFour
Posted on 4/24/08

My point is that I am paying them, and to listen to people brag, (which is what the poster on an old thread months ago did) that she made the conscious decision to quit a job that offered her a good wage, (her words, not a living wage, but a good wage), medical insurance that as self-employed my husband and I cannot afford, so have catastrophic only, and other benefits, because they knew that they would get enough assistance really bothers me. I work and still make a lot of sacrifices to make ends meet. we too only have 1 vehicle, Gino walks to work, so if it's bad weather, I give up my lunch hour to go home, pick him up and bring him to work. We don't see each other much. I leave at 7:30 in the morning and he get's home after 9 at night. We don't go to movies, we don't eat out, we brown bag it. Other than a special coupon/and employee discount from a friend, I haven't bought new clothes in over 5 years. (I made 1 skirt for maternity, otherwise, wore my clothes) I can't remember the last time I bought something to wear that wasn't Target or Walmart. We pray and hope that the check makes it through the bills each month. And we eat some late payment fees because they don't always. We could make it on assistance too, but we've decided that we won't. Sure, one more person won't overload the system, but how many one more person's will?


I don't imagine that all of my taxes go to assistance programs, and frankly, I'm against social security as well. and medicaid. (no, I'm not for people dying because they can't afford medical care, I think the whole system needs to be redone, but I haven't come up with how yet) If I had that extra $450/thousand taxes, I wouldn't need to worry if social security and medicaid would be around, I would have protected myself ahead of time.


I don't think capitalism has failed when two parents need to work, I think it's a bit more in depth than that. We made a choice to move from a 2 bedroom home that was 600 sq ft, but only cost us $350/month to one that is 2100 sq ft and costs us $1200/month. that's not capitalism's fault, but it's definitely one reason that we keep working.


my mind is blurry right now, I'm so tired, so I'm sorry if that's not coherent at all!

DawnMertise
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Dawn,


I understand that you "give" 1/3 of your income to the government. I get that but not all of that goes to things like medicaid, or wic or welfare.


There are lots and lots of other government programs that are supported by tax dollars. Roads, schools, the prison system, etc.


Here is an interesting article: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18098378/ It tells you where your tax dollars go.


For every $1000 this is where it goes.


$206.60 Social Security


$196.50 Military


$124.50 Medicare


$122.20 Interest Paid on Government Debt


$95.20 Medicaid


$44.60 Education


$37.00 Retirement for Federal Workers


$26.50 Transportation


$20.30 Food and Nutrition Programs


$17.40 Federal Disaster Relief


$15.40 Administration of Justice


$14.40 Housing Assistance


$12.70 Unemployment Insurance


$12.40 Environment


$9.80 Agriculture


$6.90 General Government Costs


$6.30 International Development and Humanitarian Assistance


$5.50 Space Program


$3.40 General Science and Research


$3.20 Community and Regional Development


$3.20 Housing Ambassadors


$2.90 Security out of borders


“Not all of that money came from your incomes taxes, by the way. This year individuals will pay about $1.2 trillion of the $2.7 trillion federal spending, while corporations will pay $342 billion. The rest comes form Social Security taxes ($873 billion); excises taxes ($57 billion) and other taxes and fees ($98 billion.)”


ETA: I missed $13.30 in that article some how. But you get the idea.


Report this

To solve a short term problem, I believe that using government assistance is fine.



Believing that the government should support you for years is really selfish. Those of us that are working are paying more to support people who are taking more than their share!



And... I'm what most would call a "bleeding heart liberal". I don't mind paying more to the government so that those who lose their jobs, have medical problems or other unfortunate circumstances can afford the necessities of life.


I do believe that 2 healthy parents receiving money for years because it is what is most convenient for them, is not appropriate and is very inconsiderate to those of us who are PAYING for them to receive that money.


We waited to have children until we could afford it. We'll probably only have 2 children in part because it would be difficult for us to provide for more than 2.

Report this

What
are your opinions about a woman or man deciding to collect
low-income-based government assistance (food stamps, medicaid, cash
assistance, rental assistance, WIC, or any combination of the above) in
order to stay at home and be with their children?


~ If that family makes that decision as a whole (knowing it's only temporary) but one parent staying at home with their child/children at the time (for whatever reason) is what's best for THEM then I don't see anything wrong with it.





Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?


~ No





Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?


~ No





If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views
on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt
assistance?


~ Whatever is best for that child and his/her parent

SouthernCurl
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Dawn - I'm with you but I don't feel this is going to be a productive discussion.
And for whoever thought the French have a great system - Talk to a French woman in her 20s. It's hard to find a good job because the employers know they're likely to have to pay for a long maternity leave (or leaves) for you. Clearly the French don't think their system is that great since their President is an American style capitalist reformer. All benefits have costs, the question is who pays and how.

uncodified
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Sorry...let me clarify..





Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?


Nope.




Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?



Of course not.





If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views
on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt
assistance?


SAH Parenting is almost always best for the child. So, no.

anonymice
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I'll be honest. It's triflin'. If using public assistance is a very temporary thing then ok. However, for the families who depend on it b/c they choose to put themselves in the low-income bracket b/c it's "best for their families", I will feel differently about them. I think being a SAHM is great if you crunch numbers & know you can afford it on the one salary. If you can't afford it, consider plan b. Work.



ETA: I also worry about the morals and work ethic these children learn from seeing their parents rely on assistance just because they can.

JustGina
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I agree with PPs who said it is totally OK short term but should not be the family's long term plan. Are we really condoning people choosing not to work because they can get enough government assistance to make it possible to stay home?!


I was a single mom for many years and worked to support my kids. Would you all be of the same opinion if I said I was choosing not to work because I could get government money (welfare) and stay home with my kids instead? No doubt being home with my kids full time would be the best thing for them.. right?


Silly me busting my ass for all those years to support my family. I should have been a "SAHM" (not to be confused with welfare mom), especially since the taxpayers seem to find this a palatable option.

Panda123
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I'd much rather have my tax dollars going to help a family in need (including those with SAH parents) than I would have them going to a war, corporate welfare under the pretense of creating "jobs", NASA, the President's lunch with the Pope, etc.

anonymice
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

anonymice- I agree that I want my money to go to people in need. However, in many cases it's just families who want.

JustGina
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

supporting your family should not be a choice. if you can afford to stay home great, if not your butt better be working. Don't have kids if you can't afford to raise them! I shouldn't have to pay for your kids just because you don't feel like working. That is what happens, the working people bear the brunt for the lazy. People have this strange idea that its the government's money- well newsflash the government gets its money collecting taxes from working people. When I was pg I decided I wanted to stay home for awhile, so I worked my butt off and saved, stayed home on the $ I made while pg- then went back when my child was 18 months. YOU are responsible for paying your own way in this world, no one else. If you genuinely have medical complications and can't work, the help is there for you. If you are an honest hard working person who got laid off, the help is there for you. The help is not for someone who just decided they didn't feel like working. And THANK GOD in my state you can't get help unless you prove you are looking for work, and even then the help is temporary.

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I don't think that having a SAH parent is a "want." It's a job. I'm not talking about the people who live in the projects and still drive Corvettes.

anonymice
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Often as not the "working" moms on here who bitch about the SAHM are always posting from their job while they bitch about the SAHM "not working." Yeah, you work so hard as you're clicking away from BBC so your boss doesn't see you.

anonymice
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I don't think anyone has a problem with a SAHM whose hubby is supporting their family so she can be home with their kids. I, for one, am totally cool with that.

Panda123
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I cannot support anyone who chooses to live off of the forced charity of others as a way of life. Assistance is a means to an end, not an end in itself.


I know that's not a popular answer, but it's my honest one.

*Michelle*
Posted on 4/24/08

I have no problem with a person using govt. resources in order to stay home and parent their children. I believe that parents should be their children's first teachers and staying home gives them the time to do it. This is great for both the parent and the child. However, just because someone is at home with their children, doesn't mean they are actually parenting. But that's a whole other topic.

DreamladyK
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

well I'm totally allowed on the internet at work so IDK what you're saying with the "clicking away" thing. ITA w/ Panda and Michelle.

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

"Assistance is a means to an end, not an end in itself."


I couldn't have said it better.


I would LOVE to be a stay at home Mom. I don't even know if I qualify for WIC, etc and I don't care if I do; it's just not an option. I am perfectly capable of working to help support my family and I'd much rather set a good example of working to help provide, than staying home so I can play off the system.
(That is not to say that all do, but we all know that many do).

Dana&Dani
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

supporting your family should not be a choice. if you can afford to stay home great, if not your butt better be working. Don't have kids if you can't afford to raise them! I shouldn't have to pay for your kids just because you don't feel like working. That is what happens, the working people bear the brunt for the lazy. People have this strange idea that its the government's money- well newsflash the government gets its money collecting taxes from working people. When I was pg I decided I wanted to stay home for awhile, so I worked my butt off and saved, stayed home on the $ I made while pg- then went back when my child was 18 months. YOU are responsible for paying your own way in this world, no one else. If you genuinely have medical complications and can't work, the help is there for you. If you are an honest hard working person who got laid off, the help is there for you. The help is not for someone who just decided they didn't feel like working. And THANK GOD in my state you can't get help unless you prove you are looking for work, and even then the help is temporary.



What Ruth said!!!!!!!!!!

mi*vida*loca
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Ruth you said: "If you genuinely have medical complications and can't work, the help is there for you. If you are an honest hard working person who got laid off, the help is there for you. The help is not for someone who just decided they didn't feel like working. And THANK GOD in my state you can't get help unless you prove you are looking for work, and even then the help is temporary."


I recieved Medicaid and WIC for quite a while and Food Stamps for a couple of months. Not once did they ask if I was looking for a job. All they wanted was proof of all income. They did not care that I didn't have a job. They just go by the standards set by the government. If the government says someone qualifies and they need the help for their kids then it should be fine. Somewhere someone decides what the qualification are.

Report this

Threads on OBBC would always turn ugly because of the SAHM's IMO. The WOHM's could always have a nice discussion and say nice things but it wasn't always the other way around.


Remember threads "What is something you admire about WOHM's" That turned ugly fast.


When someone did the thread about SAHM's it never got ugly like that.

mi*vida*loca
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

ilovemytwokids- I said IN MY STATE. Here we have an employment assistance program YOU MUST ATTEND to qualify for assistance. You go there, get tested for skills, matched with jobs and you have to apply for them. State medical is self-declared, so you can get insurance for your kids or get into a spend-down without attending the program. That is really sad that your state doesn't even care whether or not you tried to support yourself.


ETA- that would explain why people who come from other states and apply are so shocked LOL! you can't move here today, walk into DSS and walk out with food stamps. You have to try to find work first! Unreal how so many people don't understand that concept.

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

NJ is the same way. It's called Welfare to Work. If you don't show that you are at LEAST trying to find a job they will kick you right off. They will keep your kids covered for a bit but after that they will be kicked off to. I like this program. People can't live off of the system for years.



For all of the people that support this are you also some of the ones who think that teenage moms drain the welfare system?? I see people up in arms over this. So I guess it would be okay for a teen mom to stay home, live off of welfare just because she should be able to stay home with their kids.

mi*vida*loca
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Here's my opinion, for what its worth.


I think that if people are really zoned in on having a parent stay-at-home and think it is because it is best for the child, then they should probably make provisions to do so prior to having the child. Whether it be stockpiling money into savings or one person seeking out a higher paying job to cover the projected expenses. I think that is the responsible thing to do. But so is family planning, and we know that many people don't do that or it doesn't go accoerding to plan all of the time.


With that said, I think that if people choose to stay home and things get rough or don't go according to plan, I have NO problem at all with them applying for and receiving assistance. Why? Because it's really about the children, to me. They are most important and I would rather the parents put their pride aside and get the WIC, the Foodstamps, and the Medicaid they need to make sure that child or those children are provided for. People have an assumption that people receiving assistance are ballin'... well, they aren't. One of my clients gets $68.50 every 2 weeks in cash assistance and $138 a month in food stamps. Thats NOT living the high life that people complain about.


So, no, I'm not bothered when people make the choice to stay home with their children because they believe it is the BEST thing for them. But I asked the question because people make a lot of assumptions about people receiving Welfare. They call them lazy, uneducated, abusers,e tc. How often do people stop to think "Maybe this woman is staying home receiving welfare so she can be a SAHM to her children, because she believes being home with them for the first few years is BEST. Maybe she never planned on her husband losing his job or abandoning her. Maybe she is using the resources to go to college for free and get back on her feet. Maybe she is investing in her children's future by SAH"


Nope, we dont think that way. We think the worst of each other and hardly ever give someone the benefit of the doubt...



"I recieved Medicaid and WIC for quite a while and Food Stamps for a couple of months. Not once did they ask if I was looking for a job. All they wanted was proof of all income. They did not care that I didn't have a job. They just go by the standards set by the government. If the government says someone qualifies and they need the help for their kids then it should be fine. Somewhere someone decides what the qualification are."


That's because Food Stamps is one program, WIC is another program, and TANF is another program. These programs are all separate entities with differnt requirements. The federal government says everyone should have money to eat. States encourage all middle-to-low income people to apply because its federal money being pumped into the state's economy. WIC is about making sure pregnant women and babies/toddlers/children are getting the basic staples so they don't end up like the kids you see on those commercials with extended bellies and flies on their eyes. TANF is cash and there are more restrictions with it and behavior requirements to receive it. You can't get TANF if you have a job, but you can get FS and WIC, hence the lack of emphasis on employment with the latter two.


Lets refrain from going to old arguments or talking about the OBC... I really couldnt care less about that shit. Thanks!

Report this

My husband is in the Navy and we get WIC..I see nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact Welfare was first established for families of the armed forces. So if I had to go on that I would and feel no shame.


Oh as of now I am a SAHM, because of my high risk pregnancy. I support SAHM and working parents. You do what you have to.


Now I have a problem with SAHM or working parents who receive assistance as a means of living off of forever. I have an aunt who has been on Welfare for over 30 years..Now that just not make any sense. She's abled bodied she just chooses not too.

Dshunda
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Yes I like it too, it helps reduce abuse. you see IMO- how dare someone make a conscious decision to live off assistance when they don't have to, when there are people who really need it and don't have a choice. if you have an option, what kind of selfish person chooses to dip into the community barrel instead of working. its stealing, plain and simple.

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I remember seeing some sort of employment assistance program on the forms I had to fill out but I did not have to attend. I think it is strange that they would have different rules from state to state.


I personally am very thankful that Medicaid and WIC were there when we needed it. We have been off Medicaid for over a year now. We have been off of WIC for over 2 years. We honestly would have qualified last year for Medicaid still, but we finally could afford health insurance for the kids. Mostly because we have an extremely high deductable. I think it is $1250 per person. With that we have a HSA that we can contribute to, which was hard at first.

Report this

I don't feel a bit guilty about using it when I needed it, especially now that we've been paying the state almost $500 in taxes for the last three years. I had Medicaid when I got pregnant (unplanned) and I dare anyone to tell me that I should have had a forced abortion or be forced to give up my kid for adoption just because I was in a crappy financial situation with my unplanned pregnancy. I worked right up until my 8th month of pregnancy, stacking pallets of computer monitors in a warehouse. DH and I paid into it all of our lives, since we first started working. So why shouldn't we be able to tap into it when needed?

anonymice
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I was not for government assistance until my sister qualified for it. She works 40 hours a week as a hair stylist and is really great at it. Unfortunately, the town she lives in doesn't pay great which means she can't afford all the necessities. She is now doing better and doesn't qualify, but was getting food stamps and WIC for a few years to help out her and her dd. When they found out her boyfriend, useless babiy's father, was living with them and not working they pulled all funding and she got nothing.


Once he moved out, she started getting help for her and her dd again. So, it suprises me that people get assistance if one abled body person in a household isn't working since in my experience it was untrue.


That being said: And, I mean no disrespect to parents who choose to work, I just don't get it. I think staying home and taking care of your children is of the utmost importance. Truthfully, it isn't my favorite job, and I love that my oldest is in preschool a few hours a day for his developmental delays. This just started when he turned three. However, even though it isn't my favorite job, it is a job that I decided to take on when having kids. I can't fathom paying someone money that I earned to watch my own children.


So, if a parent wants to stay home for the sole purpose of raising their children, then yes, I believe they should get some form of assistance with food and other necessities. However, once the children are school aged, assistance should cease unless both parents are still working and earning below the required amount.

Punky*Bear
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I worked for a while and i was paying more in child care than i was making and it was putting us even more in the hole. Sometimes its not a chioce of what you want to do. Its sad we live in a country where its cheaper to be a sahm than to work. I would love to even just pt a few days a week but with the cost of child care its just not worth it for me too. I love being at home with my kids so i can teach them so they are ready for the real world when it comes for them. I admire mom's who work and raise there kids. its not easy doing either but both kudios to you. But as far as saying you want them to have values about working doesnt mean you have to work. For years mom's stayed home and dads worked and all those kids turned out okay. I was never handed anything once i was old enough to work. I bought my first car even though my parents could have done it for me i paid my insurance for my gas everything and if for some reason i didnt have the money i worked at home for it doing what ever was needed of me to earn money. I think that is what you need to teach your child whether you work or not or whether you can pay for it for them or not. I tell my oldest all the time we cant afford that right now but im sure you can help dad do some stuff you can earn the money for it and he's 5 almost 6. When my kids are older all in school. I want to go back to work there are days i would love to be at work lol. In Ohio you are limited on how long you can collect certian types of assistance. You do have to show proof of all income in the household and if you have no job and are the only provider for the family you have to appy through ohio's unemployment system so they can help you find a job. I dont know why so many ppl think this is just a hand out and ppl dont want to work( yeah i know lots that dont) but sometimes its harder asking for help than you would think. It bothers be sooo much that we have to do this I want to be able to do it on our own and i know soon we will. But until then we have to do what we can for our families.


I think everyone should relize that you could all be one day away from asking for help with the cost of everything on the rise and all the jobs going over sea's you could not have a job tomorrow and need help real soon. Every one needs help sometimes. This is way our country is that way it is. Everyone is soo me me me why should i help you bc your to lazy..... sometimes its not that most cases where live ( ohio) These people had great jobs for years and one day there job was gone. My dh builds swimming pools last year that built a really nice inground ppol for this guy that was really rude to my dh and this year he is applying for a job where dh works bc he lost him job and bc they made such great money he wife was a sahm for 12years and doesnt have the skills to go back into the work force. Arent we suposed to help those in need?


My dh is old fashioned about that kind of thing if i want to he wont tell me no. but he would rather have me at home with our kids so he knows they are safe. And i love him for that.

The McGee Zoo
Posted on 4/24/08

IMO don't have kids you can't afford... if you want to be a stay-at-home parent, AMAZING! but its YOUR job to fund that priority, not the governments.



However, I do think that the government should require some form of maternity pay for mothers. Its so sad that mom's are going back to work at 3-4 weeks after birth because their company doesn't offer sick/vacation pay. Yes, we have FMLA but how realistic is it for most people to be able to take 12 weeks off of work w/o pay. Maybe mandate 6 weeks paid time, 6 weeks 1/2 pay or something?

cepbush106
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

a couple more thoughts. (I love this discussions, they really help me clarify)


"For years mom's stayed home and dad worked" This has nothing to do with the question of should someone decide to be a SAHP KNOWING they will need to be on assitance. The key here is that dad was supporting them, hence, not on assistance. It was a differant world.


I'm a WOHM. I don't pay a penny for daycare. I don't see my husband much, but he has Finn from the time I leave in the morning, until the time I pick him up. I understand that is not the norm, and we about had a heart attack when we got daycare costs. Had it been an option I would have found a WAH job, whether it meant getting up at 4 am and delivering the shopping news, or setting up my own daycare, or hiring out as a freelance typist. (we have 3 colleges, and students are always looking for someone to type papers) or some other internet based job.


"We paid into it for years, why not take out" This is my same issue with SS. look at what you pay in. if you look at the charts that were posted. I figured between SS, medicaid, medicare and several other "social" programs, it's about $600/$1000 taxes. We make an average middle class income, and pay taxes of about $5000 total, so about $3000/year goes to social programs. I work where I see what a lot of people are getting for SS. No one is getting less than $3000/year (I'm sure there are people that are, but I'm not seeing them) If I pay in for 10 years, that net's me $30,000. By the time I get gov't assistance for what? 2 years, it's gone, and someone else is paying. You use up the excuse of I paid in, I deserve it back far quicker than you think.


and I have to laugh, almost hysterically, at the concept that $1250 ea is a high deductible. Mine is at $10,000 and my husband and son are at $5000 each, as that is what we can afford. I would kill for $1250, but that would cost us over $1000/month and that would be unaffordable.


I completely agree that someone that faces unexpected difficulties should use the programs, but if everyone uses them because they are there, they will go away. There won't be enough people working to cover those that aren't.

DawnMertise
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

If we had to pay an employee for 6 weeks of work and not have someone working, it would put us under. I believe most of those programs only apply for companies with a certain gross or with 25 or more employees. 95% of all businesses are family owned and have less than 25 employees, so would be exempt from those rules anyways.

DawnMertise
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

i don't think you should plan to have children if you know doing so will require the gov't assistance. whether you are working or planning to SAH. if you working will prevent you from being on gov't assistance then i think you should work. i kind of feel different about WIC b/c it is groceries. if you need it that is fine, but if you don't need it you shouldn't accept it. save it for those that actually do. this is not referring to those with a surprise - prevention failing - babies.


i think i kind of do feel different about people who make this choice. i harbor no hate, but feel like someone who expects the gov't to take care of them is not the type of person i like to hang out with.


i am pro-SAHM, but i don't push my views on other people. i also think part of the job of parents is to teach responsibility and accountibility. if you go into a situation (parenthood) you should be preparred to take care of the responsibilites that follow.


duckysmith1
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

yup, we waited to have a second child until we could afford him. Starting this fall, we'll be paying about $1,000 a month in child care/ preschool... wow what we could do with an extra $1,000 a month!!!!

cepbush106
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

and I have to laugh, almost hysterically, at the concept that $1250 ea is a high deductible. Mine is at $10,000 and my husband and son are at $5000 each, as that is what we can afford. I would kill for $1250, but that would cost us over $1000/month and that would be unaffordable.


There is a good reason for that as well, my husband works for a major corporation that pays for part of his insurance. From what you said before it sounds like you and your husband own your own business so you have to pick up all of the costs involved in the insurance. $1250 is a lot of money. Again it is all a matter of choices made. You could probably get a job at this same major corporation that has been critized for its "bad" insurance.

Report this

Seriously, I would much rather have someone use govt. resources now and spend time teaching and raising their children than to work several jobs, never spend time with their children and then have those children grow up to be problems on society. Because then they will be causing an even greater strain on the government.


And NO, I'm not saying that all families that work lots of jobs neglect their children but in this day and age of single parent households, I do believe that there are a few familes/children that are suffering from the lack of availability of their parents being there.


Parents are blaming teachers for not "doing their jobs", when I personally believe that it's a parents job to be the first teacher and teach the basics like respect, right and wrong, along with the normal abc's, 123's, colors, etc.


This is way more than just a money issue. Money can't buy time.

DreamladyK
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

been there, done that also. We just recently were able to get our kids off of WIC. They have also been off of medicaid for several months now. I started working part time back last june or july. I only get about 13 hours a week, and make minimum wage, but it helps. We dont sstruggle anymore. I dont judge people by whether they are on assistance or not. Honesly I hate people who do judge others for being on it, regardles of the situation. It is nobodys job to judge that.
Some people take advantage of the programs, and that is bad, but I still wont judge.I used to be a stay at home mom from the time our first was born until almost a year ago. My kids were on assistance and WIC, but I still stayed home. Yes that was wrong, but it was what worked for s at the time. I do believe every child needs parents that are there for them, no matter what, and that is what we did. I stayed home to be there for our kids. I would rather die than put my children in daycare or other such places. It is our jobs as parents to take care of our kids.


Pretty soon I will most likely be a stay at home mom again. Mainly because my husbands new job will require him to work every day, so I will not have a day avaliable to work part time anymore. Now this time our kids are off assistance and no longer on WIC. I am so happy that we were able to get them off of government health.I am also glad we do not qualify for WIC anymore. I cant wait to have the priveledge to be a sahm again and this time know that we are providing for our childrens needs and not needing assistance. That just makes me so happy. I couldnt be happier now.


I say, do what is best for your family and what works for you.


greenmom67
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

OK so my opinion...


Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?


It's not that black and white- If you are in a situation where your partner's check can absorb the costs of the family then I'm all for being a SAHM. However if you are a single parent or a couple that can't afford to feed your children- go get a job, even a low paying job beats out welfare.


I am NOT talking about the family that has 3 children so the daycare costs exceeded the 2nd person's income. I totally understand the SAH in this situation as it's just common sense.


Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?


I think the problem with govt assistance is the people that NEED it often don't get it because the person that just WANTED it took their spot. If nobody abused the system there wouldn't be so many judgements made on the people that actually NEED it.


I have a married friend and assistance really helped her get on her feet and get her infant the care he needed. It was a life saver for her.


I also have another friend who stays at home, her husband doesn't work. Both are able adults, both choose to sit on their asses all day, eating off of govt dollars that every other working citizen is paying into. It's disgusting in my opinion.


If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views
on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt
assistance?


I am totally supportive of SAH parenting, but not at all costs. If you can't afford to stay home and a job would pay more then assistance I think you need to get a job! I think the whole "best for the child" is an entirely different debate.


(From a working, single mother of one darling boy)

LittleEandMe
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Phew, this is very heated!!


I am BTDT! I was a student, finishing up my degree when I found out I was pregnant. The insurance that I had through my parents would not last through the whole pregnancy since I would have been done school, and my fiance's work insurance would not cover me since we were not married... So, I applied for the MOMS program in NYS. Its medicaid for the mom and it covers the baby for the first year of life. It also qualifies you for WIC. I was a FULL time student and working part time. I believe that if you need the assistance, temporarily then its quite alright. After I finished school and had the baby, my fiance and I made a joint decision for me to stay home. We sometimes have a hard time making ends meet, and we no longer receive gov't assistance (other than ds's insurance).


I could go and apply for everything out there, but I don't because I know there are families out there than need it more.


I agree with a PP on the "i've paid it in" philosophy though. I used the medicaid and I have been working since I was 14. I think that using 6 months of insurance is hardly a crime.


I do not however agree with SAH just to collect. That is silly!



I hope this makes sense! lol

Linz1029
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

Do you think being a SAHP should be limited only to households that can afford to do so without relying on govt assistance?


Nope. Been there, doing that. To be completely honest, if both of us were to be working, we'd be much worse off than we are now and wouldnt qualify for anything.




Do you feel differently about people who make this choice?


Not at all. Happy kids make happy adults no matter how they got there.




If you are pro-SAH Parenting, does this situation change your views
on it, or do you still think its best for the child, regardless of govt
assistance?


No.

ModdedMomma
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

yes, my insurance is because we have to pay our won. Like I said, it was a moment, of oh man, I'd love to have that! I'm considering switching jobs because I feel that as a parent, it's irresponsible for me not to look into better insurance. But we know that's the choice we make.


hmm, I really didn't think it was that heated. I didn't see anyone calling names. just people stating their view point.


I certainly don't feel 6 months is an issue. That's exactly what it's there for. My only issue is with someone who says, I want to have children and stay home, so rather than doing anything to make that possible on my own, I'm going to let the government take care of me.


my son lives in my house. I pay for his food, I pay for his clothes, I pay for the roof over his head. He follows my rules. If you continue to let the government pay for your food, pay for your clothes and pay for your roof, it's not unreasonable at some point, they are going to expect you to follow their rules. FOR ME, it doesn't feel very much like a self sufficient adult, if my plan is to let someone else do that.

DawnMertise
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

I haven't even read all of the posts but I can see both sides to this. Mainly b/c I'm one of those people who had to work for everything that I have so I say why can't they. But then again, my friends and I also used to get mad in college about how we couldn't stay in the newly built apartments with pools b/c they were for gov't asst and we didn't qualify unless we had kid/s. Even though we had little or no income, full-time students don't qualify...only part-time who meet certain other restrictions. The same thing with food stamps and all kinds of other stuff.


We could get loans out the wazoo and have to pay them back, but here we are young people trying to do something positive, make something of ourselves, avoided all of the pitfalls and didn't make the mistakes of bringing a baby into the world before we were ready....or committing any crimes...and our reward was no assistance. So it was very easy to want to get something free too. It was like we pay all of this in, but get nothing back. And on top of that are told that by the time we're eligible to collect social security, it won't be anything to collect! So yeah, give me something!


And the one person that we knew who did finally qualify (she was a senior who only had 3 classes) all she got was $25 a month for food stamps, lol!!!! So she was working full time....but low pay, in school 3 days a week, and of everything she's paid in, she got 3 months of asst in the form of $25 worth of food a month.

MzSuperStar
Posted on 4/24/08
Report this

"if you have an option, what kind of selfish person chooses to dip into
the community barrel instead of working. its stealing, plain and simple."


What if the person has been working for 10 years and has put his/her fair share into the community pot? When does he/she get to dip in? Since we all pay taxes, shouldnt we all, at some point, be able to draw from the programs our tax dollars fund if we qualify?


"For years mom's stayed home and dads worked and all those kids turned out okay."


I think people forget we're only really 1-2 generations removed from the time when a woman working, especially a married woman, was NOT the norm. Come on people. Just as there was a time when we had no cable and no internet, there was a time when (most) women simply did not work. And yes, either they received some type of government assistance or the father's job actually paid a livable wage, unlike the average for today. Are peopel suggesting that people born to parents who dont work dont learn the value of working? Cmon, we have to do better than that.

Report this

I'm a firm believer in the old view of welfare, it was for true emergencies, the truely down & out. Temporary assistance for families where the primary breadwinner may have died, where a factory closed and an entire town was out of work, where a father up & left a mom and small kids to fend for themselves, etc.


I do not believe any form of welfare was meant to subsidize lifestyle choices. It was not meant originally for able bodied adults to not have to work. Should healthcare be afforadable? Yes. Should childcare be affordable? Yes. Should you have to work in some capacity if you cannot afford to stay home on one salary? Hell YES.


Staying at home with your children is a lifestyle choice, just like working out of the home is. No one is entitled to it and certainly not on someone else's dime.

bourriquet76
Posted on 4/25/08

"if you have an option, what kind of selfish person chooses to dip into
the community barrel instead of working. its stealing, plain and simple."



What if the person has been working for 10 years and has put his/her fair share into the community pot? When does he/she get to dip in? Since we all pay taxes, shouldnt we all, at some point, be able to draw from the programs our tax dollars fund if we qualify?


NONONONONO!!!! Just because you pay into a system that is built to help people in an emergency, does not EVER empower you to make a DECISION to become needy by choice. This is a social crisis that we have, the attitude of the American people that we are all owed something. That money you are paying in is not a savings account for yourself! You are responsible for your own financial future. People in other countries BUST THEIR BEHINDS and are moving light years past us in technology and education, while we sit here and say "I want to stay home give me money so I can do that." Our current economic crisis is due to our laziness and greed. The OP was not meant to be a WOHM or SAHM debate (I hope), whichever your choice is being a mom is hard work. But take responsibility for your choices and don't take handouts away from people who really need them. Wouldn't life be nice if everyone worked to take care of themselves and we could see LOWER taxes instead of hiking them year after year.

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/25/08
Report this

Dawn - I am right there with your points


I am a working mother and to be honest I am poor - My car has 2 payments left and when that is paid life will be much better......I can't wait. I work to be poor. I don't get any food stamps, Wick, government housing, cash assistance, daycare vouchers or help with my electric bill. I have joked around and have said I should quit my job and live off the system because I will still be poor but at least I will be less stressed out with the whole working mom thing in the factor - But I would never do that......why???? My parents didn't raise me to be that way..........At least I will be able to one day say I did it all by myself.


One thing that really ticks me off is when people who get Government assistance have better things then me.....I don't know why but it makes my blood boil. After having my son I lost 60lbs....this wasn't pregnancy weight this is weight a gained a couple of years before having him - The most depressing thing for me and being broke right now is not being able to afford clothes to fit my new body - Yes, I go to thrift stores but I can't even afford most things there - It has killed my pride but I have asked my best girlfriends for any old clothes they have that they aren't using because I don't have anything that fits me and they know I can't afford to go buy anything - Thank God they came through - I don't have the best of wardrobes but I have clothes that fit on my body. Writing that brought tears to my eyes but what I am trying to say is I am broke, use coupons for everything I buy but I keep on working and don't get any assistance because I wouldn't feel right doing it and it really bugs me when people that are on these programs have nice outfits, new shoes & get to go out. I know in my heart I am doing the right thing and soon my car will be paid for and Mikey will not be using formula anymore so things will get much better. I am glad my family put the values in me to work for what I have - even if what I have isn't that much it is better then what some people have....I have a roof on my head, a car to drive and a job to go to plus a beautiful son.


LadySapphire
Posted on 4/25/08
Report this

LadySapphire- I hear you completely, burns me to no end when these women walk up in DSS with their airbrushed fake nails, highlights in their hair, newest cell phones on the market, high heels, blinged out earrings- the works. Or the men crying poverty rocking new Jordans and Sean John. But thats another topic LOL!

RuthDoug
Posted on 4/25/08