Category: News and Views
This question was posed on www.cafemom.com, and all but a few posters just about snapped the poor lady's head off, so I'll try it here.
IMNSHO, moms receiving even their state's form of Medicaid should at least be able to prove they are engaged in a search for a part time job, and if they aren't getting any response, or not too many are hiring, or they need to improve their English or whatever, they at least have the documentation that said they tried.
My husband's 'friends' will marry women from the old country and bring them here. Eight years of dealing with these folks says they're at least getting subsidized health, and receiving this assistance here makes those pregnant or with a child under the age of 5 eligible for WIC vouchers. It makes me mad as a mom that I am working a full time job to subsidize these "moms" to stay at home, and I put the word in quotes as some of these don't even have the courtesy to teach their young ones English, setting them up for problems in our society. Some of husbands go to work after noon, so there's no reason they couldn't work a part time job in the early morning in exchange for taxpayer sponsored benefits. I think even for those who have infants under the age of 1 in the house a search should be mandated, then if someone offers 'em the job and maybe they're on their own and can prove a problem finding child care, they would be exempt. The way the law works now women with infants at home are exempt from the work requirement, which makes it all the more palatable for 'em to have another baby. A search requirement would make this option less palatable.
I will never understand the appeal of the welfare state except for those who are too disabled or sick to work an outside job. I know people obsessed with Unemployment Comp who don't even have to prove they're looking. What's the appeal of that? It is only a fraction of one's salary, doesn't include tips, shift diff, or any commissions they might have gotten and is temporary. One woman I know even put off a work search "wanting to hear back on her Unemployment claim first." ?! Years ago in Florida you started a search for another job the day you applied. I just don't get it. What's you guys' take?
My thots are that you'll get several responses here on
this Board with many differing views.
Not to argue, just to share a few thots...
~To me a lot would depend on the health of the mother as far
as far seeking for employment. In some cases there
are serious health issues that arise during labour and then too post partum
conditions and so forth... She really needs to get her strength back first.
~Personally I should like that a new mother care for her newborn
rather than placing the infant in child care
~Goodness only knows the high amount in taxes that my family pays
and personally I have no problem with funds going for WIC and similar programs.
I would much rather dollars be used in family care rather than
for monies spent on advancing wars throughout the world.
~Oft times a new mother has low paying jobs only that are open
to her. The jobs that where by the time she spends for child care
for her own baby as well as the gasoline to drive to and from work, well,
that is about all that is made or so it would seem.
~Yeah, it would be great if someone waited till all conditions seemed to be
"perfect" before having a baby {like having an ideal job that pays well
as well as having the necessary funds} ...only that isn't oft times how reality
presents itself. In the meanwhile newborns still are in need of being
provided for, hopefully in a loving and caring manner and really being a mom
is a full time job of it's own. One without a paycheck.
I don't believe that immigrants should get special treatment. But I do think that anyone with a child under five, if they can prove that they're low-income, should receive assistance. If it's a two-parent household, be it heterosexual or homosexual, at least one parent should stay home with the child until he/she is at least five-years-old. If it's a single parent household, or if the couple wish to make some extra money, then working at home is fine. But it's important that children have a parental figure around for at least the first five years of life, and if it's a mother, that's even better. Leaving the child in the hands of strangers is never advisable in my book, especially when the child is an infant. I'm strongly in favour of breastfeeding, whenever medically possible, and this can't be done if a mother is at work and the child is at home. Grace, you made some very good points. I especially like your last one that being a mom is a full-time job. I completely agree with you. I admire and love my mom for all she's done for me and for how much she's sacrificed of herself for me.
I think really the issue is who is scamming the state (and tax payers) by having child after child after child. I'm all for parents getting assistance when it's needed, but I have a problem with women having babies just so they don't need to work. I don't have any solutions for the problem, but if I may point something out about the child care issue...In the United States a single mom or low income couple are typically able to receive daycare assistance; which means the working parent(s) pay little to no money towards their child's daycare, and typically the state will leave the childcare selection up to the parents. To add, in my experience if the Mom is willing to work multiple jobs she is unqualified for assistance...After my parents got divorced and my Mom wanted to go back to school, (she was already working 2 jobs) she was denied for any kind of assistance; is that fair either? She (and us) were punished by losing our Mom just because she wanted to make her and our lives better. By losing I mean that I saw my Mom rarely, and usually only if I staid up till after 11:00 P.M. just to be able to say goodnight...Oh, and if she quit one job she wouldn't be able to get assistance either because she quit...
What is this bologna anyway about women having babies to get assistance? I realize I am a man and don't know, but I was there with my wife, bless her, when she gave birth. And what an event it was, but I must say, it's not a cash machine. There's nerves, risks, all sorts of things go into it that a man can't possibly tell women (who already know).
My guess is some of these are just irresponsible with their actions, and the fathers are too, as it does in fact take two. so they end up empregnated not as a desired outcome but as a result. For simpler minds that means they did not set out to get pregnant, but it ... just happened. Happens a lot in fact, among working people also, only we can pay for ours.
I totally understand the impatience with folks reproducing a ton of offspring without caring for them, leaving people like Spongebob and the rest of us to pay for those kids plus their own. Since I can be a real bastard, my solution for that is give the guys vassectomies as it's pretty low risk and once it's done it's done. S'pose the woman version would work for the women though some would call that sexist.
As for paying for the offspring: If a woman is owed money by the man, she gets his money from the government. Then the government collects from him. After all, since he owes the government now and not her, they will collect: no more single moms choosing between going to work and going to court to collect arrearages.
I'd also like to add the options, first of birth control, and second of abortion into the mix. If couples used a reliable method of birth control, these unwanted children wouldn't need to be born and wouldn't burden their parents (not intentionally of course) and/or the government with having to care for them because the couple wasn't financially or otherwise ready to have more children. But should it happen that the birth control didn't work, abortion is still an option and certainly makes sense after the first or second child.
Yeah but you have to be careful about bringing abortion into discussions like this since as you doubtless already know it's a highly sensitive issue. I personally agree that there are some circumstances where it may be all right, such as in cases of rape or where the life of the mother would be endangered by allowing the pregnancy to continue, but not everybody feels that way. FOr a lot of people the child is a child from the moment the woman becomes pregnant and if the woman doesn't want or is for whatever reason unable to care for the child, then they either shouldn't have had the baby in the first place or they should place it up for adoption. And I personally would be wary of the latter option since not every would-be adoptive family will exactly have the child's best interests at heart and yet can still pass the required tests and things.
But in response to Robozork's comments, there are in fact some mothers, whether in the minority or not, who would happily have more children just for the sake of getting more assistance from the state. I've known a few women like that personally. But I do believe that something needs to change. That idea about being required to prove that you are or have recently tried unsuccessfully to find work seems like a good idea. At the same time I don't believe they should be "punished," for lack of a better term, when they do find work the way us blind folks on SSI are as far as I'm concerned. But as that's an entirely different issue I won't go into a rant about that.
There are not only women who have more children to manipulate more of a financial settlement from others, but some who have babies in particular so they can be exempt from the work requirement of the Welfare to Work Act, passed under the Clinton administration, that requires welfare recipients to work part time, # of hours depends on age of any children in the house. Donna Shalala put it better than Spongebob here can..."One group of mothers should not be going to work to subsidize another group to stay home."
Exempt I believe are those welfare recipients too sick or disabled to work...I've actually known men who suffered brain aneurysms who were never cleared to return to work, as well as those suffering kidney disease and M S...and moms who can prove they have a difficult time finding child care, like lack of family, available friends, heck, I know one woman whose daughter is #87 to get into preschool. I'd love to see the look on these beaming new moms' faces when they bring that bundle of joy to get food assistance, and are told, "Here are your work search forms. You must be able to prove you've made at least four job inquiries this week."
The ultimate example of such a woman lives in my old hometown, Tampa, Florida. This woman had 15 kids, most by a convicted drug dealer. 12 live with her in a MOTEL ROOM in the Sulfur Springs neighborhood. For anyone whose never been thru Tampa, Sulfur Springs is Eric Clapton's song 'Nobody Loves You When You're Down and Out'...flophouse motels, used car dealerships, a very depressed(ing) neighborhood. Woman says it should be her prerogative to have as many children as she wants and the rest of us should have to pay for it. Included in these wretched circumstances is an infant. Why is this breeder not mother not in jail?
She should've been sterillised a long time ago. What a disgrace to humanity!
Wow, well you saw it I didn't. Fifteen? I didn't think a woman, especially a destitute living in a roachfest motel, could survive such an ordeal. Sounds like sterilization woulda fixed that.
There are complications like while she's searching, who looks after the crumb crushers? Do we fund institutions where she checks them in or something? Daycare costs a lot as you no doubt know. It actually was cheaper in the long run for me to suck it up and put in some extra time while the wife sacrificed to stay home with our daughter when she was little. Once you pay for daycare, extra meds / urgent care visits and the like, unless you're both earning good incomes the numbers don't come up, feelings aside. My wife's occupation had been preschool teacher and they don't make too much.
I don't have the answers, and the points you make show me even more I really don't ... but that doesn't mean I don't understand your frustration: I do. You're busting your tail so others can freeload, and there just ain't that much to go around. I don't like it either ... We can't do a new boot loader on the universe.
No, but healthcare, education and childcare (though I'm against the idea of those who aren't parents, family or friends caring for children in many cases) can be socialised so that everyone shares the burden equally and everyone can receive equal treatment. I think there should also be private institutions for such things, for those who can afford to use them and who wish to do so, but America isn't exactly a poor country and can afford to help it's citizens.