I thought I'd continue my thoughts on public assistance in the Monkey House forum, considering it's not specific to Lawrence.

Here's a scenario:

Let's say there's a family of three, including a mom, dad, and a child (who is in the WIC age-range< up to age 5). The dad works and doesn't make a whole lot of money. The mom thinks she deserves to stay at home with her child, although she's completely able to work outside the home. The family is in the income range that's elligible for WIC ($32,560 for a family of three). The mom likes to use excuses for not getting a job, such as, "It would cost more for day care than I could make." With the average child care at $679 a month, even a full-time job with a pay of $6 per hour is going to cover that and add some extra to a monthly budget.

Here's my question: Should a family in this scenario qualify for WIC payments (or any other taxpayer-funded assistance) even if one of the family members chooses not to work? Does a low-income mom/dad deserve to choose to stay at home with their child/children if they are fully capable of working? Should taxpayers have to provide food for a family that is capable of working more and paying their own food bills?

(as a side note, I do realize that some larger families that chose to have too many children without adequate financial security wouldn't be able to fund day care at $679 per month. Some families also come across really hard times and need/deserve some help *Job loss, etc.* There are those families that truly need help, and then there are those families that are helpless. Please keep in mind that I absolutely don't feel that we should punish a child because he/she has lazy parents.)

B2008 - I think that your hypothetical family should have waited until they could afford to raise a child on one income before conceiving.

I completely agree, and if they couldn't wait then they should be given assistance for the child only and the non working parent should be given X amount of weeks to find a job. If both parents are not working at the end of that time frame, then the assistance stops and someone is assigned to check the welfare of the child every so often. I know I can sit here and give my opinion on this but as I am typing I realize that every solution only creates another issue. GGGRRRR Capable parents just need to get off their lazy a*ses and work. That is the ONLY solution that doesn't pose another problem, but we all know that will never happen. The system should remain in effect for those who genuinely need it, but the abusers should be cut of immediately. Example... you receive assistance and have one child. If you give birth to a second, third, ect. child and you are still on assistance then you should be removed from assistance and STERILIZED

Jesus H. Christ. There are some draconian people in America. How about if you are a deadbeat dad, the state can cut your peener off, too?

So, situation here. "Lazy" parent gets off her --- (since the assumption starting out with is that it is the *mother* who refuses to get a job) and gets herself a nice minimum wage job to keep the family afloat. Let's assume $6.00/hr working 40 hours a week, for sake of the situation which = $12,480/year - taxes (10% for ease) $1248 = $11,232 - daycare (@ average $679/mo) - $8148 = a whopping $4332/year mom has earned for the family. This does not include any other incidental expenses associated with working (work clothes, transportation, etc). Can someone explain to me how the "lazy' stay at home mom has pushed her family ahead by doing this?

Let's go further into the future now...child is too old to be in daycare (13+) and now is a latchkey kid. Child gets in trouble a lot because there is no adult to supervise them after school. We're talking vandalism, maybe some shoplifting or perhaps knocking up his girlfriend. Who do we blame there? I mean, the parents are out there earning that money to make sure they aren't sucking off the government teat so do we cut them some slack because of it or do we also condemn them to hell because they weren't able to be in 2 places at once?

With providing assistance now, you have the potential of significant tax savings down the line. Float someone some food stamp money now and potentially avoid the medical costs of a teen pregnancy or the incarceration costs of a juvie later.

You can't have it both ways, folks. You just have to decide what is an acceptable outcome. Me? I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

BTW, I don't see why this would be a monkey house topic.

The Community Forum description...


How is public assistance not an issue that concerns residents of Lawrence, KS? It doesn't have to be specific in that it is happening only in Lawrence, KS for a topic to be valid on the Community Forum.

And that's my take on it.

OP doesn't say how old the kid is. School time could give the mom an opportunity to at least work part-time. That would be a good compromise. For people of a conservative persuasion, this type of situation poses an interesting dilemma: 'Stay at home moms'... (Good) vs. 'Government handouts'... (Bad)!

Part-time at a minimum wage job is not going to help get the family ahead or potentially keep them from needing assistance.

However, I do agree about the interesting dilemma...

you got the limit wrong B it's $35k not $32,560 the guidelines were raised from 02-04. i called the HD and asked what the guidelines for wic were for a family of 3. and the daycare costs to much is a valid excuse not to work unless the woman can find a job that her hubby can stay home with the kid. that's what i did and it works out fine but my paycheck pays for the essentials for my kid like diapers, food, gas to go to and from appointments and work as well as personal items i need and any medical or personal maintenance i need to do, while my check takes care of all that if i weren't working or i couldn't find a job with a schedule that allows my hubby to watch my son then my hubby would be in charge of it and it would be harder and i am sure in that situation it would seem that "every little bit helps" it;s not like wic is money assistance from srs and some people who get wic aren't eligible for foodstamps or public assistance from srs since their guidelines are much lower than wic

OR the mother and father can share the childcare time and completely do away with the cost by working different shifts. My husband and i did it for many years. But then everyone will whine about who's going to take the 3rd shift job. As I said before, it doesn't matter what solution you offer to someone that doesn't want to work, they will always find a reason that it won't. I know that every family has a different story and that Gern, is why I said that assistance should be left in place for those who really need it. I have no gripe except for the ones that abuse it and use it as a way of making their living. Oh and that dead beat dad you were talking about, that's my ex-husband so don't think for a second that I don't understand that situation. I guess my main thought on this entire subject is that as parents, it is our job to do whatever it is we can do to make ends meet. Parents with different shifts, second jobs, cut out things like cable and internet, etc... trust me I have been there. I have struggled and I have been the single parent. I have been without electricity and didn't know where our next meal was coming from, but I always managed to figure it out. At one point when we couldn't afford daycare I actually went through the motions and opened my own daycare. Perfect solution to staying home with your kids AND you get paid to do it!

"it;s not like wic is money assistance from srs and some people who get wic aren't eligible for foodstamps or public assistance from srs since their guidelines are much lower than wic"

WIC may not be actual money, but it's still costing the rest of us. Doesn't it tick off the rest of you that posters on Larryville are getting assistance from the government, yet they have money for an internet connection and the time to waste on here? I know many moms who would love to stay at home with their children, but they have too much respect for themselves and other hard workers to suck $$ from public assistance. Yes, Lanna, WIC is public assistance.

Yes it does tick me off, but I have to say that it is not just moms. A good friend of mine is married to a man that can't keep a job BUT they are not on public assistance... yet. I'm sure they could be at some point. WIC is public assistance and some people get Food Stamps and WIC at the same time. If you ask me, that's double dipping. I still maintain that some people do need the help from SRS and will use it for a few months to get back on track. That is what it is there for. I only despise those who simply abuse it. You can do without an internet connection and cable or satellite. You can also do without name brand foods and soda. There are a million small ways to cut back on spending but the government makes it too easy to be a leech so why would they.

I completely agree with you, saywhat.

i didn't argue it wasn't a type of assistance but it's not money or public (as in rent utility money from srs or hud) assistance that would help them get more money to spend on non essentials.
saywhat: yeah my ex hubby's mom had FS and she always bought pop and chips and junkj food and her hubby worked and so did she but she hid her income/lied about it and got FS but she also got reported by her supervisor who was also in charge of medicare billing for the local hospital and found out she is on medicaide but is not reporting her income and scamming to state and she got fired..

I just thought I'd chime in and say that I basically was this hypothetical family less than a year ago. My wife and I had one son, who was about 16 months old. Making three of us. We made the decision that she would stay home with our child, something that I hope she will be able to do until he's old enough to leave the house, despite her being capable of working outside the home. My salary at the time was $32,500, it has gone up since then. I work full time and go to school full-time, in hopes of further increasing my earning potential through both experience and education. At the time my wife was in the first trimester of a second pregnancy that resulted in a miscarriage. When she found out she was pregnant she asked me if she could sign up for WIC since we qualified. I told her I was okay with it. She used two months worth of vouchers from the program. We gave back the third month's vouchers since she was no longer pregnant. The two months that we used the program couldn't have cost anywhere near as much tax payer money as sending a child to public school for 13-14 years.

The program is designed to benefit young children and pregnant and nursing mothers, by providing supplemental nutrition. From my perspective this seemed to amount to an increased amount of milk, cheese, eggs, and cereal in our kitchen. It's also important to note that the program isn't just a handout of food vouchers, in order to recieve them Women have to regularly visit the Health Department so their pregnancy can be monitored, giving them important pre-natal care that they might not otherwise have. The pre-natal care and improved nutrition significantly reduces the chances of expensive pre-mature births, which you guesed it, are usually on the tax payers dime.

I think WIC is a great program for those that need it, right now we don't but I am still glad it is there for others. Its ultimately a preventative program as was pointed out before by another poster.

Everyone in the US relies on some sort of public assistance, whether its the roads you drive on, the schools you send your children to, or the airplanes you fly on.

Granted, there are MANY families that abuse the system, but there are many folks that have paid in and continue to do so. Why shouldn't they too be allowed a little help when needed? Your "family" you mentioned exists all over this nation. At least the pretend Dad is working and not being a POS and claiming a disability because of a hangnail or some other lame, made up excuse not to work. Me, I'm a stay at home Mom of 3 beautiful girls and very proud of it. Working for $6 an hour outside my home? No way. It wouldn't pay in more ways than one. Unless you've walked a mile in someone elses shoes, then shut up.

Well put
I'll bet you even know where your kids are and who they are with at any given time.
Not many can say that these days.

This is why these types of conversations get rediculiously out of control. If you read all the posts you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself and tell people to shut up. $6 an hour is not going to offset the cost of child care and gas. I get that. So being a SAHM in that case is the right decesion IF you are not leaching off of the system (and I am NOT saying that you are.) I believe that there are perfectly relevant reasons for one of the parents to stay at home with the children. I am only opposed to that decision when the system is abused to do so. And I have been in your shoes.

Just because someone qualifies for assistance does not mean that they should use it. There are many mothers of young children who could qualify if they decided to quit their jobs and stay at home. That doesn't make it right. There are many mothers out there who work their butts off to stay off assistance, and they'd love to stay at home and watch their kids (and surf the web, blog on Larryville, eat bonbons, catch up on All My Children, etc., etc.). There are many people out there who truly need the assistance, and they deserve it. There are many people out there who feel they are entitled to use the system for various reasons (I paid into it, my childhood sucked, my neighbor does it, I don't have to work if I can pop out babies, I don't want my wife to work if we get some state cash, etc.). The mentality of many Americans to be lazy and suck off the system is the reason why so many of our social service programs can't afford to do a good job. You want more social workers in the schools or making home visits to respond to abuse claims? Fine. Make some lazy people get jobs and cut off the assistance. Why should everyone else's taxes go to paying for lazy people who keep having babies (partially to justify that it's cheaper to stay at home and receive assistance)? If you can afford to stay at home and raise your kids without assistance, then bravo to you. Let the funds go to those who really need it. Don't use it just because you can. Please note: Although posters keep accusing me of this, I'm not saying that there aren't times when people need assistance.

Who are you to judge whether or not it is needed?

Don't be so quick to judge and I won't. My apologies for telling you to shut up. I wasn't defending myself because you weren't talking about me. Your hypothetical situation, is just that, hypothetical.

There is and always will be people that abuse the system. That is unfortunately, the ways of our world. Short of completely reorganizing the social service system, there isn't much that can or will be done. I used to work for a social service agency and typically, the right hand has little or no clue what the left hand is doing. The intent is good, but followthrough is terrible. Lack of communication and information sharing is critical, but lacking.

What about the screening process for assistance? How easy is it? Typically, it's only a matter of filling out paperwork which can be manipulated to say whatever you want. I too received assistance when my oldest daughter was a baby. We didn't need help for very long, but I am grateful that is was there when I needed it.