Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The government (or individual states) obviously don't care if SAHMs are on PA

Anonymous
Posted by Anonymous
  • 35 Replies

If they cared, they would mandate that EVERYONE on PA be working a minimum number of hours. Here in Washington, as long as you have any dependents under the age of 18, you do NOT have to show proof that you work 20 hours a week. If everyone in the household is over age of 18, everyone must be working at least 20 hours a week.

**NOTE: This does not apply to those on cash assistance. Anyone on cash assistance has to be showing they are bringing in an income or working toward doing so.**

So for SAHMs who do have an income coming into the house (their husband, boyfriend, whatever) who has dependents under the age of 18 and qualifies for food stamps does NOT have to show that she is working at least 20 hours a week because they really don't give a crap. They obviously know that moms are staying home with their dependents under the age of 18 otherwise they wouldn't have made that distinction.

It might bother you but it obviously doesn't bother "the system."

Posted by Anonymous on Mar. 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
raegansmom
by on Mar. 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM
1 mom liked this

The system is seriously flawed.  Not exactly the best kept secret.

Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Mar. 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So do you (general you) condemn mothers who stay at home when they are on PA even though the government does nothing to discourage it?

mommyrustina
by on Mar. 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM
1 mom liked this
As long as the father (or one of the parents, whatever) is bringing in an income I do not see the issue. I think it is pretty crappy to expect a child to be thrown into a daycare situation if the primary breadwinner is laid off (or something along those lines).

Now, if someone had children knowing that they would need PA to support them, then that is a different story. I am just thinking of the families who were just fine with one income until something catastrophic happened; I see no issue with having only one working parent in that case.
Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Quoting mommyrustina:

As long as the father (or one of the parents, whatever) is bringing in an income I do not see the issue. I think it is pretty crappy to expect a child to be thrown into a daycare situation if the primary breadwinner is laid off (or something along those lines).

Now, if someone had children knowing that they would need PA to support them, then that is a different story. I am just thinking of the families who were just fine with one income until something catastrophic happened; I see no issue with having only one working parent in that case.
I really don't see much of a difference if both families are continuing to stay at home while the children are under the age of 18.
lv.42.dy
by on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM
1 mom liked this
Being a sahp is a luxury not a right. If you cannot make it on one income without pa...get a job!!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:49 PM
Quoting lv.42.dy:

Being a sahp is a luxury not a right. If you cannot make it on one income without pa...get a job!!
The government doesn't agree. They don't discourage it at all. If they did,they would put more restrictions on it.
lv.42.dy
by on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM
1 mom liked this
And?... it is no wonder there are so many lazy, entitled americans.

Quoting Anonymous:

Quoting lv.42.dy:

Being a sahp is a luxury not a right. If you cannot make it on one income without pa...get a job!!
The government doesn't agree. They don't discourage it at all. If they did,they would put more restrictions on it.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
illinoismommy83
by on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM
2 moms liked this
Child care assistance costs the state more than a little extra food stamps does. Its cheaper for the state if mom watches her own kids
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM
Quoting illinoismommy83:

Child care assistance costs the state more than a little extra food stamps does. Its cheaper for the state if mom watches her own kids
I agree. For a year I had to work while my husband was laid off for a year. They were paying A LOT for my daycare just for me to work. It cost my daughter $40 per day because daycare is EXTREMELY expensive in my area. Thankfully I ended up getting a job where I could get 50% off child care so I started paying for my own BUT yeah, $40 per day for just my one kid + how many other families who use it probably cost WAY more than the families on food stamps.
Anonymous
by Anonymous 2 on Mar. 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM
1 mom liked this

The "system" prefers moms with children not in school stay home hince the reason tehy give out assistance however once the kids are in school they require both parents to work, I am a food stamp case worker, if you have kids under the age of 6 here in california we reccommend that one parent be home with them, that eliminates any unncessary daycare costs, medical costs due to kids getting sick in daycares and so on but once all children in the home are in school the mother or father whoever is hoe must work a minimum of 20 hours or file for unemployment.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)