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

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

PA debaters. A new wording of an old question.

Posted by Anonymous   + Show Post
Would you rather your PA tax money go toward helping a family eat or paying for day care?

Let us speculate only on 2 working moms.

Abby works full time but needs assistance with child care for her 2 childern aged 6 months and 3 years.

Susan works part time in the evening so her children (same ages) are always with a parent. They have enough money for bills but need pa for food.

If Abby cut her hours she wouldn't be able to pay their bills, and if Susan worked more hours they would need daycare as well. Which mom is more "worthy" of your tax money?
Posted by Anonymous on Jan. 22, 2013 at 12:53 AM
Replies (31-40):
Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:29 AM
Okay. Thanks for explaining your point.


I only mentioned they were always with a parent to show no childcare was being covered. Not to push an agenda. Same reason I didn't bring into account what they were feeding their 6month olds.


Quoting Nicoleb9:

A daycare voucher would allow Susan to work full time. Her children "always being with a parent" is a personal preference, not something the tax payers should be subsidizing. And yes, I'd be fine with shelling out a little more for the daycare vouchers vs the food assistance. There's an end goal in mind there.




Quoting Anonymous:

Both women in the example are working. Both would have to show proof of household income to receive either assistance.






Quoting Nicoleb9:

I would prefer daycare vouchers over just handing over a food stamp card with no expectation of them working just because they have a baby.



TheQueenOfChaos
by Gold Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:29 AM
You do know that people have great jobs and lose them, companies close, etc right?

My DH was fired for discrimination. We've filed a lawsuit against the company. But that doesn't help us now. We went from a 44,000 per year middle income family to nothing.

It happens.


Quoting Anonymous:

No, no...I want people to start being responsible, and depend only on themselves...Did you know that you can live WITHOUT having sex? Did you know that you can use your OWN money to buy birth control??? I want my tax money going toward things like public education, roads, emergency responders, and not to compensate for some one's bad decisions.....



Quoting Anonymous:

So you want your tax money going toward free BC or abortions for all couples?





Quoting Anonymous:

they both need to stop having kids they can't afford!!







Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Susan is also working therefore would have that same info on her resume.


Quoting Nicoleb9:

Even if her job only pays minimum wage and is a dead end, it's still recent work history, experience in something and a good reference if she's a good employee.




Quoting Anonymous:

If Susan can get help for food, then yes bills would come first. If she had to choose between rent OR feeding her kids you would be correct.





Also I never said what job Abby is doing. She could also be working min wage with no future, just more hours.






Quoting ElitestJen:

Abby.  She has a future with payraises, promotions, and skill-building opportunities.

Oh...and unless you live in La-La Land "bills" are lower on the hierarchy of needs than food. 




Anonymous
by Anonymous 8 on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Maybe she doesn't have anyone to watch them... I'm in a similar situation DH works from 7am-4pm I work from 5pm-anywhere from 12 midnight to 2am.... And no we can't afford daycare and we don't have family or friends to watch our kids....

Quoting teal.blaze:

Either way, they are both receiving assistance. I would rather see full time work getting assistance, but I can definitely see not wanting someone else "raising"your kids. I feel for both families, as they are both clearly trying. But there is also no reason Susan couldn't work a full 40 hours. There are 24 hours in a day. That's enough for both of them to work almost 12 hours a day and still not need daycare.

Nicoleb9
by Emerald Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Okay, were these women purely hypothetical?


Quoting Anonymous:

Okay. Thanks for explaining your point.





I only mentioned they were always with a parent to show no childcare was being covered. Not to push an agenda. Same reason I didn't bring into account what they were feeding their 6month olds.




Quoting Nicoleb9:

A daycare voucher would allow Susan to work full time. Her children "always being with a parent" is a personal preference, not something the tax payers should be subsidizing. And yes, I'd be fine with shelling out a little more for the daycare vouchers vs the food assistance. There's an end goal in mind there.






Quoting Anonymous:

Both women in the example are working. Both would have to show proof of household income to receive either assistance.








Quoting Nicoleb9:

I would prefer daycare vouchers over just handing over a food stamp card with no expectation of them working just because they have a baby.




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous 9 on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:31 AM


I agree, food is cheaper then daycare and I believe it is better for the child to have a parent at home.

Quoting Anonymous:

Daycare costs significantly more than food.  I would rather pay for food than daycare.  When the kids are older and do not need daycare, it will be easier for both women to find a job during the hours they are at school and not have to pay for that care.  That being said, I honestly do not give a damn if people are on PA.  Just saying if I had to choose, that is what I would choose.



AC9808
by Bronze Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:33 AM

id like to know everyones thoughts on the famly if one parent is working full time and the other is in school full time...

Nicoleb9
by Emerald Member on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:33 AM
No, she wouldn't. She'd have part-time work on her resume vs full-time. But you were also talking about Abby in that particular quote, too.


Quoting Anonymous:

Susan is also working therefore would have that same info on her resume.




Quoting Nicoleb9:

Even if her job only pays minimum wage and is a dead end, it's still recent work history, experience in something and a good reference if she's a good employee.






Quoting Anonymous:

If Susan can get help for food, then yes bills would come first. If she had to choose between rent OR feeding her kids you would be correct.







Also I never said what job Abby is doing. She could also be working min wage with no future, just more hours.








Quoting ElitestJen:

Abby.  She has a future with payraises, promotions, and skill-building opportunities.

Oh...and unless you live in La-La Land "bills" are lower on the hierarchy of needs than food. 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Anonymous
by Anonymous 6 on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:33 AM
1 mom liked this
Unlikely but okay...Susan is at or below poverty level. Why would someone in such a position choose to work only part time thus perpetuating their poverty? It seems incredibly irresponsible. Work more hours, get a better paying job, get an education (or a better one)...even if it does mean she would be utlizing daycare assistance. The goal should be to do whatever necessary to get out of poverty, no? At least Abby is working full time.


Quoting Anonymous:

No other assistance. Just food. They have insurance and such through husbands job. Both mothers are only getting what I said.




Quoting Anonymous:

The income guidelines are much lower for food benefits so I'm lead to believe Susan is worse off financially. If their household income is low enough to qualify for such benefits they are likely receiving other benefits as well...Medicaid, WIC, EITC. Perhaps if she worked more or found a better paying job she wouldn't need so much help, even if it did mean receiving child care assistance.


Anonymous
by Anonymous 1 - Original Poster on Jan. 22, 2013 at 1:35 AM
1 mom liked this
Not always true. When Susan's children are in school, if she has been a fantastic employee her boss might be eager to get the ball rolling. Where as Abby might be a piss poor employee who gets passed over.

You take too much stock in stereotypes.


Quoting ElitestJen:

Employers don't promote part time workers with limited availability. The full ttime worker will get the promotion.



Susan is a whiner with no drive to be self-sufficient. And if she needs housing assistance and not food....then she's stupid, too.




Quoting Anonymous:

All jobs, even part time evening jobs. So your point is moot I guess.








Ok so now Susan is off food assistance. But needs housing assistance.









Quoting ElitestJen:

All jobs have a future. That's an excuse.







And food should always come before bills. One can live without electricity or heat. Food is required for survival.








Quoting Anonymous:

If Susan can get help for food, then yes bills would come first. If she had to choose between rent OR feeding her kids you would be correct.









Also I never said what job Abby is doing. She could also be working min wage with no future, just more hours.










Quoting ElitestJen:

Abby.  She has a future with payraises, promotions, and skill-building opportunities.

Oh...and unless you live in La-La Land "bills" are lower on the hierarchy of needs than food. 






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)