Wasn't that just dandy? (question at the end) - updated

I thought my previous comment would be way more controversial than it was. There was no hate comments left in retort, lots of agreements and a few 'offerings of another viewpoint', which I responded to in my comments. Good job everyone!

I'm glad no one saw my post as anti-WIC nor anti-formula feeding, because it was definitely neither. It's refreshing to be able to put up an opinion about how I think the program is lacking and how so many people take advantage. The last comment I received mentioned a woman who breastfeeds, yet takes the "free" formula from WIC and sells it on ebay. It's stories like that which make me happy I believe in karma.

There were also stories of people who qualified for WIC and didn't take it because they really saw the program for what it was designed for - a program for those in need. How proud it must make someone feel who passes on the handout to make it on their own. Blogger "~Joe" brought up a great story of what her father taught her about social programs. She wrote "he told me young people end up getting trapped in the system because its so easy, so these programs don't help people that struggle but actually keep them down ... once you get a decent job they take the free stuff away and your thrown into the real world where everythings up to you, you lose that safety net ... would anyone wanna give that up? It's a horrible cycle that a lot of young end up falling into, things need to change and fast." I totally agree. And I hope to teach this lesson to my own children.

I've seen it happen to friends of mine. For example: a pregnancy happened when she was single. The baby's father was not in the picture. She had a job, but no health care. When the baby was born, the job wasn't paying enough for her living expenses AND daycare. So she turned to government assistance. She got free health care. Free food. Free formula. She stayed home and started raising her child. Then she started looking for work. She enrolled in a program that would provide daycare cost assistance. But then she looked a bit further and found that once she started making money, she would lose her social security, her food stamps and her health care. Sure, she could have the baby taken care of during the day for minimal cost, but at the end of the day, she would be worse off monetarily. So what did she do? She stayed on government assistance. That baby is now 16 years old. She works, but works only the amount of hours that will keep her getting assistance. She's still single. She has no savings. She lost 16 years of career time, in which she could have made something for herself. She could have owned a house, a car. She could have had a retirement plan in place. She's never taken a real vacation. She'll never feel that accomplishment of holding her own in the world. Nevermind that we (all working people) have paid for her life for the past 16 years. It's a horrible cycle.

I did want to mention something I didn't think of before - staying at home with children.

I'm a working mom and it's got nothing to do with being able to afford it or not. It's my personality, I simply wouldn't be a good stay at home mom. I think this is a very personal decision and would never ever judge someone for staying home or for working. I have opinions on pros and cons of both sides, but I think what can be a pro for one person can be a pro for another. So I will definitely ~not~ take sides on this topic.

But ...

Let me put up a hypothetical situation. Let's say there was a man and woman who both worked. They decided to have a baby. They looked into the aspect of the mom staying at home to raise the child, but they couldn't afford it. They could, however, qualify for government assistance with only one income. So she quits her job and is able to stay at home with her child like she wanted. She collects food stamps, gets housing assistance and has herself and child on medicare to make ends meet with just her husband's income.

What do you think about this? Is it immoral? Is she using the system to have the luxury to stay at home?

My opinion is yes, she is using the system. She ~can~ work. She's simply choosing not to. I believe staying at home is a luxury and the government should not be the one paying for her choice. If she wants to stay home, then she should be able to make that decision, but we (working people) shouldn't foot her bill. I understand it would be unfortunate if she really wanted to stay at home with her child, but I don't see why the american public should pay for it.

I don't see staying at home as a necessity. Daycare works and can be a great place for children. Now, if the child has a disability and needs special care during the day, I can see that as an exception of why her ~not~ working is a necessity. And I would totally agree with her pulling assistance to stay at home. But paying a completely able bodied person to stay home? I simply don't see it.

What do you think? If you disagree and think the American public ~should~ foot the bill so a mother can stay home, tell me your reasoning. Tell me the ~why~ you think staying at home should be considered a necessity, rather than a luxury. I'm open for differing views!

Update - Mind the question. The question is do you think welfare should be available to a mother who wants to stay at home rather than support her family by working. This is ~not~ a stay at home vs working mother debate. It's about government assistance. I won't be publishing any comments that are not about this very specific question. This post wasn't to debate the stay at home vs working mom topic.