Log in

This is why I hate America. - Pregnant Liberals [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Pregnant Liberals

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

This is why I hate America. [Feb. 9th, 2007|01:03 pm]
Pregnant Liberals


Am I the only person who realizes the inherent paradox in this situation:

A mother needs to make income so that she can support her child. In so this, she will almost certainly have to enter the public sector, which means leaving her child with a daycare provider of some sort. Now if the mother is working because she is poor, she may qualify for some sort of subsidized daycare option.

The longer the mother is out of the workforce post-partum, the more desperate her financial situation is going to become, so it is in her best interest to return to the workforce as soon as possible. Luckily, the subsidized daycare options offer childcare from 6 weeks upward. Unluckily, the waitlist for such options (in some places, the only affordable option) is upwards of 4-5 MONTHS. If you are lucky. Anecdotal accounts place it at more like 9 months to a year which, of course, begins at birth. So the earliest a woman can ACTUALLY get daycare if she is too poor to afford it (and thus too poor to stay at home and not work) is optimistically 4 months, realistically 9 months.

What the heck is that about? So even if you really WANT to work, you are forced into a situation where you basically can't if you can't already afford daycare. What's the incentive for a mother not to just say "what the heck, forget it" and draw welfare benefits (also barely enough to live on, but don't get me started).

[User Picture]From: little_e_
2007-02-10 04:46 am (UTC)
The government doesn't care about poor people. Poor mothers aren't a big voting demographic, they don't donate a lot to campaigns, and unlike former oil execs, they don't end up being VP.

So while the government will pay lip service to helping the middle-class, the poor are screwed. The government doesn't want poor people to go on Welfare... it just wants them to disappear.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: singoutsingout
2007-02-10 05:49 pm (UTC)
I think you are absolutely right on that, but I am particularly peeved at how Republicans have all this talk of "accountability" and people wanting a "hand up, not a hand out," etc. etc. that well-meaning people like my father totally buy, and now more than ever before I am realizing that all this talk belies a genuine apathy (probably more like a disdain) for anyone not in the president's "base" of the haves and the have-mores.

I think that having to go through the various social service channels has really informed my perspective. I sort of wish it was something everyone had to go through for a little bit of time, just like I think everyone should do a mandatory period of retail and food service for empathy purposes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: little_e_
2007-02-11 07:46 am (UTC)
Personally, I've really enjoyed retail... The biggest downsides fore me are the shitty pay and the social stigma.

When Repubs say shit like people wanting a 'hand up, not a hand out', what I think they really mean is that they believe the poor could get out of poverty if they just worked hard enough. A little boost to help the poor work harder so that they can earn trust fund money just like the rich did is acceptable, but god forbid anyone should point out that 99+% of the rich didn't get there by hard work, they got there because they started well-off.

By phrasing it that way, they discredit the idea that anyone might think the world would actually be better off with a little more wealth distribution and that maybe the poor are already working their asses off.

Because as we all know, if the poor really didn't want to be poor, they'd just work harder.

I could rant for an awfully long time... but the assholes just piss me off.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)