It was with enthusiasm that I began reading the front page article in today’s Globe titled ‘Between the haves ,have nots, an ever greater gulf”. After all, this subject gets talked about a lot in my world between work and school. It’s common knowledge that this recession has hit the poorest of our citizens in a much more significant way than the nation’s wealthiest.  The “rich” have come through this recession “richer” and the poor and working class continue to struggle.

I even learned something reading this article this morning. I am one who has always assumed that those who lived out in the western part of the state lived a somewhat idyllic life and to learn that the poverty in that neck of the woods is even greater than that in many of the eastern, inner cities, was eye opening.

In the article, they highlight Mindy Shoestock..a twenty something single mother of two..who lost her $12 an hour job and is now working for $9 an hour at the local McDonalds. Shoestock is ..for sure ..a sympathetic figure. Her story is heartbreaking and all too familiar to those of us who work with this population in the cities. That is, until the end of the article. You see, the article ends by telling the reader that Mindy is now pregnant with her third child..a pregnancy she planned since she thought it would be harder to have kids after she was 30.

Suddenly, a whole host of other questions comes to mind. Such as..where are the fathers of these children? Is he ( or they) providing any financial support? Why on earth would someone who admits that she cannot feed her two children elect to have a third? Most importantly, does the Globe not see that by using her as an example, it feeds into the right wing ideology that vilifies ALL single mothers of children?  After all, I have much more sympathy for single mothers living in poverty than the average person..and even my sympathy for Ms. Shoestock was dampened considerably by the news at the end of the article. She..and society..are condemning her children to a lifetime of poverty.

If the Globe’s intent was to divert attention away from the main topic of the article, which was that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer..then they succeeded. The injustice I felt at the beginning of the article turned into a different kind of injustice at the end.

It is a shame that she thought waiting to have more children was a potential problem. Often the poor are poor due to not being the brightest bulb in the pack. Obviously no financial planning background. The father(s) is an issue that only guilt can deal with as it was her decision. Aquireing sperm from men is not hard to do in many circumstances for a woman. I feel sorry for the kids. Really thats why social programs exist. If it was the old days there might be an orphanage option. In some ways the social supports help, and in some ways they enable. Realistically it is hard to use a single case story to move me on the issue. I can either agree or diagree with that particular situation. So I refuse to be moved either way by a single story on the issue of social supports for children and mothers with infants.
As to injustice, there are so many stories out there on the streets of america, the injustice is easy to feel. In either direction.

It was an amazing coincidence that she got pregnant . Either she was looking for a social program to latch on to , or her timing is horrible. 

As someone who choose not to have children partly because I felt I did not earn enough money to give them the chance they need to succeed in life, I do not have adequate enough words to describe the outrage I feel toward this selfish woman.  How dare she subject her children to a life of poverty to satisfy her wish to have another child.  All of her children should be removed from her care though I fear it's already to late for the two older ones.

Katori,
We all have our own dreams. Some live more in the dreamland than others. Like I said in a world of many stories, some look good, some look ok and some we can clearly disagree with. I believe that this person was not sensible in her decision. The children should have food and support. It is the space between that is hard to work on. The "adult" who has children and needs the public support. How do you decide which of the very many deserves one treatment versus another. Poverty has many causes and not all families are single parent. I have a talented friend who had six children and then he got rear ended by a car. The problem is he suffered brain injury. He suffers seisures. He cannot support his family. The car accident insureance was a joke. So they need support because they cannot sue for enough money to provide for the family. It happens.

Whoa..lol..I don't think anyone should be taking anyone else's children away. From all accounts of the article, Mindy is someone who loves her children and does the best she can for them. My point is somewhat like snowflake's. The article both broke my heart and frustrated me at the same time.
By portraying Mindy, the Globe is allowing the more ignorant of us to generalize all poor single mothers as people who just behave irresponsibly and expect society to compensate for their bad judgment. I see enough young women in worse circumstances than Mindy who are trying their best to make the right decisions for their children to know that Mindy...in her choice to have yet another child, does not represent the average person in her situation.
Also, I would have liked the Globe article to address where the father(s) of these children are.
Perhaps pubic policies that include training and education for someone like Mindy would be more effective and lead to greater financial independence. Mindy is someone who should qualify for a child care voucher which would help with child care expenses...but the way that system works is Mindy would likely have to quit her job and go on welfare in order to get into the program. Seems a bit like backwords thinking to me.

Mindy will likely have to quit her job soon anyway since she will have 3 children, including an infant, to care for.  Otherwise, who is going to take care of the baby while she is at work?

This post has been removed.

Once again we see someone without any idea of how to rise above poverty having more children they cannot afford.  I certainly hope she's not going on the public dole and I sincerely wish that governments would put a limit on just how many kids we're supposed to support on welfare. 

Actually under president clinton time limits for public support were passed. In mass time limits apply for what used to be called welfare. Food support is still availible to families but not general welfare after about 5 years. These folk are not freeloaders. At some point people have no options left. The idea of having kids to extend benefits is not new but does not give you a bunch of money. Before social benefits were given 6 year old kids would shove a sharp stick  in your gut for your money on the street. They were that hungry. Do we really want a country where you need armour to protect yourself from a hungry 6 year old? Parents can be individually stupid. But what the support programs are aimed at is social stability. If you want a country that does not do this go to africa. Get out of here.

I have no problem with helping those who are less fortunate...it is frustrating for sure when you see people ( of any social class really) make choices that are not the best or most responsible. The other side of that is that I recognize that I ( and really WE as society) have no right to make a judgment on when and if someone decides to have a child.
Topaz is right that the most comprehensive welfare reform was passed under Clinton . Gone are the days when people could sit home and have children in order to continue to collect more and more benefits.  Now, in Massachusetts, there is q 2 year limit on cash benefits. During that time, it is expected that the recipient undergo training, etc.  At the end of the two years, cash benefits end, while other benefits such as child care assistance and food stamps continues. This type of assistance is dependent on the person's income. I don't have a problem with that either. I don't have a problem with anyone who needs it getting help. To me..the real problem is those who perpetuate fraud on the system and unfortunately the state and the feds don't give agencies the tools or ability to fight it significantly...but you can believe me that when someone comes to my office looking for help..and they pull up in a BMW coupe...chances are they are getting a lot of extra scrutiny..

In Response to Re: Perpetuating Poverty:

This is the great divide between liberals and conservatives. I too agree we need to have a system in place for a hand up. Many times families are put into these circumstance through no fault of their own (i.e. company moves jobs to China or India). BUT Mindy is not that person. We absolutely SHOULD have a say in Mindy's reproductive quantity and schedule if she expects us to pay for the children.
My wife and I wanted 6 children and have 2. Why? Because after the second, I got laid off and was out of work for almost 2 years. After that I was under-employed for @4 years. For 6 years we were barely scrapping by and we made the decision that having a third, forth, fifth and even sixth child was irresponsible. To us, them and society. We worked 2-3 jobs each and had to put our kids in day-care so we could survive.
The issue is the "safety net" has become a hammock and they are enjoying it with their entitlement attitudes. THIS IS 100% WRONG! We need to get this country and it's people back to the mind set of self help and hand ups not hand outs. Until that happens we will have many more Mindy's to support.

misscricket wrote" but the way that system works is Mindy would likely have to quit her job and go on welfare in order to get into the program. Seems a bit like backwords thinking to me".
this is more true than you know - 26 years ago i had a child - i was not married -- i was working full time and well able to provide for her financially -- i took a 3 month maternity leave and had heard about "child care vouchers" - so i went to the local welfare office to ask about those - only those -- i still had a well paying job to go back to, health insurance, savings, etc. -- anyway, the woman working at the welfare office told me that child care vouchers are for women who don't work - my innocent question of why would they need them if they were at home was answered with that's the way the system works -- then this woman told me that her ADVICE - was for me to quit my job, spend my savings and go on welfare -- i responded with some words that cannot be repeated on this site - not becaue of the vouchers but because of the advice -- and walked out -- this is how the system works -- it blew me away and still does -- something needs to change

i don't think anyone should have more than 2 children -- regardless of their financial situation -- this world is overpopulated -- maybe we should go the way of china and pay people not to reproduce

lukeseri58: Maybe you could do the world a favor and de-populate by 1.

well, it really wouldn't help the world at this point i'm 53 and have already put my footprint on the world although i try to make it smaller and have less impact on a daily basis -- no real need to get nasty -- you can disagree with me without being a dick

In Response to Re: Perpetuating Poverty:

Because you had the audacity to expose the corruption! "They" don't like that! BTW - I disagree with the 2 children thing. We need the next generation to replace the baby boomers.