Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

I know I'm a jerky SIL (re: WIC)

13

Re: I know I'm a jerky SIL (re: WIC)

  • image alwayscurious:
    cute=euphemism for naive

    gotcha.  you're condecending.

  • i work, have a kid in daycare, and even when daycare was free i didn't have netflix.

    sorry, if you can work and don't, you shouldn't get govt assistance.  if you really can't afford daycare on your salary then IMO, that's not being able to work.  however, that is obviously not the situation here.

    proof that i make babies. jack, grace, and ben, in no particular order
    image image image
  • image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:

    so what if she doesn't want to "work."

    she's a stay at home mom.

    isn't that enough?

    I am not understanding this argument.  Are you trying to say that sahm is a job and so that should be sufficient?  While I agree being a sahm is a job, to me it is also a luxury that should be allowed only if you are financially able to do so. 


    I really, REALLY don't think I agree with this argument on a very basic, intrinsic level.  While I can recognize that this is currently our reality, I think saying that it SHOULD be this way only encourages the disparity that already exists in childrearing capabilities in this country.

    Do children of color need their mothers and fathers any less than middle class or rich white children?  Do poor parents and/or mothers and fathers of color deserve to spend time with their children any less than middle class/rich and/or white mothers and fathers?

    IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do.  This isn't like having the choice to buy a new car, or buy fancy clothes, or any number of other "luxuries" that you can buy when you work more.  This is raising a child - a basic human rights.  At least in my opinion....

     


  • i don't see SAH parenting as a luxury.  in a perfect world it would be affordable for families to live on one income.  but it's not.  it would be nice if our country supported a culture of family values, but that in itself is a myth.

    But we aren't in a perfect world and it is not affordable for families to live on one income so therefore it is a luxury to be able to sah.  It doesn't mean you need to be rich to stay at home, but yes I think you should be able to sustain the household without government assistance.   And I am really trying to overlook the continued reference that family values means you need to stay at home and not "dump your kids" with a third party provider, if only to not give Brookles and Cjoy their wish, lol.   

     

  • I don't know why I keep clarifying, since you don't know them or me.  I have always thought of BIL as cute, since BIL is the youngest of 6 kids and DH is the oldest.  He was in 7th grade when I met him.  Sorry if you are so offended by the word cute.  He is only 19 now-can't poor 19yr olds be cute?  Its not like he has lived a life of poverty, which is obviously not "cute"
  • image hrparker:

    image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:

    so what if she doesn't want to "work."

    she's a stay at home mom.

    isn't that enough?

    I am not understanding this argument.  Are you trying to say that sahm is a job and so that should be sufficient?  While I agree being a sahm is a job, to me it is also a luxury that should be allowed only if you are financially able to do so. 


    I really, REALLY don't think I agree with this argument on a very basic, intrinsic level.  While I can recognize that this is currently our reality, I think saying that it SHOULD be this way only encourages the disparity that already exists in childrearing capabilities in this country.

    Do children of color need their mothers and fathers any less than middle class or rich white children?  Do poor parents and/or mothers and fathers of color deserve to spend time with their children any less than middle class/rich and/or white mothers and fathers?

    IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do.  This isn't like having the choice to buy a new car, or buy fancy clothes, or any number of other "luxuries" that you can buy when you work more.  This is raising a child - a basic human rights.  At least in my opinion....

    where did the "of color" thing come from?  we're white and we barely see our kid thanks to work and daycare.

    proof that i make babies. jack, grace, and ben, in no particular order
    image image image
  • image hrparker:

    image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:

    so what if she doesn't want to "work."

    she's a stay at home mom.

    isn't that enough?

    I am not understanding this argument.  Are you trying to say that sahm is a job and so that should be sufficient?  While I agree being a sahm is a job, to me it is also a luxury that should be allowed only if you are financially able to do so. 


    I really, REALLY don't think I agree with this argument on a very basic, intrinsic level.  While I can recognize that this is currently our reality, I think saying that it SHOULD be this way only encourages the disparity that already exists in childrearing capabilities in this country.

    Do children of color need their mothers and fathers any less than middle class or rich white children?  Do poor parents and/or mothers and fathers of color deserve to spend time with their children any less than middle class/rich and/or white mothers and fathers?

    IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do.  This isn't like having the choice to buy a new car, or buy fancy clothes, or any number of other "luxuries" that you can buy when you work more.  This is raising a child - a basic human rights.  At least in my opinion....

     


    You can raise your child and work, they are not mutually exclusive, but thanks for suggesting that it is.

  • This situation only annoys me because I have a friend with three kids who really could use the assistance, but because she and her husband work they supposedly make too much money.  They own their own home, but they've had to move in with his parents and rent out their house because they can't afford to live in it anymore.  They're being responsible and therefore don't get any help, whereas this woman gets WIC assistance when she still has money left over to decorate a nursery.  My friend applied for WIC and was qualified for something like $10/month.

    I will say, though, at least WIC only lets you buy certain foods.  She's not getting free money to spend as she wants, and we know her kid has milk now.  There are much worse things to worry about in the world than whether or not your SIL is deserving of WIC.

  • I get the cute statement.  Like they were very "Tommy and Gina" with nothing to survive on but love or whatever.
    Baby Numbers 11.8.10 The Sequel on or around 10.13.12
  • image marriednow06:
    image hrparker:

    image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:

    so what if she doesn't want to "work."

    she's a stay at home mom.

    isn't that enough?

    I am not understanding this argument.  Are you trying to say that sahm is a job and so that should be sufficient?  While I agree being a sahm is a job, to me it is also a luxury that should be allowed only if you are financially able to do so. 


    I really, REALLY don't think I agree with this argument on a very basic, intrinsic level.  While I can recognize that this is currently our reality, I think saying that it SHOULD be this way only encourages the disparity that already exists in childrearing capabilities in this country.

    Do children of color need their mothers and fathers any less than middle class or rich white children?  Do poor parents and/or mothers and fathers of color deserve to spend time with their children any less than middle class/rich and/or white mothers and fathers?

    IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do.  This isn't like having the choice to buy a new car, or buy fancy clothes, or any number of other "luxuries" that you can buy when you work more.  This is raising a child - a basic human rights.  At least in my opinion....

     


    You can raise your child and work, they are not mutually exclusive, but thanks for suggesting that it is.

    Really, MN?  How long have I been on here now, and you honestly think that I would be suggesting something like that?  Hmm

    My point is that getting to stay home with your child should be a CHOICE that EVERY parent should be able to make.  But thanks for trying to insinuate that I meant something else.

  • image hrparker:
    image marriednow06:
    image hrparker:

    image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:

    so what if she doesn't want to "work."

    she's a stay at home mom.

    isn't that enough?

    I am not understanding this argument.  Are you trying to say that sahm is a job and so that should be sufficient?  While I agree being a sahm is a job, to me it is also a luxury that should be allowed only if you are financially able to do so. 


    I really, REALLY don't think I agree with this argument on a very basic, intrinsic level.  While I can recognize that this is currently our reality, I think saying that it SHOULD be this way only encourages the disparity that already exists in childrearing capabilities in this country.

    Do children of color need their mothers and fathers any less than middle class or rich white children?  Do poor parents and/or mothers and fathers of color deserve to spend time with their children any less than middle class/rich and/or white mothers and fathers?

    IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do.  This isn't like having the choice to buy a new car, or buy fancy clothes, or any number of other "luxuries" that you can buy when you work more.  This is raising a child - a basic human rights.  At least in my opinion....

     


    You can raise your child and work, they are not mutually exclusive, but thanks for suggesting that it is.

    Really, MN?  How long have I been on here now, and you honestly think that I would be suggesting something like that?  Hmm

    My point is that getting to stay home with your child should be a CHOICE that EVERY parent should be able to make.  But thanks for trying to insinuate that I meant something else.

    You said, "IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do."  If you did not mean what you said by all means that makes me happy. 

  • image alwayscurious:
    cute=euphemism for naive

    Hmmm...I think I see why she doesn't want you to watch her child.  Free help comes with all sorts of other "free" things that are usually not wanted (criticism, advice, etc.).  

    Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Second Birthday tickers Lilypie Breastfeeding tickers
  • image marriednow06:

    You said, "IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do."  If you did not mean what you said by all means that makes me happy. 

    And my point, MD, was that I would hope you know me well enough by now to know that I would NEVER mean that the ONLY way to raise your child is to stay at home with them.  And I was upset that you would insinuate that I would.  Sad

    I hope that you and I can BOTH agree, however, that there are some things that you do miss when you don't stay home full-time with your children.  That doesn't mean that mothers and fathers who don't stay home are bad parents, or that they're not raising their children.  It just means that there are necessarily things that those parents will most likely miss by virtue of the fact that there.  Their children, so long as they have adequate care, won't miss a lot - although knowing kids with babysitters and nannies growing up, I can say that a lot of them, while perfectly well-cared for and adjusted, would have loved to have had their parents around more.  But parents miss out on a lot of those little moments that SAHMs talk about when they aren't SAHPs.  What I think is important is that parents should have the CHOICE whether or not to participate in the moment to moment care of their children.

    Having said all that, I'm probably NOT going to be a SAHM.  I'd simply go crazy being stuck at home all day everyday.  So I'm willing to trade some of those little moments for a bit of sanity. 

  • I don't give her free advice-which is why I posted on here- I just wanted to vent. And it is not always condescending to say someone is naive.  I was naive at 19 too. 

    The point of my post is that I am trying to still see them in the same "cute" light that I saw them before.. I don't want to hold the fact that they get WIC against them.  They are still the same "cute" people. 

    I get that people may not want free things from family, but these people are not chronically poor- ILs pay for their college (which they chose to take a break from), etc.  They have lots of opportunities that they are ignoring. 

  • image hrparker:
    image marriednow06:

    You said, "IMO, being able to raise your child yourself is something that ALL parents should have the CHOICE to do."  If you did not mean what you said by all means that makes me happy. 

    And my point, MD, was that I would hope you know me well enough by now to know that I would NEVER mean that the ONLY way to raise your child is to stay at home with them.  And I was upset that you would insinuate that I would.  Sad

    I hope that you and I can BOTH agree, however, that there are some things that you do miss when you don't stay home full-time with your children.  That doesn't mean that mothers and fathers who don't stay home are bad parents, or that they're not raising their children.  It just means that there are necessarily things that those parents will most likely miss by virtue of the fact that there.  Their children, so long as they have adequate care, won't miss a lot - although knowing kids with babysitters and nannies growing up, I can say that a lot of them, while perfectly well-cared for and adjusted, would have loved to have had their parents around more.  But parents miss out on a lot of those little moments that SAHMs talk about when they aren't SAHPs.  What I think is important is that parents should have the CHOICE whether or not to participate in the moment to moment care of their children.

    Having said all that, I'm probably NOT going to be a SAHM.  I'd simply go crazy being stuck at home all day everyday.  So I'm willing to trade some of those little moments for a bit of sanity. 

    Like I said I am glad that you feel that way.  I honestly have not seen your position on parenting issues but as you can imagine people have pretty strong views on it.  I think the part that we are stuck on is what it means to "raise" a child.  I think people use that interchangeably with being a sahp and I don't think it should be.  You and I can agree that it would be ideal that people have the choice to stay at home, but we differ that is the same as a choice to "raise" a child. 

    Imo, pretty much the way to insult any working parent is to suggest that daycare is "raising" their children, and I am glad that was not your intention.  My husband and I raise our child.  DS will have values instilled by us, he will be supported emotionally and financially by us.  We are lucky that during the time we are working that we have a daycare provider who is loving towards him and teaches him and fosters his growth in addition to what we provide for him at home.  But just like your parents continued to raise you when you were in elementary school, jr. high school and high school, it is no different than my child being in daycare.  Missing out on little moments does not mean I am not "raising" my child and if someone else happens to see something first, then it doesn't mean they are by default "raising" my child.  I happen to be lucky that I was there when my child rolled over, sat up on his own, crawled and took his first steps.  But had I been in the bathroom instead does it change my status in terms of "raising" ds?  These are more rhetorical questions than anything, just to point out the complexity in trying to isolate what it means to "raise" your child. 

    In all fairness, you probably received the brunt of my frustration after going through this post and trying to ignore the previous insults, so for that I am sorry. 

    Brookles and C_Joy I guess you got your wish, lol. 

  • Its one thing to "live on love"  and tell eveyone how great it is to "live on love" another thing to live on love and taxpayer support.
  • image katorigasuki:
    image marriednow06:

    There are a ton of families that manage to be strong with both parents working.  There is absolutely no need to subsidize one's desire to be a sahp with federal money based on some myth that it is better for the child in every situation.  

    I'm not saying it's better in every situtation.  and i'm not saying that families with parents who work aren't strong.  i myself am a working mom and i think my family is doing just fine.

    but i don't think it's a myth that children of SAHPs are better adjusted.  there are studies out there suggesting that in many (not all) cases, a stay at home parent has better long term impact on the development of a child. 

    either way, if i could stay home with my son, i would.  but we'd be living on student loans (federal money) and i'm not willing to do that.  i choose to continue working. 

    i don't see SAH parenting as a luxury.  in a perfect world it would be affordable for families to live on one income.  but it's not.  it would be nice if our country supported a culture of family values, but that in itself is a myth.

    our culture revolves around the almight dollar.  which i think results in more problems than its worth.

    I am so totally with you.  I think we all miss the point of LIFE when we focus on being "productive" and making money.  Personally, I think it blows chunks out the ass that we spend the majority of our days (make that lives) away from home making money just to live - where's the living in that?

    Lots of these posts are very judgmental.  No offense to OP, but we are only getting one side of the story and I don't think any of us should being passing judgement on this particular person.  No one knows her situtaiton, or what the free daycare offering family members are like.  I looked at the income chart posted to be eligble for WIC, and $31,000 for a family of 3 does not go far at all.  I can't believe that someone with that kind of income is spending more on her nursery than OP spent feeding her kids for a year.   

    image
    Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
  • image alwayscurious:

    I don't give her free advice-which is why I posted on here- I just wanted to vent. And it is not always condescending to say someone is naive.  I was naive at 19 too. 

    The point of my post is that I am trying to still see them in the same "cute" light that I saw them before.. I don't want to hold the fact that they get WIC against them.  They are still the same "cute" people. 

    I get that people may not want free things from family, but these people are not chronically poor- ILs pay for their college (which they chose to take a break from), etc.  They have lots of opportunities that they are ignoring. 

    My point was that with all the things you've said about poor = cute, cute = naive, your description of their situation, etc. you're starting to sound very judgmental and holier than thou IMO, and that's the kind of free help that usually isn't free.  However, maybe I'm misinterpreting the situation b/c we are only hearing one side, and I'll admit that. 

    Lilypie Kids Birthday tickers Lilypie Second Birthday tickers Lilypie Breastfeeding tickers
  • I agree-it isn't that bad-which is why I wanted to vent and have people set me straight.  But, really, how do you feel that your tax dollars are going to the son of a caring father who makes over $300,000 a year?  I know you can't see the situation, but there is no family strife. I really like BIL and SIL as people, and feel guilty that this one thing (WIC) has made me look at them differently. 
  • image alwayscurious:
    I agree-it isn't that bad-which is why I wanted to vent and have people set me straight.  But, really, how do you feel that your tax dollars are going to the son of a caring father who makes over $300,000 a year?  I know you can't see the situation, but there is no family strife. I really like BIL and SIL as people, and feel guilty that this one thing (WIC) has made me look at them differently. 

    I don't see how the dad/grandfather's income is relevant.  If BIL is not entitled to the gov's money, then he certainly isn't entitled to his daddy's money, either.

    image
    Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
  • I grew up in a society/neighborhood mentality where it was the mother's place to stay at home, and a mother who chose to work, wasn't doing what her duty was.  When I was 5 or 6 my mom went back to school because she wanted to be a nurse and a lot of our neighbors looked down on my family. They all thought it was better for a family to be shopping at the bishop's storehouse (mormon gorcery store basically) and get govt. assistance then for the mother to be working.

    I grew up with my family struggling to be independent and I think my parents showed me how to work and all that junk. I don't think it is a bad thing to have a SAHM, but its a parents obligation to take care of the kids, and that means finding care, and finacing and all that. 

    We had tough times as a family for sure, I grew up thinking that everyone got 3 presents for Christmas (baby jesus only got three so why did we need more then him) we only went clothes shopping for new clothes once a year for school, we ate all the store brand food (which is why I know LOVE kraft mac and cheese).  We never had cable tv and it was a special occasion to go out to McDonalds for dinner.

    As a kid, I never cared that we didn't have more, and my parents sacrificed a lot to be able to take care of us fully without relying on social programs to help.

    I know that they are there for a reason, and it's great that they are, but I think that there should be reform so that people who don't try to cover everything themselves first can't get access to govt. help.  If you are doing everything you can, but still can't make ends meet, that is what the programs are there for. But if someone has the money to go out and buy new baby stuff, they can paint and decorate nursurys, they have a netflix subscription and cable TV...clearly they are not doing what they can to be good parents...they are just being selfish.

  • image MrsAxilla:
    image katorigasuki:

    I'm not saying it's better in every situtation.  and i'm not saying that families with parents who work aren't strong.  i myself am a working mom and i think my family is doing just fine.

    but i don't think it's a myth that children of SAHPs are better adjusted.  there are studies out there suggesting that in many (not all) cases, a stay at home parent has better long term impact on the development of a child. 

    I am so totally with you.  I think we all miss the point of LIFE when we focus on being "productive" and making money.  Personally, I think it blows chunks out the ass that we spend the majority of our days (make that lives) away from home making money just to live - where's the living in that?

    Lots of these posts are very judgmental. 

    These quotes all share the same underlying belief that the point of "LIFE" is to live it a certain way.  This reeks of judgement since there is never one "right" way of living life.  You assume that "living" entails enjoying things outside of the workplace, but that is your own definition.  Someone might actually enjoying working.  Also, "productive" never automatically = $$ as  you try to imply, so someone can do a lot outside of the home and still be considered productive and not so well off. 

    You cannot tell people that having a SAHP is much better than both parents working b/c there are too many factors involved, one being how active of a parent someone will be. 

    With that said, I do believe that the ability to SAH is a luxury.  If you can't take care of basic necessities, you should not be turning down free childcare.  OP's SIL can just get a PT job for a few hours every other day and make more than what she receives from WIC. 

  • Its not that I think he is entitled to his daddys money- remember for 18 of 19 years of his life he had all the privilege that goes with being well off (not rich, they did have 6 kids).  So, he still has the car his dad bought him in high school, the college classes his dad paid for, savings from high school jobs since he didn't have to pay for anything in high school, etc. 

    The point in that is, this family is not "poor" in the way most people think of poor.  They just temporarily don't have a lot of income because the wife chose not to work (she is still pregnant, so she isn't even a SAHM).

  • image marriednow06:
    image katorigasuki:
    image balihaigirl:

    She has FREE DAYCARE OFFERED through family.  None of her income would go to daycare.  I would also love to stay at home with my child once he is born but I realize I have to work.  I don't think it's fair of this woman to take money from the govt when she doesn't need it.  I think it should only go to people who actually need it.  I'm all for helping out people and for my tax money to be given to those in dire circumstances but it pisses me off that tax money is given people who take advantage of the system. 

    I still say if she wants to care for her child and that is her way of providing then fine.

    why is it not ok for her to stay home with her child if free day care is offered?  i don't understand this culture we live in where we must be productive (ie: earning money all the time) at the expense of building strong family relationships.

     

    She can sahm all she wants if she can afford it.  If you are on government assistance, then no, I don't think you can afford it. 

    I agree 1000%!  I don't think it's right!  She wouldn't have to work full time either, or sacrifice her family.  She is being LAZY and mooching off the government.  If everyone had this mentality, where would our economy be?  If everyone felt they were entitled to govt aid because it is better to be at home with their family, then hell, no one would work.  I don't want to work after having my baby but I don't want to mooch off the govt either.  I am blessed with a good job and a family who is going to help care for my child.  So I'm going to work.  I could just as easily say, Ugh, I dont' want to...stay home, get welfare, get WIC, etc.  I would love to be at home with my baby but I'm not going to do that.  It's not fair.

    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie First Birthday tickers
  • The whole WIC thing drives me nuts b/c I know it's a good program, yet nearly everyone in the military is on it, and I hear them justify why, and it drives me insane.

    One thread on the military board had women saying they NEED cable. ?It's not a luxury. ?It's apparently as necessary as healthy food.

    Others were defending taking it b/c they're eligible. ?Military people get so many entitlements that apparently many view WIC as just another one, like housing and healthcare. ?They were arguing that if you can take it, you SHOULD take it, or you wouldn't be a good mother, denying your kid healthy food.

    I think what calms me down is thinking that these parents are idiots if they're going to say cable is as important as milk, or that new nursery furniture is a necessary expense when that furniture could have paid all their WIC for a couple years, then their kids shouldn't suffer nutritionally because of it. ?It's not their fault their parents don't make smart money decisions. ?It still pisses me off, but if I think about it from a child's perspective, I'm better with it.?

    image
  • image manatee21:

    Maybe she doesn't really like your family or trust them to watch her kid.  My MIL would gladly watch our phantom child, but I wouldn't leave my child alone with her for more than an evening.  

    Just because free daycare has been offered, doesn't mean she thinks it's a good situation for her family.  

    No offense to OP, but SIL may not like you/your family and doesn't want you to help 'raise' her child. We're really only getting one side of this story. 

    So agreed.Especially with the bolded portion.

    So it goes.
  • image jlaj617:

    image MrsAxilla:
    image katorigasuki:

    I'm not saying it's better in every situtation.  and i'm not saying that families with parents who work aren't strong.  i myself am a working mom and i think my family is doing just fine.

    but i don't think it's a myth that children of SAHPs are better adjusted.  there are studies out there suggesting that in many (not all) cases, a stay at home parent has better long term impact on the development of a child. 

    I am so totally with you.  I think we all miss the point of LIFE when we focus on being "productive" and making money.  Personally, I think it blows chunks out the ass that we spend the majority of our days (make that lives) away from home making money just to live - where's the living in that?

    Lots of these posts are very judgmental. 

    These quotes all share the same underlying belief that the point of "LIFE" is to live it a certain way.  This reeks of judgement since there is never one "right" way of living life.  You assume that "living" entails enjoying things outside of the workplace, but that is your own definition.  Someone might actually enjoying working.  Also, "productive" never automatically = $$ as  you try to imply, so someone can do a lot outside of the home and still be considered productive and not so well off. 

    You cannot tell people that having a SAHP is much better than both parents working b/c there are too many factors involved, one being how active of a parent someone will be. 

    With that said, I do believe that the ability to SAH is a luxury.  If you can't take care of basic necessities, you should not be turning down free childcare.  OP's SIL can just get a PT job for a few hours every other day and make more than what she receives from WIC. 

    I didn't mean to imply that I *know* the "right" way to live life - and that's my way.  Sorry if it came off that way.

    Everyone has to live their own life, but the point of MY life is not to work work work.  I, personally, think people are really missing out on the best parts of life when they are too focused on working just to support themselves.  If $30 in government aid somehow meant that I could spend more time with my kid, I don't know that I wouldn't take advantage of that. 

     

    image
    Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.
  • I'm not a huge fan of WIC.  I have close family members who have been helped from this program and it really saved them during tough times.  BUT sadly a lot of lazy people do take advantage of the system.

    For example, my college roommate got on WIC while living in the dorms.  Keeping in mind that she was getting 3 meals a day from the college.  I told her that I could understand if those meals were not provided and then going on the program.  Her excuse was "Well if I can get it for free then I should take advantage."

    I have a feeling that your SIL may have this attitude. 

  • image MrsPhillips08:

    I'm not a huge fan of WIC.  I have close family members who have been helped from this program and it really saved them during tough times.  BUT sadly a lot of lazy people do take advantage of the system.

    For example, my college roommate got on WIC while living in the dorms.  Keeping in mind that she was getting 3 meals a day from the college.  I told her that I could understand if those meals were not provided and then going on the program.  Her excuse was "Well if I can get it for free then I should take advantage."

    I have a feeling that your SIL may have this attitude. 

    I assume your college roommate was pregnant, right? Ugh, I can't imagine trying to live off dorm food while pregnant and not being able to purchase anything else.

  • image c_joy:

    I assume your college roommate was pregnant, right? Ugh, I can't imagine trying to live off dorm food while pregnant and not being able to purchase anything else.

    Yes she was.  Our cafeteria was not bad at all.  It was buffet style and provided meals for any lifestyle including; vegan, vegetarian and low fat.  There was no limit to how much you could eat or take back to your room.  Our meal plans also provided "points" to buy milk, cheese and cereal from the campus stores.  The points were configured that you "should" (keeping in mind you did not over buy) be able to last the semester.

    She really did have all the food she needed at hand.  She just wanted more food now then to wait when she no longer was on the dorm meal plan.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards