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)

24

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

  • image amy052006:
    image katorigasuki:

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

    she's a stay at home mom.

    that said, some fiscal responsibilty could do her some good.

     

    Her primary responsibility as a mother is to provide for her children.  She is able to do that, and chooses not to.  Someone needs to be with her kids all day --- she has people willing to do that while she works.  It is a luxury for her to be home all day with her kids -- their needs would still be met with someone else watching them -- for free nonetheless.

     

    right, as a mother, she is caring (providing) for her child.

    the whole philosophy that staying home is a "luxury" is misguided (in my opinion). and i say this as a working mom, who probably could stay home with my son.

    i will never begruge someone who wants to stay home with their children.  i will give a side eye if fiscal irresponsibility results in needing federal/state help as a result.

  • Oops - reading comprehension  - I'm working and Nesting. I didn't see the part where she was offered free childcare. I take it back. She just sucks then.  Surprise
  • 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. 

    Lilypie Third Birthday tickers Lilypie First Birthday tickers
  • image marriednow06:
    image jlthompson19:

    image JenzillaMay06:
    Sorry - I know you're frustrated with them specifically. It just really irks me when people make judgements about things like this, because they often don't seem to realize that it could easily be them in the position to accept help. People on assistance are just human beings like anyone else.

    I don't think anyone is judging everyone on assistance.  But this chick has has every opportunity to work, yet chooses not to.  I'm not ok with that.

    I don't think anyone is okay with it, but it is an isolated incident.  I don't get the whole "stories like this just push me further to the right" attitude.  

    It's not just one isolated incident.  It happens a lot.  People choose to keep their cable but get WIC.  People choose not to work b/c it'll barely cover daycare, but get WIC.  Having a child is not a right.  It's a responsibility and a privelege and I believe it takes makes some sacrifices.

    I KNOW there are many, many people who need assistance.  But I also know there are many who could make do without it. 

    I don't believe a cut in funding is what is needed though.  Actually I believe MORE money is needed to properly staff the agencies that provide benefits.  And to teach people basic financing and banking lessons. 

  • image JenzillaMay06:

    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.

    Agreed. But what if you are a HS graduate with no college education and can only get a job that will basically pay for day care and gas. Isn't it better for your kids to have you home?

    If married, the working parent can work a second job, or the at home parent can get a night job. Look into in-home, or family-based daycare, or state-subsidized daycare available. See if there are more expenses that can be cut. Take a loan for a community college to learn a skill to get a job making more money.

    If it's the only option, take gov't assistance. It's there for people who need it, and if the only ones who take it are those with no other choice, there would probably be more $ available to the truly needy. IMO, the lady in the OP is not truly needy.

  • image nitaw:
    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. 

    Married - I'd agree if I didn't know two women who are SAHM and should seriously be out working. But, in their view, they are doing what they feel the role of a mother should be - even if it means sacrificing material comforts to raise their kids. In fact, one would go so far as to shun you for working because "your kids need you more."

    I have no problem with people sacrificing "material comforts" to sahm.  I do have a problem with people chosing to get government assistance in order to sahm.  To Jenzilla's point, if they have figured out that the cost of daycare would basically eat the entire paycheck, that is something different.  But in this particular person's scenario she has daycare being offered to her for free.  So I maintain my original argument that the SIL is in fact an idiot.  Yet this does not taint my view that these are necessary programs.  In the end the number of people who benefit from it far outweighs the issue that there will be some people who abuse it imo. 

  • 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.

     

  • I think my problem is that I used to think "oh how cute, they are poor and they don't care..they make enough to provide for their needs, and SIL doesn't have to work."  Now, that I know they don't make enough to meet their needs, the vision I had of them lost its luster.  Although economically they are poor, on the socio-economic scale they would be more middle class because they have lots of supportive family (he is one of 6 adult children, and their parents are fairly well off).
  • 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.

     

    So, you're ok paying her to stay home with her child?  Because that is essentially what is happening.

  • 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. 

  • Even if she has free childcare offered by her family - just how long can she take advantage of that offer? I use both of my sisters as examples - my middle sister has my mother to keep her kids during the day. My mother is EXHAUSTED after doing it and has on more than one occasion told my sister, she will need to get someone else to help her with the kids. As a result, there have been days where my sister has called in because she had no one who could keep her kids. My youngest sister works, even has a part-time daycare provider, but when her MIL offered to keep her son; she'd do so only for a few weeks and mysteriously - "Well I have something else I have to do. I can't keep him today."

    Now - I'm not saying that alwayscurious' family would do that to her, but it is a possibility. I didn't ask a family member to keep my daughter when I worked because I didn't want to burden them. During one period, I worked 12 hours a day and I just didn't want to have someone tired of looking after my child.

    As for the whole WIC thing, it's seriously not that much money. It's not the same as getting $700 worth of food stamps. Who knows, even if she was working, she might still be able to qualify for WIC. It's based on income.

     

    image "There's a very simple test to see if something is racist. Just go to a heavily populated black area, and do the thing that you think isn't racist, and see if you live through it." ~ Reeve on the Clearly Racist Re-Nig Bumper Sticker and its Creator.
  • 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.

     

    It's fine for her to stay home, even if free child care is being offered.  I just don't think we need to subsidize it. This is about her needs --- not her child's.  Her child's needs would be meet by any one of these family care givers.

    If we are going to start subsidizing the child bearing in America, I'd like to start with maternity leave -- so that working women who pay into the system can actually get paid to recover from squeezing the kid out in the first place, and not have to take PTO if they want to see a paycheck.

    Baby Numbers 11.8.10 The Sequel on or around 10.13.12
  • image alwayscurious:
    I think my problem is that I used to think "oh how cute, they are poor and they don't care..they make enough to provide for their needs, and SIL doesn't have to work."  Now, that I know they don't make enough to meet their needs, the vision I had of them lost its luster.  Although economically they are poor, on the socio-economic scale they would be more middle class because they have lots of supportive family (he is one of 6 adult children, and their parents are fairly well off).

    When has it ever been "cute" to be poor?

  • Also, full-disclosure, I am basically a SAHM.  We give up a lot materially for me to stay home, but we can afford to feed, shelter, and clothe ourselves and our children.  I have absolutely no problem with women (or men) choosing to stay home and raise their children.  I do think family relationships are more important than things.  That is why originally I was kinda impressed that she was staying home.  I thought that is great that they can go without some things so she can build the family.  Then, I found out they really couldn't afford it and it irked me. 
  • 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.

     

    Her child's NEED for food far outweighs her WANT to be a sahm.

    This does not mean she needs to work. Cutting out the netflix almost covers the entire WIC assistance. Maybe her husband can pick up a few hours. But if feeding, clothing, sheltering, and giving medical care to your child means having to give up staying at home... I have no qualms about saying these necessities are much more important to children than having a sahm.

  • image jlthompson19:
    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.

     

    So, you're ok paying her to stay home with her child?  Because that is essentially what is happening.

    yes, but i'm a tree-hugging commie.

    in all seriousness, i'm 90% ok with it.  As part of the big picture, i think it is more important for parents to spend time with their children and raise them instead of dumping them off on a third party child care provider. 

    Not that child care isn't important, or that all women should go back to being SAHMs.  but if that is what makes her happy, and allows for her family to be healthy, then i don't have a problem with assisting with that.

    obviously she should be fiscally responsible and not abuse the system.  (that's where my 10% comes in).

    but i think in the bigger picture, we are better off as a people if parents spend more time with their children.

  • Sorry- I don't think being poor is cute. I thought it was cute that they didn't care that they were poor (honestly, they aren't THAT poor)-maybe I should find a different word meaning just a little bit poor.  Their attitude about their financial situation was really cute.
  • image alwayscurious:
    Sorry- I don't think being poor is cute. I thought it was cute that they didn't care that they were poor (honestly, they aren't THAT poor)-maybe I should find a different word meaning just a little bit poor.  Their attitude about their financial situation was really cute.

     

    i'm still not getting the "cute" part of this.

    i think you have a different definition of "cute" than the rest of us.

  • image katorigasuki:
    image jlthompson19:
    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.

     

    So, you're ok paying her to stay home with her child?  Because that is essentially what is happening.

    yes, but i'm a tree-hugging commie.

    in all seriousness, i'm 90% ok with it.  As part of the big picture, i think it is more important for parents to spend time with their children and raise them instead of dumping them off on a third party child care provider. 

    Not that child care isn't important, or that all women should go back to being SAHMs.  but if that is what makes her happy, and allows for her family to be healthy, then i don't have a problem with assisting with that.

    obviously she should be fiscally responsible and not abuse the system.  (that's where my 10% comes in).

    but i think in the bigger picture, we are better off as a people if parents spend more time with their children.

    I'm with you.

    The Girl is 5. The Boy is 2. The Dog is 1.

    image image

    I am the 99%.
  • 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.  

  • Married - their ideas of material comforts and ours are vastly different. One lady - should in all seriousness get a dang job. They've lived in subsidized housing, her DH doesn't earn a lot - but she is adamant that is going to be a SAHM. The other lady - she too needs a dang job, IMHO, but she and her DH have two kids under school age, so sending them to daycare would kill anypaycheck she brought home. Neither of their DH's make a lot of money. So, how they do it is beyond me. I personally wouldn't consider being a SAHM if my DH didn't make at least 75K.

    But I do know that they've cut some serious corners in order to do it. Maybe the SIL in this case will learn to do the same. It doesn't work for me - but if they can do it and make it work, more power to them.

    image "There's a very simple test to see if something is racist. Just go to a heavily populated black area, and do the thing that you think isn't racist, and see if you live through it." ~ Reeve on the Clearly Racist Re-Nig Bumper Sticker and its Creator.
  • image katorigasuki:
    image jlthompson19:
    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.

     

    So, you're ok paying her to stay home with her child?  Because that is essentially what is happening.

    yes, but i'm a tree-hugging commie.

    in all seriousness, i'm 90% ok with it.  As part of the big picture, i think it is more important for parents to spend time with their children and raise them instead of dumping them off on a third party child care provider. 

    Not that child care isn't important, or that all women should go back to being SAHMs.  but if that is what makes her happy, and allows for her family to be healthy, then i don't have a problem with assisting with that.

    obviously she should be fiscally responsible and not abuse the system.  (that's where my 10% comes in).

    but i think in the bigger picture, we are better off as a people if parents spend more time with their children.

    Why should anyone work? If both parents staying home is what makes them happy, and allows for their family to be healthy, then should we assist that? If having one parent at home is beneficial to the child, think of how strong the family bonds would be with both parents at home.

  • image balihaigirl:

    She has FREE DAYCARE OFFERED through family. ?

    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.?

    IVF w/ ICSI #2 - fraternal twins born December 2010 at 36 weeks.
  • image nitaw:

    Married - their ideas of material comforts and ours are vastly different. One lady - should in all seriousness get a dang job. They've lived in subsidized housing, her DH doesn't earn a lot - but she is adamant that is going to be a SAHM. The other lady - she too needs a dang job, IMHO, but she and her DH have two kids under school age, so sending them to daycare would kill anypaycheck she brought home. Neither of their DH's make a lot of money. So, how they do it is beyond me. I personally wouldn't consider being a SAHM if my DH didn't make at least 75K.

    But I do know that they've cut some serious corners in order to do it. Maybe the SIL in this case will learn to do the same. It doesn't work for me - but if they can do it and make it work, more power to them.

    But they aren't making it work if they have to use subsidized housing.  The only situation where I have sympathy is when daycare eats up the entire paycheck.  In that particular situation it is just not worth it, but otherwise they need to get a job. 

  • Oo, could this welfare debate turn into a SAHM debate? Hmm
  • 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.

  • image Brookles:
    Oo, could this welfare debate turn into a SAHM debate? Hmm

    Only if we're lucky!

    *whispers* thank you, baby Jesus...

  • image c_joy:

    Judgy McJudgersons who come out of the woodwork to get outraged over free milk.

     

    ding ding ding!!!

  • image marriednow06:
    image nitaw:

    Married - their ideas of material comforts and ours are vastly different. One lady - should in all seriousness get a dang job. They've lived in subsidized housing, her DH doesn't earn a lot - but she is adamant that is going to be a SAHM. The other lady - she too needs a dang job, IMHO, but she and her DH have two kids under school age, so sending them to daycare would kill anypaycheck she brought home. Neither of their DH's make a lot of money. So, how they do it is beyond me. I personally wouldn't consider being a SAHM if my DH didn't make at least 75K.

    But I do know that they've cut some serious corners in order to do it. Maybe the SIL in this case will learn to do the same. It doesn't work for me - but if they can do it and make it work, more power to them.

    But they aren't making it work if they have to use subsidized housing.  The only situation where I have sympathy is when daycare eats up the entire paycheck.  In that particular situation it is just not worth it, but otherwise they need to get a job. 

    Married - they don't live in subsidized housing now (at least that I'm aware of). They managed to buy a little house for pretty cheap. But, I do know at one point they did.

    On my side snark for the two of them, I quite frankly get sick of them whining about how much things cost. I really want to say "stop the holier than thou in raising my kids ideas" and go work for crying out loud, then you can buy some new clothes. But, alas, I bite my tongue and scream inside.

    But my point is, is that, while I don't understand it, for some people being a SAHM at any cost is a big deal.

    But I will say this, I'm really glad this thread is jumping on these SAHM's. It shows that disdain for any abuse of the welfare system is not to be tolerated. So, the angst isn't just placed on the typical "inner-city, teen, welfare mom syndrome."Stick out tongue

    image "There's a very simple test to see if something is racist. Just go to a heavily populated black area, and do the thing that you think isn't racist, and see if you live through it." ~ Reeve on the Clearly Racist Re-Nig Bumper Sticker and its Creator.
  • cute=euphemism for naive
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards