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 help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
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 help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Romney: welfare moms should have "dignity of work"
This is where I am. I don't get the outrage over these statements, even if it was somewhat blunt and dignity was not the best word to use, IMO. I think this is a reach, but Kleins oped doesn't surprise me in the least tbh.
How do you know this and how do the rich SAHM's apply to Mitt's statement?
There was a study released not too long ago, fought about on here.
The rich SAHMs apply to Mitt's statement because he's saying they have no dignity (including his wife).
You can be married and get welfare. You can even be a SAHM with a H who works and get welfare.
I see nothing wrong with a woman on welfare who wants to work to get childcare subsidies and work. But I don't see where they should be forced to work either. Just b/c you are on assistance doesn't/shouldn't mean that you can't have the freedom to do what you think is best for your family.
Thank you, babyjeebusinamanger.
This is all, this is all Romney is effin saying. That's it. And the worst part is everyone knows it.
Click me, click me!
You can get different forms of welfare under any marital status if your income meets the proper requirements. If you're married, both spouses' income is counted. If you're separated, they might or might not count both depending on the circumstances.
Click me, click me!
This, I'm not on board with. If it was true that having one parent SAH was better than using care alternatives, I'd agree...but it's not, it's personal preference. As I said before, I think the goal should be to get individuals off assistance, and I don't see where not working gives an avenue for that. I think one thing you do lose when you start relying on assistance of any kind (government, family, whatever) is total autonomy over decisions. For example, if somebody came on here complaining that she and her DH are living with her parents, who have given an ultimatum of "we'll watch the kids, but you both need to be out working to try and get to a point you can move out", I don't think she'd get a ton of support that her parents should give her the freedom to choose to SAH. Similarly, I don't think it's inappropriate for the government to attempt to structure assistance programs to reduce reliance on them, even if it means individuals lose the option of a choice they may prefer.
We've answered this already. $250K is rich. YWIA *wink*
And just for kicks, I'll take a stab at this. If you have a spouse who is making upwards of about $70K in a MCOL area, then I'm not going to side-eye you for being a SAHM. That's fairly reasonable and you could be ok financially. But, if you are staying home and the spouse makes $35K, then I'm going to side-eye you if you start whining about how you are so "po" that you can't afford the o or the r. Anecdote alert: I have two friends like this. Both of whom whine all the time about not being able to take trips etc. I have no sympathy. And I will not make you a mommy martyr.
And what's wealthy to me, around my area if would be anything over about $175K. That's a lot of money for my neck of the woods.
We have one car and three children. Shiit, just with the two kids that situation makes it more expensive for me to work than for me to stay home. It just does. But part of that is the type of previous work experience I have. Childcare, CSR, restaurants, data entry, none of that will bring home enough scratch to make up for the added expense of having two working parents even if you take day care out of the equation. But even if I could find a job with better pay, would it be enough for us to add a car payment to our budget? Or would we be stuck putting a ridiculous amount of wear on the one car we have, driving someone to work early, picking up someone late, and strapping our kids in the car at ridiculous times. And who is going to watch our kids for all those hours? Even 24 hour day cares have limits for how long/how often they take them.
It's really not as cut and dry as all that either. Some of this also depends on the type of jobs we're talking about, the ages of your children, what's available in your area, the commute, the availability of childcare for the hours you need, etc.
Many military families are making about 35k but for many of them, having both parents work can make a deployment that much more difficult, not to mention dealing with training trips, the spouse going out in the field, build ups that can temporarily change the average work schedule. Think also about jobs that require a lot of travel, trucking, third shift warehouse work, and a whole host of others.
Believe it or not, the decision often isn't about money at all.
Click me, click me!
Wouldn't we be better off as a societ/gov't paying for women to be able to receive free/very cheap birth control and abortion if they can't afford to work and pay for childcare?
Wouldn't spending $500 on an abortion be a better use of tax dollars than spending $500+/mo in childcare credits so the mother can work and not be on public funds?
Above Us Only Sky
I know, my conservative is showing.
Actually HAB, I was going to amend my comments to say that I don't side-eye military families. My ex-H was former military, so I get all the deployment stuff. We didn't have a kid until after he was discharged, so I never worried about any of the single parent by Uncle Sam issues that most families contend with.
The recipients of my side-eye are both women whose husbands don't have a college degree and trust, their jobs aren't glamorous. I just don't want to hear about your azzes being "po" when you made the conscious decision to stay home and be the next stars of extreme couponing. We'all know you ain't got two pennies to rub together, stop quit yer biitchin. /rant
Why is it an either/or propostion?
And the reality is the people who shouldn't be having children are often the last to take steps to avoid having them.
FWIW, we may not pay for abortion but we very much do pay for low income women to get birth control of all forms.
Click me, click me!
Oh I agree with you. I hate when people biitch about the circumstances their decisions have put them in. And I hope my post didn't sound biitchy or whining. I just meant to explain for people who may not get what else might go into that decision.
Click me, click me!
the more politicians talk about welfare, the more i realize that i have no idea what the hell "welfare" entails. for a person, for a family, what's covered, what's not, what people wish was covered, etc. it's hard to evaluate what everyone is offering or changing. and i'm curious about it and have the resources to figure it out (i think). plus the state-by-state variation makes it hard to assess on a global level too.
and i like in theory the idea that if we increase what is covered childcare-wise, more women could work, but some jobs make dual parent employment hard (shift work, jobs with a lot of travel, etc.). hell, my husband and i are both lawyers, can afford private childcare, and like our jobs, and have talked on several occasions about one or the both of us scaling it back or quitting to make our family function more efficiently/easily. so far, we haven't, but it's a constant thought, re-thought process.
What does abortion have to do with this? Are you suggesting that there are so many low-income women in assistance because the government doesnt' offer free abortions? If that's the case can someone point me to the source for this?
It is real work. Where are you getting this? Definition of work per BLS =/= not work. That is just being dishonest, IMO.
Yup.