Oklahoma Nesties
fuzzylogic
member
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.
Unpopular opinions
All righty, ladies. Time to cough up those opinions that just might ruffle some feathers.
Mine: I think it's stupid that teachers are always so accosted if a picture of them with a glass of wine or a beer pops up on Facebook. Just because you're drinking doesn't mean you're drunk, it doesn't mean you're an alcoholic, and you're not a bad influence. If you're teaching, you're most likely over 21 and are legal to imbibe.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
Re: Unpopular opinions
I'm a Scrooge. I hate gift giving/receiving at the holidays.
We're not close with most of our extended families, so it's essentially trading $50 gift cards with whomever's name we drew (which feels so forced) and I'd rather just get together and share a meal without the required "buy in." We stayed out of the name drawing one year (at ages 28 and 29!) and my grandparents just ended up buying us gifts "From Santa" because they were sure we'd be sad we didn't have anything to open. We weren't, but now we pay in because we don't want my grandparents to do so for us.
For our closer relatives, what we can afford to purchase them seems so inadequate relative to how we actually feel about them (and relative to what they spend on us) that it's kind of embarassing. E.g., our parents will each spend a couple of thousand dollars on DH and I each and we spend $100 on each of them, maybe, if that? As far as getting, we both feel weird about receiving the glut that our families give us (we're adults--if we need something, we'll just go buy it, but we don't actually enjoy having "stuff" so we almost never buy anything!) but any attempts to "scale down" Christmas have been met with a lot of resistance. Neither of us is religious, so I don't think this stems from a "true meaning of Christmas" place but rather a "Christmas is commercialism taken to the extreme" place. At this point, though, we know it makes the families happy, so we just keep our traps shut and play the game.
I think I was the only person out of my close friends who didn't watch the CMA Awards last night - I am not a country music fan at all. But I also think Taylor Swift is overrated. But I also think the Miami Heat are overrated, and a lot of my friends disagree...so what do I know. :P
Someone I know has a varying opinion of what makes someone a veteran [she thinks a vet is just someone who fought in a war, whereas I see a vet as anyone who served in the military], and it really annoyed me. It rubbed me the wrong way, so I just shut my mouth...but on the inside, I'm pissed. So, because my dad didn't fight in a war - even though he gave 24 years of his life to the Army and did everything BUT fight in a war [that he volunteered to fight in, but medical reasons kept him back], he's not a veteran?
I think I just took it personally. Everyone's entitled to his/her opinion of what a vet is, but it just rubbed me the wrong way is all.
ITA. It's not like they can't afford their kids or anything like that - they're raising them in a great home using their own means. I don't see an issue with it, either.
I get so frustrated when driving here. I had to leave 20 minutes before my regular time (because it's raining and we know what happens to drivers in rain) in order to make it to work on time.
My theory was proved correct too, still made it to work same time.
I agree too! They also live totally and completley debt free which I think it awesome. My tax dollars are not supporting them and they keep their kids healthy, fed, safe, and clean so I think it is fine. I also totally admire Michelle's patience!
I agree with everyone on this. I admire them for not relying on Government programs to support themselves. 19+ kids is not my thing but if you are financially responsible and can afford (without the help of Grovernmnet programs) have as many as you can afford.
My UO is kind of along the same lines-I DO NOT feel the Government should support people who can afford to go to the casino, buy alcohol or cigerettes. I also feel as though after a lady has 1 child paid for by a Government program they should not be allowed to have another child funded by the Government. The US would be in such better shape if they would stop paying for women who get knocked-up time after time because they know they don't have pay for it, they don't have to pay for formula and they will get more on their food stamp card. The Government also needs to make anyone getting any type of Government assistance take a drug test atleast 1 time a month.
WHOA. I should back out of this post slowly and pretend I was never here.
But, that's not really how I operate, so...
Yes, the Duggars live debt-free, which is great for them. Yes, their children seem well-behaved on TV. BUT, they are a HUGE drain on resources. How much water do you think they use? How much trash does 20 KIDS IN DIAPERS produce? Holy hell. Not to mention gas usage, etc. And the exponential growth in population if even just half of their children choose to live that lifestyle. Their carbon footprint must be gigantic. THAT is why I think they are irresponsible. And perhaps a bit selfish.
And before you ask, yes, the impact to the environment and world over-population does and will weigh into whether or not and how I have children.
I need a new post for round two. BRB.
I don't even know where to start, so I'll skip the whole casino, cigarettes thing and go for the gusto.
So, a poor woman who doesn't have access or knowledge of birth control, or doesn't have a reliable way to get it and relies on government assistance to feed her current child gets pregnant. Then what? The government should cut them off? Force her to abort? What? I also doubt very, very, VERY few women who are living in poverty get pregnant on purpose to get additional benefits (Cue the "But, my neighbor's cousin's sister's hairdresser knows someone" argument).
I think the government forcing drug testing on anyone is wrong. Or the government forcing medical procedures of any kind, for that matter. What amusing me is that most people who think drug tests should be required for welfare are also the ones talking about leaving the government out of healthcare. Hyprocisy at its finest. Also, do you have any idea how much it would cost? Enough for a mom living in poverty to buy cigarettes, for like, the rest of her life.
ETA: I don't think the system is perfect by any means, but I also don't think the solution is to cut women off after one child and drug test everyone.
And now for my actual UO:
I think some people here and IRL have ZERO idea of what it's like to be poor (like really, really poor), and just flat-out don't want to know so they can live in their fantasy world where everyone in America has the same opportunities as others.
Wake up and smell the poverty, people.
I'm sure there are people out there who abuse the system but there are also people out there who truely rely on goverment assistance. I would much rather someone go on goverment assistance to feed their childern than for that child to fall through the cracks.
I don't agree with drug testing people just because they can not earn enough money to make ends meet. I would not want the government to have that much control over people.
Not only this, but I think this puts a hugely unfair burden on their older children. Their older children have been parenting the younger children for years. We're not talking about occasional babysitting or normal older-sibling stuff. These older children, particularly the girls, are filling the role of mother for all intents and purposes to some of the small children. I am all for teaching your children responsibility and contributing to the family, but you aren't truly caring for all of these children if you are just delegating the responsibility to other children. You're building a family, not a workforce.
"I also feel as though after a lady has 1 child paid for by a Government program they should not be allowed to have another child funded by the Government."
This is actually true in half of states (and has been since 1996) including Oklahoma under TANF regulations. It's called the "family cap" or "child exclusion" rule. Some people argue that this raises the abortion rate.
I've heard the drug test argument a lot. However, before putting that in place, we'd have a lot of policy decisions to figure out. First, doing so would be insanely expensive. A one time a month drug test would increase the welfare budget by about 50% (it's currently 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget.) To be fair, if we're giving it to all people who get Government assistance, that would include WIC, food stamps, TANF, Social Security, SSI, SSDI, subsidized student loans, Medicare, and Medicaid. How will we pay for it? Second, what do we do if parents are using drugs? Not feed their children? Place their children in the homes of thousands of non-existent foster families who just can't wait to take in all of those children? I definitely don't think parents should be using drugs (well, I'm not opposed to alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana when the kids are at grandma's) but I'd want us to figure out how to handle the externalities of such a huge policy decision (i.e., the children and the taxpayers) before just instituting it across the boards.
You're so much calmer and more level-headed than me. Just wanted to throw that out there.
I don't think (most) people receiving state assistance are intentionally popping out kids to up the welfare check, but I do think they often weigh the consequences much differently than someone without assistance, because the financial impact to them is different.
I think the bigger problem (and would be a much better use of additional resources than drug testing) is providing better access to family planning and contraceptive resources.
If this hypothetical drug testing scenario were implemented, what happens when a parent fails a drug test? The "parent" loses benefits? Wrong. The FAMILY loses benefits. I'm 100% sure the children would be affected and also innocent in that scenario. If the parent has a drug problem and suddenly has less resources to support a family, chances are they won't just quit buying drugs. They'll quit buying groceries since they don't have food stamps. What did we fix here?
If the hypothetical one-baby-limit scenario were implemented, aren't we unfairly singling out women as opposed to men? Do we require paternity tests (more exorbitant additional cost!) for every child born as well? What if one parent had a previous child and the other didn't? Also, just like in the previous scenario, formula isn't for the parents, it's for the baby. Taking away WIC removes the resource that is dedicated to the child, with no guarantee that child will be otherwise provided for just because we've aimed to 'punish' the parents.
From reading this post, I'm not sure if you think they should be more or less involved TJ.
Their stated and steadfast goal is to reunite biological families. While I personally don't believe this is always the best overarching goal to have (as opposed to, say, finding a safe, stable. and loving environment for each child), there is also a lot of reason behind why they give parents so many chances to grow, learn, reform, and rebuild their family.
I get what all of you are saying but I have seen first hand a lady have 5 kids all paid for by the Gov. so she could get more in food stamps and more help paying her bills since she had more kids. I also have seen first hand people sell thier food stamps for 1/2 what their worth so they would have drug money or money for cigs and alcohol (my parents have owned a liquour store for almost 20 years this is where I have seen and heard these type of stories). I can just about guarantee you that over 1/2 people benefiting from Government systems are just "living off the system" for lack of better wording. Yes I know the drug testing will never happen and the Gov will keep giving and giving out more and more money to people who are more than able to work but won't because they can live off the Gov.
I personally know a lady who lost her husband a few years ago. She now recieves a widows pension and her daughter who did not belong to her husband recieves a check aswell since she is a minor and he was the only person in the house working at the time of this death. Now the ladies son recieves a check because he went off the deep end-well after his little incident and getting a check is now better and no longer has is moments like before. He is 19 years old, has never worked and sits at home all day and smokes pot. The mom will not get a full time job because she doesn't want to lose her pension and because she enjoys her freedom. Those are the people that pi$$ me off and why I think the system is screwed up!
Ok- but, again, when people say things like this, it almost sounds like they're jealous that these folks are "living the high life on our tax dollars" (again, welfare is less than 1/2 of 1% of the federal budget) while the rest of us dumb stiffs go to work every day. Peer reviewed studies also don't echo your experience. Remember---you're only seeing a selection of people on welfare. The ones who aren't hanging out at your parents' liquor store are too busy working, going to school, and caring for their children.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not trade places with the people you mentioned above even if it meant I'd get to sit at home and "watch my programs" all day (which it doesn't because welfare has a 60 month lifetime cap and a work requirement.)
I guess I feel about welfare the same way I feel about the penal system. I'd rather 10 people abuse the system so 1 innocent person doesn't have to go without just like I'd rather 10 guilty people go free instead of 1 innocent person be incarcerated.
I don't think anyone said the system wasn't screwed up or didn't need reform. I think what we (or at least the me part of we) were implying, is that these reform ideas come across as just spouting off with very little thought as to what those ideas would look like once implemented.
My mom received her deceased spouse's SSI and my brother (not his child) received survivor benefits as well after my 'stepfather' died. Could my mom have worked? Yes, she could have. Was she taking advantage of the system or was she receiving a benefit that he had paid into (and would have received himself if he have lived to SS age) and his survivors were awarded accordingly? There's not a clear answer to that, but the situation you described above is similar. We pay into SS so that we receive a benefit at a certain age. If we spend years paying in and then die before that age, the system, as designed, awards that benefit to our surviving dependents in the same way your 401k would be left to your heirs.
I'd also like to ask how many of the people who have such strong opinions have ever been the recipient of state aid?
I spent most of my early childhood receiving WIC/Food Stamps (at the best of times, it got much worse as well). I've seen firsthand all of the horror stories and abuse of the system. I believe we do need reform, but we need reform that is effective (and cost effective) and doesn't punish children for things they can't control.
I'm not even getting into the welfare stuff because it makes my brain hurt to try to discuss it with people who think anecdotal evidence=actual statistics.
I agree with okla and Wendy on the Duggars.
My UO, which is really lame and not really controversial, is that I don't really get the obsession with decor. We have had pretty much the same stuff on our walls since we moved into this house, and I'm just kind of ambivalent about it. We have talked about really wanting to get local art to put on the walls in our next house, but decorating is not something I will probably put a lot of time and energy into.
I don't even know if I think they should be more or less involved, myself. It just feels like they fail a lot of kids.
It's such a complicated and complex thought in my head that I don't even know how to transfer it all out to say what I'm trying to. Bah.
I don't really have a strong opinion, but my H does on this subject. He grew up in really sh!tty conditions. His mom got all sorts of gov't assistance, but he was still hungry and got evicted from appts one after another. His mom worked, but she also drank and the food stamp money usually didn't mean food on the table for him. He said there were weeks and months where the only meals he got were his free lunch and breakfast at school.
Now granted, he is one person, but I would bet he is not alone. I don't think that everyone getting gov't assistance is working the system, but I think a lot do. I think without reform, kids are being punished for things they can't control.
I don't think government sterilization is such a bad idea. They should start with my neighborhood welfare cats first.
I also think people should have a certain IQ score to qualify for voting.
I agree with Shansbride. It happens alot more than people think.
No I have never been a recipient of state aid. My parents worked their a$$es of to provide for us when we were still at home and they do the same to this day so that they can live the comfortable life style they want to live. Both of my parents worked for the same company and when the company closed down they has other jobs with in weeks after the shut down. They raised to work hard and pay for everything we have. Living off of Gov. assistance is not a way of life for me nor was it when I was a child.
Being financially ok does not necessarily equal working hard (DH and I are living proof of that.)
Not being financially secure does not necessarily equal not working hard (the cleaning person who comes in third shift to clean my office after working her full shift at Chick Fil'A is living proof of that.)
If we lived in a true meritocracy, I'd be a lot less in favor of entitlement programs. But unfortunately, the idea that the U.S. is a meritocracy is a pipe dream.
Holy.crap.
Speechless.
Didn't we (as a country) at one time use voter qualifications such as education as a vehicle for persecution of large groups of people? Yeah, bringing that back sounds like an awesome idea.
Also, I'm going to pretend this means that Snowful is a proponent of an OPTION for government sponsored sterilization, not requirement. I'll sleep better tonight that way.