Unpopular Opinions

SusieBW

Here's one: I have no sympathy for people who are struggling to transition their kids from bed sharing to sleeping their own beds. 

persephonerose

I don't understand the freebie cheat list concept in regards to celebrities. ( I don't know what to call it) I have never had a list of celebrities that I would want a free pass to screw. 

Not that I don't find some celebrities attractive and have fantasies about them, I just can't imagine giving a free pass to myself or my spouse to fuck around regardless of the person's fame.

[Deleted User]

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

persephonerose

FamousEa said:

This is not even slightly exciting as an UO but I thought of it last weekend during a road trip...

I HATE leather seats in cars.  I would pick cloth every time.  Now, people say this opinion will change when I have a child who pukes and poops and spills.  For now, I stand by my choice.  Leather seats are miserable in the summer and I live in Texas and I hate when my legs stick to the seat.

Eww I hate that too and I don't live in Texas, and they are super cold if you get cold weather at all.

I live in Texas and I love our leather seats. Maybe because I don't wear shorts that often so I don't have to worry about my legs sticking.

persephonerose

noonandj04 said:

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

How much would you think would be fair?

ss265

carriedaway19 said:

This is not even slightly exciting as an UO but I thought of it last weekend during a road trip...

I HATE leather seats in cars.  I would pick cloth every time.  Now, people say this opinion will change when I have a child who pukes and poops and spills.  For now, I stand by my choice.  Leather seats are miserable in the summer and I live in Texas and I hate when my legs stick to the seat.

I love my leather seats and I live in Texas too. I wear pants often though so my legs never stick to the seat.

Yesterday, we spilled milk from DS's sippy on my seat and I just wiped it off. On cloth, it would have stained and been a mess, no thank you!

Edited for clarity.

DaniGrace89

Whoops. They think it's weird to breastfeed past age 1.

golfingdarwinfish

I eye roll every post that begins with "hello mammas".

Liss1481

MrsBabe614 said:

I don't know if this is unpopular but I think it's really rude when people feel the need to comment on the weight of a person that they consider "too skinny". Before getting pregnant people would regularly say things to me like how I need to eat more etc and I think it's a dick move. 

Agreed.  Closely followed by the "I can't wait to see you fat when you're pregnant"  The place that I used to work at, that was the comment that ALWAYS followed the "Congrats on you're pregnancy."   Asses  

[Deleted User]

persephonerose said:

noonandj04 said:

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

How much would you think would be fair?

I know minimum wage differs state to state, so I suppose it's not an easy blanket answer. I would say maybe around $9-$10, but I live in Wisconsin so the cost of living here isn't as high as say, California. Here, $15 sounds awfully high for that kind of work. I have a college degree, work in a leadership position for a small company, and I barely make $15/hr. I would be pretty annoyed if a Walmart cashier or McD's burger flipper was making more than me, that's all.

saraheh007

OK.  So I have what I am guessing is a very unpopular opinion.  I know this has been touched on in previous threads, but here it goes.  I do not think that fetuses should have rights.  In reality, the only way a fetus can have rights is if rights are taken away from the mother and I do not think that is OK.

No, I do not think using drugs, etc. is OK to do while pregnant, and I think a mother should be prosecuted for the use of drugs, but I do not think it is ok for her to be prosecuted for murder should she lose her pregnancy.  My heart screams otherwise, but my brain feels this way for the reasons I am about to state.

Where do you draw the line?  If I took a calculated risk and decided to eat lunch meat and contracted listeria and lost my pregnancy, should I be charged with murder of my fetus?  

Further, if we say fetuses do have rights, then could I take out a life insurance policy on my fetus around 8 weeks and get paid should I miscarry?  I don't think any insurance company would agree to that.

There is also the argument of a woman being kept alive to keep her fetus alive.  If those are her wishes, then wonderful.  But if her wishes were to not be on life support then why do her rights suddenly lose out to the possibility of survival fetus? 

My heart certainty doesn't feel like it is black or white, but legally, I think it should be.  It can't be in some situations it is a person and in others it is a fetus.  It just isn't right.  And my personal belief is that a fetus should not have rights.

I am interested in hearing both sides of this debate so please share your opposing opinions.

Liss1481

Toddler leashes were awesome when DS was between 1.5 and 2.  He wanted to walk but didn't have the hand holding thing down yet.  We only ever got one nasty comment from a couple at the beach, and I just stared them down until they walked away.  

golfingdarwinfish

PurpleHippo19 said:

VCGolfNYC said:

I eye roll every post that begins with "hello mammas".

@VCGolfNYC Why?

@purplehippo19

There's something about the word that just strikes me as juvenile; it's hard to explain.  And I'm uncomfortable being referred to as "mamma" (gosh that word makes me shudder) at this point in time.

jesslinnn

carriedaway19 said:

This is not even slightly exciting as an UO but I thought of it last weekend during a road trip...

I HATE leather seats in cars.  I would pick cloth every time.  Now, people say this opinion will change when I have a child who pukes and poops and spills.  For now, I stand by my choice.  Leather seats are miserable in the summer and I live in Texas and I hate when my legs stick to the seat.

I used to feel like this, like up until 3 weeks ago when we were buying our new Acadia. I was looking at cloth seats and DH was looking at leather. We ended up getting leather and I love it. Our car that we traded in had black cloth seats and it was terrible. Our dog (American bulldog) sheds so bad and he hair would weave into the fabric. I got to the point that I didn't like taking her places because it was such a PITA to clean her hair out. Plus kids spills/crumbs/dirty feet on the seats are so much easier to clean. I did make the mistake of sitting down on the hot seat with shorts on.. Holy shit ouch! I'll have to start keeping a small blanket in there during the summer. 

vrj0522

saraheh007 said:

OK.  So I have what I am guessing is a very unpopular opinion.  I know this has been touched on in previous threads, but here it goes.  I do not think that fetuses should have rights.  In reality, the only way a fetus can have rights is if rights are taken away from the mother and I do not think that is OK.

No, I do not think using drugs, etc. is OK to do while pregnant, and I think a mother should be prosecuted for the use of drugs, but I do not think it is ok for her to be prosecuted for murder should she lose her pregnancy.  My heart screams otherwise, but my brain feels this way for the reasons I am about to state.

Where do you draw the line?  If I took a calculated risk and decided to eat lunch meat and contracted listeria and lost my pregnancy, should I be charged with murder of my fetus?  

Further, if we say fetuses do have rights, then could I take out a life insurance policy on my fetus around 8 weeks and get paid should I miscarry?  I don't think any insurance company would agree to that.

There is also the argument of a woman being kept alive to keep her fetus alive.  If those are her wishes, then wonderful.  But if her wishes were to not be on life support then why do her rights suddenly lose out to the possibility of survival fetus? 

My heart certainty doesn't feel like it is black or white, but legally, I think it should be.  It can't be in some situations it is a person and in others it is a fetus.  It just isn't right.  And my personal belief is that a fetus should not have rights.

I am interested in hearing both sides of this debate so please share your opposing opinions.

Yep. I think this is what  we've been waiting for. Talk about controversial. 

I very strongly believe that if a fetus has a heartbeat, then it has rights. 

vrj0522

SusieBW said:

Here's one: I have no sympathy for people who are struggling to transition their kids from bed sharing to sleeping their own beds. 

I agree. Especially if the kid is a year or older. If you transition when they are 5-6 months, then you are going through normal sleeping challenges. If you wait until they are older and more aware of what's going on, then you put yourself in that situation. 

persephonerose

noonandj04 said:

persephonerose said:

noonandj04 said:

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

How much would you think would be fair?

I know minimum wage differs state to state, so I suppose it's not an easy blanket answer. I would say maybe around $9-$10, but I live in Wisconsin so the cost of living here isn't as high as say, California. Here, $15 sounds awfully high for that kind of work. I have a college degree, work in a leadership position for a small company, and I barely make $15/hr. I would be pretty annoyed if a Walmart cashier or McD's burger flipper was making more than me, that's all.

I think there is more to consider than just hourly wage. Many people who work at Wal-mart or fast food do not get full time hours or other benefits. I think it is fair for them to request more money to offset the fact that they do not have benefits.

golfingdarwinfish

vrj0522 said:

saraheh007 said:

OK.  So I have what I am guessing is a very unpopular opinion.  I know this has been touched on in previous threads, but here it goes.  I do not think that fetuses should have rights.  In reality, the only way a fetus can have rights is if rights are taken away from the mother and I do not think that is OK.

No, I do not think using drugs, etc. is OK to do while pregnant, and I think a mother should be prosecuted for the use of drugs, but I do not think it is ok for her to be prosecuted for murder should she lose her pregnancy.  My heart screams otherwise, but my brain feels this way for the reasons I am about to state.

Where do you draw the line?  If I took a calculated risk and decided to eat lunch meat and contracted listeria and lost my pregnancy, should I be charged with murder of my fetus?  

Further, if we say fetuses do have rights, then could I take out a life insurance policy on my fetus around 8 weeks and get paid should I miscarry?  I don't think any insurance company would agree to that.

There is also the argument of a woman being kept alive to keep her fetus alive.  If those are her wishes, then wonderful.  But if her wishes were to not be on life support then why do her rights suddenly lose out to the possibility of survival fetus? 

My heart certainty doesn't feel like it is black or white, but legally, I think it should be.  It can't be in some situations it is a person and in others it is a fetus.  It just isn't right.  And my personal belief is that a fetus should not have rights.

I am interested in hearing both sides of this debate so please share your opposing opinions.

Yep. I think this is what  we've been waiting for. Talk about controversial. 

I very strongly believe that if a fetus has a heartbeat, then it has rights. 

And if it has a heartbeat but no brain?

pnwlover12

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

I just think that the funds that are given should go directly to places you need to pay. For example, instead of just giving someone $200 in "cash" on the EBT card, why not pay that $200 to a bill of that person's choice (i.e. utility bill, rent payment, etc.) I know it would take a little more effort to set that kind of system up, but ultimately, it would really help the people who need help - and the people who just spend it on meth and beer wouldn't bother wasting the public resources.

vrj0522

VCGolfNYC said:

vrj0522 said:

saraheh007 said:

OK.  So I have what I am guessing is a very unpopular opinion.  I know this has been touched on in previous threads, but here it goes.  I do not think that fetuses should have rights.  In reality, the only way a fetus can have rights is if rights are taken away from the mother and I do not think that is OK.

No, I do not think using drugs, etc. is OK to do while pregnant, and I think a mother should be prosecuted for the use of drugs, but I do not think it is ok for her to be prosecuted for murder should she lose her pregnancy.  My heart screams otherwise, but my brain feels this way for the reasons I am about to state.

Where do you draw the line?  If I took a calculated risk and decided to eat lunch meat and contracted listeria and lost my pregnancy, should I be charged with murder of my fetus?  

Further, if we say fetuses do have rights, then could I take out a life insurance policy on my fetus around 8 weeks and get paid should I miscarry?  I don't think any insurance company would agree to that.

There is also the argument of a woman being kept alive to keep her fetus alive.  If those are her wishes, then wonderful.  But if her wishes were to not be on life support then why do her rights suddenly lose out to the possibility of survival fetus? 

My heart certainty doesn't feel like it is black or white, but legally, I think it should be.  It can't be in some situations it is a person and in others it is a fetus.  It just isn't right.  And my personal belief is that a fetus should not have rights.

I am interested in hearing both sides of this debate so please share your opposing opinions.

Yep. I think this is what  we've been waiting for. Talk about controversial. 

I very strongly believe that if a fetus has a heartbeat, then it has rights. 

And if it has a heartbeat but no brain?

I'm not talking about the baby having medical issues; those are a whole different thing. I'm talking about a fetus being treated like it's not a human being simply because it's inside the womb. 

I know that you went through something extremely difficult and were faced with a decision no one should ever have to make, but I guarantee you that it was something that you really thought through and did in the best interest of your baby. It wasn't something that you took lightly, which is what I am opposed to. 

saraheh007

@VCGolfNYC‌ Good point. Does a fetus who ha no chance of survival outside of the womb have the same rights as a healthy fetus? If yes, and if fetuses do have rights, that takes the choice of termination away from the mother.

@vrj0522‌ what are those rights and where do you draw the line? To my lunch meat example, do you think that is ok? There becomes a lot of grey area there that are strictly feeling based I think. It feels ok to charge a mother with murder if she uses cocaine but not of she eats a ham sandwich.

persephonerose

pnwlover12 said:

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

I just think that the funds that are given should go directly to places you need to pay. For example, instead of just giving someone $200 in "cash" on the EBT card, why not pay that $200 to a bill of that person's choice (i.e. utility bill, rent payment, etc.) I know it would take a little more effort to set that kind of system up, but ultimately, it would really help the people who need help - and the people who just spend it on meth and beer wouldn't bother wasting the public resources.

While that sounds great in concept I think it would be hard to put that into place. Some people who need assistance are unable to get their utilities in their own names due to bad debit or past due bills. The system you mention would not allow for payment to bills that are not in the persons name. When I lived in government housing people would go around and see who was able to get services in their names, then they would pay that person to set up services for them. 

bumpuser10309732

pnwlover12 said:

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

I just think that the funds that are given should go directly to places you need to pay. For example, instead of just giving someone $200 in "cash" on the EBT card, why not pay that $200 to a bill of that person's choice (i.e. utility bill, rent payment, etc.) I know it would take a little more effort to set that kind of system up, but ultimately, it would really help the people who need help - and the people who just spend it on meth and beer wouldn't bother wasting the public resources.

I was under the impression that you can't take cash off of a "food stamp" card. I would also agree that they need better monitoring, but I'm not sure how they would be able to do that. A lot of the people on the assistance have to go in every several months to fill something out to say they applied for jobs and they have to take a little questionnaire. I had a friend that worked in one of these places and people would say something to her in the effect of "must have clicked that wrong question" (winky face) What pisses me off about the food stamp cards is when someone comes through wearing nicer clothes than I am and chatting on their brand new iPhone.

fireflyrebirth

I don't think anyone over the age of say, 18, should be referred to as a "girl."  If you wouldn't refer to a man of the same age in the same context as a "boy" it's not cool to use "girl."

It's infantilizing to women and continuing to use it supports the ingrained sexism in our culture.

slsl509

Not willing to bite the fetus rights bait.

I think it's annoying to give nicknames to babies in utero. We're not finding out the gender but we just call him/her "Baby".

persephonerose

@mrsbabe614 In Texas the cash benefits and food stamps are placed on one card. When you go to the check out you have to select if you are using the food stamp portion or the debit portion of the card. It then deducts the amount from which ever one you choose.  You cannot however take cash out of your food stamp amount. It is for food purchases only.

jesslinnn

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

Along these lines... 

It bothers me that things like energy drinks are covered by EBT/food stamps. I recently was at a gas station and the Red Bull cooler had a sticker on it advertising you could pay for it with an EBT card. Red Bull has zero nutritional value to it, it's not helping to feed your family, it's crap and it's expensive. For that $3 you could buy a gallon of milk or a pound of ground beef. 

Raesofsunshine1

On the leather/cloth car seats:

We have dark grey cloth and there have been some messes i havent gotten to clean up right away. Just about everything has come out with a warm wet rag with dawn dish soap. Also baby wipes work great in a pinch too.

staryb

noonandj04 said:

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

I'll take this one step further and say that I think fast food restaurants should fire the employees who keep striking and replace them with teenagers who will actually appreciate earning a paycheck even if it's small. I've received poor customer service from too many adults in this industry who are "too good" for their job and obviously don't take an ounce of pride in their employment.

[Deleted User]

persephonerose said:

noonandj04 said:

persephonerose said:

noonandj04 said:

Here's one that will maybe spice things up: I don't believe Walmart or fast-food employees deserve to be paid $15/hr, or however much it is they're currently arguing for.

How much would you think would be fair?

I know minimum wage differs state to state, so I suppose it's not an easy blanket answer. I would say maybe around $9-$10, but I live in Wisconsin so the cost of living here isn't as high as say, California. Here, $15 sounds awfully high for that kind of work. I have a college degree, work in a leadership position for a small company, and I barely make $15/hr. I would be pretty annoyed if a Walmart cashier or McD's burger flipper was making more than me, that's all.

I think there is more to consider than just hourly wage. Many people who work at Wal-mart or fast food do not get full time hours or other benefits. I think it is fair for them to request more money to offset the fact that they do not have benefits.

Ah, I've never heard this side of the argument before. And if that is true, then I think the better solution would be to look at giving these people benefits, rather than just throwing more money at them. I think the whole benefits thing in general needs to be overhauled. I have benefits through my employer, and they are terrible. No maternity pay, short-term disability paid out after 15 days of being out of work and at only 50% of my pay rate. There really needs to be better benefits for all working people.

MrsBabe614 said:

pnwlover12 said:

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

I just think that the funds that are given should go directly to places you need to pay. For example, instead of just giving someone $200 in "cash" on the EBT card, why not pay that $200 to a bill of that person's choice (i.e. utility bill, rent payment, etc.) I know it would take a little more effort to set that kind of system up, but ultimately, it would really help the people who need help - and the people who just spend it on meth and beer wouldn't bother wasting the public resources.

I was under the impression that you can't take cash off of a "food stamp" card. I would also agree that they need better monitoring, but I'm not sure how they would be able to do that. A lot of the people on the assistance have to go in every several months to fill something out to say they applied for jobs and they have to take a little questionnaire. I had a friend that worked in one of these places and people would say something to her in the effect of "must have clicked that wrong question" (winky face) What pisses me off about the food stamp cards is when someone comes through wearing nicer clothes than I am and chatting on their brand new iPhone.

Ugh, yes.

persephonerose

TicketTuesday said:

persephonerose said:

@mrsbabe614 In Texas the cash benefits and food stamps are placed on one card. When you go to the check out you have to select if you are using the food stamp portion or the debit portion of the card. It then deducts the amount from which ever one you choose.  You cannot however take cash out of your food stamp amount. It is for food purchases only.

One of my friends had someone try and sell him a food stamp card with $300 on it for $200 cash in a parking lot once. Not trying to add to the discussion, just thought it was a crazy! 

Yeah it can get crazy, and people will buy them. Growing up my mom was on disability and she would sell off our food stamps for pennies on the dollar when we needed stuff like school supplies. 

pnwlover12

persephonerose said:

pnwlover12 said:

jalara48 said:

Interesting UO . . . . hmmmm . . . . okay. I believe in mandatory drug testing for social assistance as well as strict monitoring for what that assistance is spent on (it isn't monitored here in Canada, I don't know about the US).

I just think that the funds that are given should go directly to places you need to pay. For example, instead of just giving someone $200 in "cash" on the EBT card, why not pay that $200 to a bill of that person's choice (i.e. utility bill, rent payment, etc.) I know it would take a little more effort to set that kind of system up, but ultimately, it would really help the people who need help - and the people who just spend it on meth and beer wouldn't bother wasting the public resources.

While that sounds great in concept I think it would be hard to put that into place. Some people who need assistance are unable to get their utilities in their own names due to bad debit or past due bills. The system you mention would not allow for payment to bills that are not in the persons name. When I lived in government housing people would go around and see who was able to get services in their names, then they would pay that person to set up services for them. 

This makes no sense to me (maybe it is different state-to-state). For example, although my electric bill is in my and DH's name, if any joe schmoe wanted to make a payment towards our account, they are taking the money. Same with our mortgage. Chase bank doesn't give a fuck who pays our bill, as long as it gets paid. The people who are unable to get utilities in their name - still have them correct? I mean, does water come out when they turn on the sink?

I think my hang-up on this is it shouldn't matter who it's billed under, but more the account itself. For example, if they wanted to make a payment of $200 towards their electric bill located @ "123 Main St, etc" why wouldn't they take the money?

MrsTinMKE

MRSclarke08 said:

mmorga15 said:

That my friends think it's funny to joke about my pregnancy hormones and how scared they are of me? I honestly don't get it and it infuriates me because I don't notice that big of a difference. Just because I was honest with you about your ugly 200 dollar overalls doesn't mean I'm being hormonal. It's acceptable to talk about a woman being hormonal after their pregnancy but not during.

I think I will be friendless for the rest of this pregnancy...

My boss, who was someone I knew at a previous job so we are good friends, does the same thing.  She cracks jokes when I am upset and refers to "my fucking baby", which pisses me off.  Then when I talk to her about back-up and support on projects while pregnant because of my many appointments, she jokes about "well, you were the one that wanted to have a baby".  Some days I can deal with it, but I have a feeling that I might snap next time she says something.

Id'd slap a B**** - what the hell is wrong with people, how disgusting

pnwlover12

persephonerose said:

@mrsbabe614 In Texas the cash benefits and food stamps are placed on one card. When you go to the check out you have to select if you are using the food stamp portion or the debit portion of the card. It then deducts the amount from which ever one you choose.  You cannot however take cash out of your food stamp amount. It is for food purchases only.

Same in WA. I have a dear friend who is a single mom of two and while she gets minimal assistance because she works, she gets a "food" portion and a "cash" portion.

bumpuser10309732

pnwlover12 said:

persephonerose said:

@mrsbabe614 In Texas the cash benefits and food stamps are placed on one card. When you go to the check out you have to select if you are using the food stamp portion or the debit portion of the card. It then deducts the amount from which ever one you choose.  You cannot however take cash out of your food stamp amount. It is for food purchases only.

Same in WA. I have a dear friend who is a single mom of two and while she gets minimal assistance because she works, she gets a "food" portion and a "cash" portion.

really? Where we live (mid west) it's strictly for food use. You can't even buy TP and stuff like that on it.

BreandMikewedding

vrj0522 said:

DaniGrace89 said:

I believe in breast feeding as long as it's mutually accepted between mom and child. Wasn't aware this was unpopular until family members told me that this was weird/bad/etc.

What do you mean with mutually accepted? In my opinion, your child will probably always accept breastfeeding but sometimes it's a matter of teaching them how to latch on correctly. I think that breast feeding is more about mom and how she feels about it and how it works for her because baby usually adjusts and wants it.

With that said, I do believe in FF if it's the right decision for a specific mom and baby (based on mom's needs really, though). 

ETA: Or are you talking more about how long baby wants to breastfeed for? 

@vrj0522‌, I'm curious how many children you have breastfed?

persephonerose

pnwlover12 said:

persephonerose said:

pnwlover12 said:

While that sounds great in concept I think it would be hard to put that into place. Some people who need assistance are unable to get their utilities in their own names due to bad debit or past due bills. The system you mention would not allow for payment to bills that are not in the persons name. When I lived in government housing people would go around and see who was able to get services in their names, then they would pay that person to set up services for them. 

This makes no sense to me (maybe it is different state-to-state). For example, although my electric bill is in my and DH's name, if any joe schmoe wanted to make a payment towards our account, they are taking the money. Same with our mortgage. Chase bank doesn't give a fuck who pays our bill, as long as it gets paid. The people who are unable to get utilities in their name - still have them correct? I mean, does water come out when they turn on the sink?

I think my hang-up on this is it shouldn't matter who it's billed under, but more the account itself. For example, if they wanted to make a payment of $200 towards their electric bill located @ "123 Main St, etc" why wouldn't they take the money?

I tried to cut down the quotes a bit so I hope this makes sense.

It's not that the utility company wont take the money. They will take whatever money is given to them. But the State if they are giving XX.XX assistance to John Doe for their electric bill, aren't going to pay that bill if it is in Jane Smith's name. 

Does that make sense? I am not sure if I am making myself clear.  

pnwlover12

I tried to cut down the quotes a bit so I hope this makes sense.

It's not that the utility company wont take the money. They will take whatever money is given to them. But the State if they are giving XX.XX assistance to John Doe for their electric bill, aren't going to pay that bill if it is in Jane Smith's name. 

Does that make sense? I am not sure if I am making myself clear.  

Okay, yeah I get what you are saying. I guess in my mind there should just BE a way to make it work, haha.

TheOtherJacobsons

vrj0522 said:

I believe in toddler leashes. 

This is not a UO on TB. I've seen people drop the opposite in Parenting and get burned at the stake.

persephonerose

pnwlover12 said:

I tried to cut down the quotes a bit so I hope this makes sense.

It's not that the utility company wont take the money. They will take whatever money is given to them. But the State if they are giving XX.XX assistance to John Doe for their electric bill, aren't going to pay that bill if it is in Jane Smith's name. 

Does that make sense? I am not sure if I am making myself clear.  

Okay, yeah I get what you are saying. I guess in my mind there should just BE a way to make it work, haha.

Oh no I agree, I wish there was a better way to make the entire system work. Part of the trouble is, new public works systems require a lot of money to get them up and running. And our government is about what cost less "right now".  It's cheaper to do it this way and lose some money to those working the system than it is to do a huge overhaul.