Unpopular Opinions

trisharenee0316 · June 2014

Having personal experience with family members on welfare and food stamps, living in project housing . . . not quite this glamorous world you are all envisioning. Instead of thinking about how "unfair" it is that some people game the system, instead thank your lucky ass stars that you're not living like that. It's by no means glamorous or fun: you have people getting shot or stabbed in front of your home (sometimes your kids get to see it too), usually the public schools in the area are failing, and it is emotionally exhausting.

So no, I'm not going to begrudge a mom on welfare for having an iPhone. She has bigger fish to fry, IMO.

TheOtherJacobsons · June 2014

ladybug0088 said:

I'm not talking child labor at all. The kids that need a lunch can earn it though. Why give handouts when they are capable? People are so stuck on not making other kids feel "different." I've been on so many field trips where the kids say they can't pay and they want their money back after they've already turned in the money. They say oh, I forgot I'm on free lunch so I don't have to pay. Parents don't realize that schools only get $20 for field trips per free student for the whole year. These kids think they should get free overnight trips and all the field trips free. It puts the schools in a difficult situation as well as the teachers and principal. I've had kids shower at school, bought clothes for them, took them to get school supplies with my own money of money from the school, etc. I'm not against helping them, but I think they are getting a sense of entitlement. I also don't think it's the schools job or the governments job to raise kids by feeding, providing clothes, parenting them, and teaching them.

That may be so because so many children these days do feel entitled, free lunch or no. I do have to say that I did not feel entitled, I felt embarrassed. Especially since children in my school considered "K-Mart Shopper" an insult and used it.

Yeah, cleaning after all the rich kids in my school would have gone over very well. I say rich kids because I grew up in Santa Barbara and my district was where all the multi-million dollar homes were. These kids were legitimately rich.

I for one think there should be such thing as a free lunch. Badum chhhhhhh.

MrMrsandBaby · June 2014

MrsSinner402 said:

MrsSinner402 said:

I just think its hilarious that this thread is so long and mainly about yoga pants in public. :-q

That is overly generalized...more like appropriate dress and caring what you look like. Semantics...
And it was also a joke. Lighten up.

Thanks, not overly tight, but I appreciate the concern!

fireflyrebirth · June 2014

noonandj04 said:

fireflyrebirth said:

jalara48 said:

fireflyrebirth said:

trisharenee0316 said:

UO: The amount of poor shaming in this thread is kind of repulsive.

Right there with you. It's making me really uncomfortable...

No one has thrown out the term "welfare queen" yet but it feels like we are getting close.

Allow me.

That would be my birth mother. She's the Welfare Fucking Queen of Canada. She had me at 18 and, to this day, has never had a job. She has, however, been involved with multiple gangs, never once been sober or off of drugs, manipulated every single system, used my 2 half brothers to help her do it and no one has. ever. monitored what she spends her money on.

Drugs. Alcohol. And cigarettes ofcourse.

Two years ago she moved in with my grandmother. Hasn't paid for a damn thing bill since.

She's the Welfare Queen.

Call that whatever you want. But I stand by my opinion. Social assistance needs to be highly monitored because people like her exist.

I am not saying that there aren't a handful of people who abuse the system. I am not saying the system is anywhere near perfect. But people piling on anecdotes and judgments about welfare queens and the like is not useful. It's classism and I am not comfortable with it.

I guess I really started to grow uncomfortable when the following two discussions progressed side-by-side:

A) How dare adults who work at fast food chains strike? Why should they demand a living wage so they can support their families? Shouldn't they be happy to have a job (or two or three)? And P.S. why can't they even do their job right and take some pride in their work?

with

You know tons of people on public assistance are getting manicures and buying iPhones right? And they're just getting booze and cigarettes and not feeding their eight children, who they don't even care about by the way.

Like...how are people supposed to win?

Here's what kind of irks me about this thread. It's called UO, we're expected to bring up our unpopular opinions. If we play it too safe, everyone's bored and says so. But if we bring up something that sparks actual debate/discussion, then we have people who are offended/uncomfortable. Why? I don't feel like anyone here has said anything disrespectful. People should be able to voice their opinions without being made to feel like we're shitty "poor-shamers". I feel like having an opinion that leans even slightly right of center automatically gets you stamped with the "judgmental a$$hole" label, and it can be tiresome. I think people who brought up points in the A) and subjects you mentioned above did so with valid reasoning behind it. One side is not all right here, and one side is not all wrong. There are good points on each; things aren't just black and white. People are going to stop sharing their opinions if all they get for it is flame.

I'm not saying people shouldn't share their opinions and I'm not telling anyone not to share theirs just because I don't agree with them.

But where is the discussion to come from if people don't agree and disagree and have a back and forth?

Also, I was not meaning to flame anyone in particular. I apologize if it came across that way.

pnwlover12 · June 2014

persephonerose said:

ladybug0088 said:

I think until you see it and experience it you may have a different opinion. It is very prevelant among the rich kids living in half a million dollar homes next to my school and there is nothing we can do about it currently.

I have lived it and experienced it, both growing up and working in the public school system and with foster children. But you are talking about punishing poor children because rich kids act like pricks and the system is broken. Your frustration should be directed at looking at ways to fix the system in your area instead of dwelling on children starting to feel entitled.

This.

trisharenee0316 · June 2014

noonandj04 said:
Here's what kind of irks me about this thread. It's called UO, we're expected to bring up our unpopular opinions. If we play it too safe, everyone's bored and says so. But if we bring up something that sparks actual debate/discussion, then we have people who are offended/uncomfortable. Why? I don't feel like anyone here has said anything disrespectful. People should be able to voice their opinions without being made to feel like we're shitty "poor-shamers". I feel like having an opinion that leans even slightly right of center automatically gets you stamped with the "judgmental a$$hole" label, and it can be tiresome. I think people who brought up points in the A) and subjects you mentioned above did so with valid reasoning behind it. One side is not all right here, and one side is not all wrong. There are good points on each; things aren't just black and white. People are going to stop sharing their opinions if all they get for it is flame.

On the other hand, if you're going to say shitty and poor shaming things, then own it. If you're posting an unpopular opinion, then obviously many/most won't agree with it. That's what makes it unpopular. If you're considering someone saying that you're poor-shaming is flaming, then you need to toughen up a bit.

Having an opinion right of center doesn't get you stamped with a judgmental asshole label. Being a judgmental asshole gets you stamped with that label. [the general "you", not you specifically].

golfingdarwinfish · June 2014

PurpleHippo19 said:

VCGolfNYC said:

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.

I think "mama" or "mamma" looks juvenile because I want to say it like an annoying doll... but I say "Momma" all the time with a nicer sound. That's what DD calls me
You've probably rolled your eyes at a lot of my posts :P hahaha.

@purplehippo19

Nooo, no eye rolls at your posts! And never when a child says it! The eye roll happens most often on first tri when reading newb intro posts.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

@fireflyrebirth You're right, I don't think you flamed anyone either. I may have been a bit melodramatic. I have seen it happen on this board before, but I shouldn't have accused you of it. I'm sorry!

And on the free lunch topic...I just want to make it clear that despite my opinions on the issues with welfare, I do not agree with this particular opinion. Children shouldn't be punished or have to go without lunch because the parents can't afford it. My parents told me (years later of course) that when I was a kid we qualified for the free lunch program because they were so poor, but they didn't take it because they thought it would be embarassing for me. Honestly, I don't know that I would have been aware one way or the other, so I doubt I ever would have felt "entitled."

Emerald27 · June 2014

Nicb13 said:

ladybug0088 said:

UO but I son think we should have welfare longer than a couple of months. Other countries don't do this and they either let family take care of them or work. I think er have too many people that are abusing the system and enabling the pattern to repeat.

I also don't believe in a free lunch at school. As a teacher, I'm sad to see my rich kids parents lie and say they don't make a lot just so they can abuse the system. My dad had to work for his lunch by cleaning off tables, etc. I don't think there is anything wrong with a kid earning his lunch or breakfast. Giving handouts to capable kids bothers me. Some kids also have this entitlement like oh in didn't eat and thew away my lunch because no just don't like it. So I ask why they don't pack their lunch and they look at me like km crazy. Meanwhile they have their Nike shoes on and their iPhone and beats.

I know not everyone abuses the system, but the number is sadly growing. People just aren't honest.

Second, how the hell can a kid "work" for their meals at school? I've never seen that or heard of that even being an option in school's today. It's ludicrous.

--------------------------------------------------
"No recess for you, Jimmy. Clean off the tables and sweep the floor for the next lunch period."

bumpuser10309732 · June 2014

I just want to clarify and say that my intention was not to poor shame or label people on food stamps. I was simply sharing an experience that I've had in a certain situation & it was not meant to blanket every situation. While there are people out there who take advantage there are people out there who need it. IMO we should always take care of the kids in situations that they have no control over. Period.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

MrsBabe614 said: I just want to clarify and say that my intention was not to poor shame or label people on food stamps. I was simply sharing an experience that I've had in a certain situation & it was not meant to blanket every situation. While there are people out there who take advantage there are people out there who need it. IMO we should always take care of the kids in situations that they have no control over. Period. -----------quoteyquotequote---------------

This is kind of what I mean. I feel like everyone here who had something to say on this side of the argument said so because they've known instances in which it is true. Does that mean everyone on welfare abuses the system? Of course not! But we can't sugarcoat the issue and pretend that it doesn't happen. And people who aren't on welfare have every right to feel annoyed/angry that there are people on it who do abuse it. This is not a shitty or poor-shaming or judgmental opinion at all.

I don't think anyone thinks the welfare system should be done away with. There are people who truly need it and try their hardest to make ends meet. There are others who don't. I just think perhaps there needs to be stricter guidelines or better regulations in place. Is that such a bad thought?

Unknown · June 2014

This content has been removed.

trisharenee0316 · June 2014

Well yes, of course it would be nice if there were more regulations so that it made it more difficult for people to scam the system or safeguards to make sure those who are scamming are caught. But if those safeguards cost more than the cost of just keeping people on welfare, where do you draw the line?

And for the record, the poor shaming parts I referred to were any comments which referenced limiting reproduction for poor people, judged someone with food stamps for having a manicure, and things like that. Not criticisms of a broken system.

SusieBW · June 2014

savagek7 said:

Being a frequent symphony-goer (DH plays in one), I am often side-eyeing the attire people choose. I have story after story about this, but I'll just tell/show you the most recent, as it also joins the leggings-in-public conversation...

DH recently had a gala benefit concert featuring John Williams conducting and Stephen Spielberg speaking about the films they've made together (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc etc...). Tickets sold out within 10 minutes of being released to the public, and some people even paid upwards of $500 for a single ticket. Also, Kid Rock was in attendance. Some people were wearing tuxes and ball gowns, others were dressed in business attire, and of course a few in jeans/t-shirt. Anyway, I saw a 60-something woman at the concert wearing the following... There was some serious judging...

Edit for spelling and layout

I'm really torn about those leggings. Normally, I would say that no leggings are ever appropriate for a symphony gala, but given the particular event, I think I might be okay with it. Was the concert amazing?

fireflyrebirth · June 2014

Now I have the Star Wars theme stuck in my head...

jesslinnn · June 2014

Me saying Red Bull shouldn't be paid for with and EBT card is different than saying someone needing assistance shouldn't be allowed to have energy drinks, nice clothes or manicures. I just think the government should be more strict about what you can buy with food stamps. I'm not saying you should only be able to buy milk, bread, meat, etc... but food stamps should only cover things that have SOME nutritional value.

vrj0522 · June 2014

BreandMikewedding 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?

I breastfed my son but what are you really asking?

lisamahrt · June 2014

vrj0522 said:

I believe in toddler leashes.

I could have totally used one last week!!!

staryb · June 2014

So I just read through all 8 pages of UOs and I was all fired up about the school lunches issue when @savagek7 had to go and post about this awesome John Williams/Steven Spielberg concert and completely throw me off. Now I'm just jealous of her and the lady in the star wars leggings for being there in the first place!

JessAnnJ · June 2014

trisharenee0316 said:

And for the record, the poor shaming parts I referred to were any comments which referenced limiting reproduction for poor people, judged someone with food stamps for having a manicure, and things like that. Not criticisms of a broken system.

I am totally for helping people who need help. However, when you are on public assistance other people are helping you pay for your necessities. The point of public assistance is not to pay for necessities so people have money for unnecessary extras and I think there are people that don't see it that way, they think they deserve to buy these extras and that is what I have a problem with. By extras I mean more expensive versions of things you need or things you do not need. Again, this is not everyone, but I've known people with this attitude. I also think what you can afford should factor into how many children you have. I know I will not have more than two children because that is the number of children I feel I can afford. Obviously, some people find themselves in a bad situation unexpectedly and that is not what I am talking about, but I do not understand deciding to have more children if you are unable to make ends meet with the ones you have.

JessAnnJ · June 2014

I think children should get free lunches. I have not yet signed on to the toddler leash, but I can see why people would use them. Baby leggings are not my style. I think there needs to be a distinction drawn between wearing yoga or sweat pants and actual pj pants. I'm okay with the yoga and sweatpants but the pj pants have to stop. Next thing you know people will be wearing bath robes. Oh wait some people do.

persephonerose · June 2014

I hope when I hit 60 I am as cool/confident as that lady who wore those star wars leggings.

IrishHoney123 · June 2014

I have always wondered why public assistance is so EASY to abuse. Why are there not delegated items at Walmart that can be purchased with an Access card? Why can't a laptop or iphone be declined? I strongly feel if so many people are unable to make good decisions the assistance should be structured and purchases monitored. Some are talking about children going without meals-there is no reason for this....there are so many programs in place to feed children, and it is a such a shame that the parents have the ability to spend their assistance allotment on anything they choose, and they can choose not to feed their kids. This is a hot topic with me-many of us are expected to work hard, help to support the less fortunate, and make appropriate choices on how to spend our own earnings. It's criminal for me to decide I'm going to buy drugs and leave my children hungry.

I worked for a few years as a nurse case manager in a busy ER, and I am forever jaded. The manipulators of the system FAR outnumber the appropriate recipients that these services were originally intended for.

Raesofsunshine1 · June 2014

Maybe I should leave this one for next week but, I think all the uproar over the Redskins possibly having to change their name is RIDICULOUS. People get offended way too easily. Im not a Redskins fan and I havent been following the story very well but it just annoys me so badly.

IrishHoney123 · June 2014

Nicb13 said:

IrishHoney123 said:

I have always wondered why public assistance is so EASY to abuse. Why are there not delegated items at Walmart that can be purchased with an Access card? Why can't a laptop or iphone be declined? I strongly feel if so many people are unable to make good decisions the assistance should be structured and purchases monitored. Some are talking about children going without meals-there is no reason for this....there are so many programs in place to feed children, and it is a such a shame that the parents have the ability to spend their assistance allotment on anything they choose, and they can choose not to feed their kids. This is a hot topic with me-many of us are expected to work hard, help to support the less fortunate, and make appropriate choices on how to spend our own earnings. It's criminal for me to decide I'm going to buy drugs and leave my children hungry.
I worked for a few years as a nurse case manager in a busy ER, and I am forever jaded. The manipulators of the system FAR outnumber the appropriate recipients that these services were originally intended for.

People NOT on government assistance make shitty choices as well and can't manage their money, it's not just a poor person thing.
As for your claim in the last sentence, do you have statistics on that? I really am curious.

I'm not saying it's a "poor person" thing, and I'm not addressing poor vs rich, only public assistance. The point is that public assistance seems very easy to misuse, and I question why it is not more structured to at least limit bad financial decisions. You can't buy a tv or get a manicure and also claim you can't feed your kids-someone somewhere should be monitoring these claims!

And no, I should clarify that my statements are based on my own observations and experience, not scientific evidence or national statistics.

ETA: I'm not sure that the appropriate use of public assistance is monitored by anyone. I'd also be interested in the statistics if they exist.

Raesofsunshine1 · June 2014

Nicb13 said:

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Maybe I should leave this one for next week but, I think all the uproar over the Redskins possibly having to change their name is RIDICULOUS. People get offended way too easily. Im not a Redskins fan and I havent been following the story very well but it just annoys me so badly.

I just had this discussion with my extremely closed minded FIL over the weekend!

IMO it's a very LARGE group that is offended by the use of this name and I get why they are offended so just change the damn name. The term Redskin is actually defined as a racial slur so no, people aren't simply being touchy for no reason, they are straight up offended and it's not anyone's job to question that or try to convince them otherwise. People are being stubborn and ignorant about this issue.

---------------------
I dont know this for a fact but I highly doubt that that the majority of the offended group are even NFL/football fans so how does this REALLY affect them? Is it effecting their day to day, really?
I guess my point is, it annoys me how people get offended so easily. I feel like I always have to be so careful what I say sometimes so that I dont offend anyone.

I realize that the term Redskins has bad origins but thats not the way its being used in this context. Its not like the team/owners/fans are using it racially. I just dont understand what the big deal is.

pnwlover12 · June 2014

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Maybe I should leave this one for next week but, I think all the uproar over the Redskins possibly having to change their name is RIDICULOUS. People get offended way too easily. Im not a Redskins fan and I havent been following the story very well but it just annoys me so badly.

I just had this discussion with my extremely closed minded FIL over the weekend!
IMO it's a very LARGE group that is offended by the use of this name and I get why they are offended so just change the damn name. The term Redskin is actually defined as a racial slur so no, people aren't simply being touchy for no reason, they are straight up offended and it's not anyone's job to question that or try to convince them otherwise. People are being stubborn and ignorant about this issue.

--------------------- I dont know this for a fact but I highly doubt that that the majority of the offended group are even NFL/football fans so how does this REALLY affect them? Is it effecting their day to day, really? I guess my point is, it annoys me how people get offended so easily. I feel like I always have to be so careful what I say sometimes so that I dont offend anyone. I realize that the term Redskins has bad origins but thats not the way its being used in this context. Its not like the team/owners/fans are using it racially. I just dont understand what the big deal is.

I'm a HUGE football fan (Seahawks! Seahawks!) but I don't think you need to be to be offended by a racial slur.

ETA -

Also, you have to remember that when the Redskins became a team it was during a heavily racist time in the U.S. (1930s) So while people may not say it offensively now, they sure as hell had racist conontations when using it then. The point is, we are better than that now. Change the name.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Maybe I should leave this one for next week but, I think all the uproar over the Redskins possibly having to change their name is RIDICULOUS. People get offended way too easily. Im not a Redskins fan and I havent been following the story very well but it just annoys me so badly.

I just had this discussion with my extremely closed minded FIL over the weekend!
IMO it's a very LARGE group that is offended by the use of this name and I get why they are offended so just change the damn name. The term Redskin is actually defined as a racial slur so no, people aren't simply being touchy for no reason, they are straight up offended and it's not anyone's job to question that or try to convince them otherwise. People are being stubborn and ignorant about this issue.

--------------------- I dont know this for a fact but I highly doubt that that the majority of the offended group are even NFL/football fans so how does this REALLY affect them? Is it effecting their day to day, really? I guess my point is, it annoys me how people get offended so easily. I feel like I always have to be so careful what I say sometimes so that I dont offend anyone. I realize that the term Redskins has bad origins but thats not the way its being used in this context. Its not like the team/owners/fans are using it racially. I just dont understand what the big deal is.

How do you figure? I'm not being combative, I'm truly curious. I'm not a big sports fan and I'm not from Washington, but I don't understand how this can be construed as anything other than pretty darn racist. You could liken it to having a football team named after any other well-known racial slur, which would be unarguably a BIG no-no.

Slapdashalice · June 2014

SusieBW said:

Cantisa said:

persephonerose said:

Cantisa said:

I hate baby leggings!!!

They're a lot easier than pants for diaper changes, though. But DD had such chunky legs, I could never find ones that fit her right!

I just got given some baby leggings and I am so confused! What the heck are they for? Do you use them as pants even though they are two separate pieces? Or will people look at me like my baby is wearing Christina Aguilera style assless chaps? Do they go under dresses like pantyhose? Over actual leggings like leg warmers?

Raesofsunshine1 · June 2014

Nicb13 said:

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Nicb13 said:

---------------------
I dont know this for a fact but I highly doubt that that the majority of the offended group are even NFL/football fans so how does this REALLY affect them?

I'm sorry but this one line REALLY REALLY bothers me.

My point with this line is that it is not affecting their day to day life more than likely. I doubt they are losing sleep over it or whatever.

Also, it is being used today as name of a football team. I dont even think of Native Americans when I use the term 99.9% of the time. I think of a football team that, when it is used, it is used as a name-not a slur.

I just really think the real thing that bothers me about this is that everything has to be so politically correct now.

pnwlover12 · June 2014

Raesofsunshine1 said:

Raesofsunshine1 said:

--------------------- I dont know this for a fact but I highly doubt that that the majority of the offended group are even NFL/football fans so how does this REALLY affect them?

I'm sorry but this one line REALLY REALLY bothers me.
My point with this line is that it is not affecting their day to day life more than likely. I doubt they are losing sleep over it or whatever. Also, it is being used today as name of a football team. I dont even think of Native Americans when I use the term 99.9% of the time. I think of a football team that, when it is used, it is used as a name-not a slur. I just really think the real thing that bothers me about this is that everything has to be so politically correct now.

I feel that way about a lot of issues, but I think in this case, the right thing just needs to be done, even if it seems insignificant or over the top in your eyes. I hate to sound cheesy but it just doesn't set a good example for equality.

ohioloveyou · June 2014

All of this public assistance stuff really makes me think. I am wondering what judgment people would have about my situation. I qualify for medicaid as substitute teaching pays like crap. Up until recently, I had still paid for my own insurance, however, as I didn't feel right taking public assistance when we have a substantial amount in savings and parents willing to help us out while DH finishes Dental School. When I got pregnant and switched my insurance through the healthcare marketplace, it automatically approved me for medicaid. I got my first card yesterday. While I know its possible for us to "make it" without this assistance, it would make it a hell of a lot nicer to raise a child and put the $266 I pay for insurance each month towards something else. Especially since subbing won't pay for daycare and I will be at home with the baby (so pretty much zero income here.)

That being said, I have an iPhone. We are purchasing and registering for nicer things for our child. If you saw me on the street, you wouldn't think I'm on Medicaid. I have a coach purse (4 years old, but still) and am dressed relatively nicely. I'm torn on whether or not to use the medicaid I have been approved for since we would be ok without it. Do we deplete our savings because we feel bad about using this assistance, or do we take it and feel guilty if we go out to dinner or something? We'd love to be able to purchase a home when DH graduates next May, and saving that $ would be great, but I also don't want to be looked at as abusing the system, you know?

tl;dr: I'm approved for medicaid and can't decide whether or not I should take it because of savings, etc.

pnwlover12 · June 2014

ohioloveyou said:

All of this public assistance stuff really makes me think. I am wondering what judgment people would have about my situation. I qualify for medicaid as substitute teaching pays like crap. Up until recently, I had still paid for my own insurance, however, as I didn't feel right taking public assistance when we have a substantial amount in savings and parents willing to help us out while DH finishes Dental School. When I got pregnant and switched my insurance through the healthcare marketplace, it automatically approved me for medicaid. I got my first card yesterday. While I know its possible for us to "make it" without this assistance, it would make it a hell of a lot nicer to raise a child and put the $266 I pay for insurance each month towards something else. Especially since subbing won't pay for daycare and I will be at home with the baby (so pretty much zero income here.)

That being said, I have an iPhone. We are purchasing and registering for nicer things for our child. If you saw me on the street, you wouldn't think I'm on Medicaid. I have a coach purse (4 years old, but still) and am dressed relatively nicely. I'm torn on whether or not to use the medicaid I have been approved for since we would be ok without it. Do we deplete our savings because we feel bad about using this assistance, or do we take it and feel guilty if we go out to dinner or something? We'd love to be able to purchase a home when DH graduates next May, and saving that $ would be great, but I also don't want to be looked at as abusing the system, you know?

tl;dr: I'm approved for medicaid and can't decide whether or not I should take it because of savings, etc.

Dude. Use the medicaid! You automatically qualified based on income - that means you fall into the category of people who get it. There is no shame!

BreandMikewedding · June 2014

vrj0522 said:

BreandMikewedding said:

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?

I breastfed my son but what are you
really asking?

@vrj0522‌, my interpretation of your comment is that the only reason for a baby to not be breastfed is because the mother chose not to. I might have misunderstood so I am trying to clarify. I know for me I really wanted to bf both of my kids but it didn't work. The first time worked better than the second. I tried everything and finally had to formula feed because my ds was literally starving. I don't think breast feeding is as black and white as people try to make it and I'm tired of the shame placed on formula feeding mothers.

trisharenee0316 · June 2014

JessAnnJ said:

I am totally for helping people who need help. However, when you are on public assistance other people are helping you pay for your necessities. The point of public assistance is not to pay for necessities so people have money for unnecessary extras and I think there are people that don't see it that way, they think they deserve to buy these extras and that is what I have a problem with. By extras I mean more expensive versions of things you need or things you do not need. Again, this is not everyone, but I've known people with this attitude. I also think what you can afford should factor into how many children you have. I know I will not have more than two children because that is the number of children I feel I can afford. Obviously, some people find themselves in a bad situation unexpectedly and that is not what I am talking about, but I do not understand deciding to have more children if you are unable to make ends meet with the ones you have.

-----endquote. WTF is wrong with quotes today????----

Yes, the public at large does contribute towards public assistance, but that does not give us the collective right to micromanage those people's lives. There are a ton of things that get federal tax dollars like corporations (for example), but no one is suggesting drug testing the directors and officers, or even suggesting they hire fewer employees or streamline their product line if they can't survive without corporate charity.

In a perfect world, people would only have as many children as they could afford to support, and people would only need to be on welfare for a few months, and all the rest of it. I get it. But I also don't think that poor people need to necessarily live these Dickensian lives because it makes us as a society feel better about their management and use of welfare dollars. Some people do have a bad attitude about the system and some people abuse the system. And yes, that is obnoxious. But the fact that a woman has a manicure or a cell phone or has the nerve to buy a bag of chips doesn't necessarily mean that she's a scammer or abusing the system, or not using the assistance for necessities.

Trust me when I tell you that based on my experiences in both teaching in the inner city and being intimately familiar with inner city settings, I wouldn't trade places with a single person living there who is on public assistance. In no way are any of their lives easier than mine, in no way do they have more disposable income, etc.

trisharenee0316 · June 2014

I'm perplexed as to how the Redskins name could *not* be used to evoke racial connotations when this is their logo, for goodness sake!

vrj0522 · June 2014

BreandMikewedding said:

BreandMikewedding 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?

I breastfed my son but what are you really asking?
@vrj0522‌, my interpretation of your comment is that the only reason for a baby to not be breastfed is because the mother chose not to. I might have misunderstood so I am trying to clarify. I know for me I really wanted to bf both of my kids but it didn't work. The first time worked better than the second. I tried everything and finally had to formula feed because my ds was literally starving. I don't think breast feeding is as black and white as people try to make it and I'm tired of the shame placed on formula feeding mothers.

I also really wanted to bf DS and it also didn't work for us. We worked on it for 4 months and then finally had to exclusively FF. If you look at my comment, I did say that I do believe in FF, because I do.

What I was inferring is that if OP was referring to baby "accepting" being breastfed (mutually accepted), that was non-issue. Any baby would accept breast milk and being breastfed. However, I agree that sometimes FF is the best thing because baby needs to be fed and things need to work in the feeding relationship, but it's the mother who makes that decision for the two of them, not the baby.

ETA: I also understand you don't have time to let baby adjust and learn how to latch on or breastfeed appropriately, but that doesn't change the fact that baby will accept the breast/breast milk.

[Deleted User] · June 2014

jalara48 said:

pnwlover12 said:

ohioloveyou said:

All of this public assistance stuff really makes me think. I am wondering what judgment people would have about my situation. I qualify for medicaid as substitute teaching pays like crap. Up until recently, I had still paid for my own insurance, however, as I didn't feel right taking public assistance when we have a substantial amount in savings and parents willing to help us out while DH finishes Dental School. When I got pregnant and switched my insurance through the healthcare marketplace, it automatically approved me for medicaid. I got my first card yesterday. While I know its possible for us to "make it" without this assistance, it would make it a hell of a lot nicer to raise a child and put the $266 I pay for insurance each month towards something else. Especially since subbing won't pay for daycare and I will be at home with the baby (so pretty much zero income here.)

That being said, I have an iPhone. We are purchasing and registering for nicer things for our child. If you saw me on the street, you wouldn't think I'm on Medicaid. I have a coach purse (4 years old, but still) and am dressed relatively nicely. I'm torn on whether or not to use the medicaid I have been approved for since we would be ok without it. Do we deplete our savings because we feel bad about using this assistance, or do we take it and feel guilty if we go out to dinner or something? We'd love to be able to purchase a home when DH graduates next May, and saving that $ would be great, but I also don't want to be looked at as abusing the system, you know?

tl;dr: I'm approved for medicaid and can't decide whether or not I should take it because of savings, etc.

Dude. Use the medicaid! You automatically qualified based on income - that means you fall into the category of people who get it. There is no shame!

^ use the medicaid!

I concur. Doooo it! I would.

Raesofsunshine1 · June 2014

trisharenee0316 said:
I'm perplexed as to how the Redskins name could *not* be used to evoke racial connotations when this is their logo, for goodness sake!

This is a drawing of a Native American. There is nothing making fun of this group of people in this picture. I dont see how this hurts the name at all. Its in no way disrespectful.

pnwlover12 · June 2014

Raesofsunshine1 said:

I'm perplexed as to how the Redskins name could *not* be used to evoke racial connotations when this is their logo, for goodness sake!

This is a drawing of a Native American. There is nothing making fun of this group of people in this picture. I dont see how this hurts the name at all. Its in no way disrespectful.

...because the term "redskin" is derogatory and that picture directly correlates the name/term to a particular group of people (Native Americans)

Want a personalized experience?

Unpopular Opinions

Re: Unpopular Opinions

Choose Another Board

Search Boards