My UO is that breastfeeding for comfort weirds me out. I want to breastfeed and plan to breastfeed for as long as I can, for nutritional values and purposes (also - that shit is free!) but once a child is no longer getting the milk or has teeth and can eat regular food, or is solely on the boob as a comfort thing... It kinda weirds me out. Give me my tatas back. They are used as a pleasurable part of sex for me, as well, so it's easy for me to separate the two for necessity and food for my child, just not comfort.
I totally agree. I have a cousin who nurses a toddler for comfort and jokes about her nipple being a pacifier. I'm always weirded out by it.
Yup by the time my kids walk or bite me with teeth more than twice, they get the boot off the tit.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
To weigh in on the drug testing/Government assistance convo. I think it sounds good in theory but the cost of drug testing all of those people is way more than what the Government would save in denying the few who tested positive. Similar programs were tested in a few different cities in the US and the drug testing was way more costly. I'd have to track down the article I read, I'll admit it may have been from a biased source so who knows.
I agree, it would be costly. I just hate seeing drug addicts clog the system when there is lots of people with more valid needs. Single moms that have left abusive relationships for example. I feel the moms are more in need than someone who has made shitty choices and needs herion. There is no perfect system obviously, still is shame to see so many people abuse it though.
The rate of drug use among the recipients of government benefits is actually the same or lower than the rate of drug use among the general population. In Florida, only 2.6% of welfare recipients tested failed. The national drug use rate is 8%.
Agreed on the legislating who can and cannot have children being a slippery slope. It would be great if everyone would be responsible and only have the kids they could handle but government stepping in to decide is a bit much.
I'm torn because I don't think the government should be Daddy telling its citizen children what to do, but at the same time people are incredibly stupid and make terrible choices.
I agree, it would be costly. I just hate seeing drug addicts clog the system when there is lots of people with more valid needs. Single moms that have left abusive relationships for example. I feel the moms are more in need than someone who has made shitty choices and needs herion. There is no perfect system obviously, still is shame to see so many people abuse it though.
Ironically, trying to create restrictions to exclude drug addicts (who often have kids who need to eat, too, and IMO shouldn't be punished for their parents choices) would likely make it more difficult for the single moms who left abusive relationships to get it, too, and would pull much needed resources from the programs to be used toward administration and overhead fees trying to screen out the drug users.
To weigh in on the drug testing/Government assistance convo. I think it sounds good in theory but the cost of drug testing all of those people is way more than what the Government would save in denying the few who tested positive. Similar programs were tested in a few different cities in the US and the drug testing was way more costly. I'd have to track down the article I read, I'll admit it may have been from a biased source so who knows.
I agree, it would be costly. I just hate seeing drug addicts clog the system when there is lots of people with more valid needs. Single moms that have left abusive relationships for example. I feel the moms are more in need than someone who has made shitty choices and needs herion. There is no perfect system obviously, still is shame to see so many people abuse it though.
For me this debate is tough. I was a Govt. assistance child. My mom was a drug addict, the govt. knew, some times we were placed in kinship fostering, but for the most part she had full custody of us. However, I don't agree with how our govt./foster system handles things (that's an discussion for another time), if the govt. would've looked at my mom and said you're a drug addict you no longer receive any benefits it would've forsaken 4 children. That is where I struggle with this debate.
SO and I have been together: 5 Years+ BFP: 03/10 First Baby: 10/20/2016
I think in general people misunderstand government assistance programs.
Say you get laid off and you're unemployed for 8 weeks. You find a new job quickly, but you collect unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits. You're on government assistance; how long do you need to be on BC?
Or you've worked for the government and you're now on disability for a health issue. You're on government assistance; so that person who has an unrelated medical issue that stops them from working has to sacrifice the benefits they've earned? That's not cool.
Or you work 50 hours a week for minimum wage, which isn't enough to support a family, so you collect SNAP benefits. Your choice is the pill, which you can't tolerate, chemical sterilization, or not feeding your family. That's a really terrible choice.
I'm all for limiting abuse of government assistance, but at the end of the day, I think it's far more important that we take care of the people we have. I would much rather run the chance of abuse of government assistance than have one child go hungry, or without medical attention.
I think people misunderstand unemployment benefits, at least in the US. You pay into the system as a worker, you only get the benefits if you have worked, so people on unemployment by default are not freeloaders. They are entitled to that money.
Signed, not lazy person who has had the misfortune to have to apply for unemployment twice in the last year. Sometimes you can't control reductions in workforce.
BFP #1 - MC Dec 2, 2015 (@ 9weeks) BFP #2 - Feb 2, 2016 --EDD 10/10/16 --Abigail- October 6, 2016. Heart warrior. October 2017- Began fostering to adopt T, (DOB:November 19, 2013)
I'm not a big fan of drug testing used solely for punitive purposes. In terms of not being really effective, others mentioned the cost but also with many test kits, medications (normal OTC meds) can cause false positives that then require further lab testing to determine if illegal substances were actually the cause. In addition to how impossible it would get to monitor prescription drug use or abuse, and that the tests can't really keep up with designer drugs.
I understand why it's a good idea for people planning to have children to be prepared to provide for themselves as well as their future kid(s), although forcing any particular group of people to be on birth control would bring up major concerns for me too. Seems dangerously close to privileged (and I include as a privilege being able to find or hold a job that provides adequately, because our reality goes against the Puritan work ethic) people having resentment for having to be in this shitty rat race (maybe rightfully so!) but then taking it out on underprivileged people in the name of these mostly fictitious people abusing the system (cue the anecdotal story about a friend of a friend who used to sell their food stamps). Some people abuse anything they can, but did we punish the rich because of the Madoffs in this country? Nah because that's one person and blahblahblah. Anyway, along the lines of the original statements, someone could make the argument that people should only be allowed to reproduce if they can afford to pay for their kids' K-12 school and every other govt-funded benefit for kids. Why would I not think twice at my taxes funding schools but cringe at it providing some kids' food? It is NOT my opinion that we should cut funding for any of that stuff but I'm just saying to show how basically it would follow the same logic
@UponAStar16 That reminds me of a story I just read last weekend about a woman who was super "crunchy granola hippy" (her words) and didn't take so much as 1 tylenol her whole pregnancy and then tested positive for meth when she went in to deliver. They treated her like a criminal, wouldn't let her breastfeed her LO, CPS got involved and she kept trying to tell them it was probably her perscription inhaler she used for her severe asthma. She even looked online and found other people who had the same experience on the same inhaler but they wouldn't believe her until 2 weeks later when the tests came back from the lab. This has nothing to do with the current conversation but how crazy?! That poor woman. Just another example of drug testing gone wrong.
Me: 32 & DH: 37
Married: November 2014
TTC #1 Since: October 2015
BFP #1: 11/18/15 - CP BFP #2: 2/8/16 - EDD 10/20/16 IT'S A BOY!!!! DS Born 10/16/16
I get there is drug addicts that have kids, but honestly if they're on the street cracked out what good are they to parent. Their kids should be taken away IMO.
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml
The government is here to protect our freedoms, not take them away. Proof of a living wage in order to have children is preposterous, especially since it marginalizes single parents and favors rich people. The thought of forcing people to take birth control until they can prove a specific income is such a gross violation of privacy. Poor people having children isn't the worst damn problem in the world. I found out I was pregnant 2 days before I lost my previous job. The percentage of your tax dollars that go towards feeding poor kids is indescribable compared to, cough, our military spending. If you want to have a problem with tax dollars, have a problem with all those 50k military salaries that automatically double when the enlistee gets married. Or all the free tuition that military spouses receive just for having the privilege of being married to a deployed person. You can't tell me people don't abuse THAT system. Or, the 200 million dollar jets our tax dollars pay for, just to drop bombs on mud huts in Afghanistan. But no, some poor children getting free lunch at school, that's overspending! Please.
The government is here to protect our freedoms, not take them away. Proof of a living wage in order to have children is preposterous, especially since it marginalizes single parents and favors rich people. The thought of forcing people to take birth control until they can prove a specific income is such a gross violation of privacy. Poor people having children isn't the worst damn problem in the world. I found out I was pregnant 2 days before I lost my previous job. The percentage of your tax dollars that go towards feeding poor kids is indescribable compared to, cough, our military spending. If you want to have a problem with tax dollars, have a problem with all those 50k military salaries that automatically double when the enlistee gets married. Or all the free tuition that military spouses receive just for having the privilege of being married to a deployed person. You can't tell me people don't abuse THAT system. Or, the 200 million dollar jets our tax dollars pay for, just to drop bombs on mud huts in Afghanistan. But no, some poor children getting free lunch at school, that's overspending! Please.
So I agree with you about not requiring income proof to have kids, but you are sadly misinformed about military pay.
Enlisted people don't make $50k a year, and it certainly does not double when they get married. You can see the actual salaries here: https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html An E-4 makes a bit more than $26k a year. While service people do get incentives for combat pay and hardship tours, they earn every single penny of that money and more. And while housing allowances increase when you have a family, they don't come close to covering the cost of living in some duty postings.
I'm also happy, as a taxpayer, to subsidize free tuition to military spouses and children. Being a member of a military family is damn hard, and free college tuition doesn't come close to making up for the missed years together.
The government is here to protect our freedoms, not take them away. Proof of a living wage in order to have children is preposterous, especially since it marginalizes single parents and favors rich people. The thought of forcing people to take birth control until they can prove a specific income is such a gross violation of privacy. Poor people having children isn't the worst damn problem in the world. I found out I was pregnant 2 days before I lost my previous job. The percentage of your tax dollars that go towards feeding poor kids is indescribable compared to, cough, our military spending. If you want to have a problem with tax dollars, have a problem with all those 50k military salaries that automatically double when the enlistee gets married. Or all the free tuition that military spouses receive just for having the privilege of being married to a deployed person. You can't tell me people don't abuse THAT system. Or, the 200 million dollar jets our tax dollars pay for, just to drop bombs on mud huts in Afghanistan. But no, some poor children getting free lunch at school, that's overspending! Please.
So I agree with you about not requiring income proof to have kids, but you are sadly misinformed about military pay.
Enlisted people don't make $50k a year, and it certainly does not double when they get married. You can see the actual salaries here: https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html An E-4 makes a bit more than $26k a year. While service people do get incentives for combat pay and hardship tours, they earn every single penny of that money and more. And while housing allowances increase when you have a family, they don't come close to covering the cost of living in some duty postings.
I'm also happy, as a taxpayer, to subsidize free tuition to military spouses and children. Being a member of a military family is damn hard, and free college tuition doesn't come close to making up for the missed years together.
All problems that would be solved by cutting overseas military funding...
The government is here to protect our freedoms, not take them away. Proof of a living wage in order to have children is preposterous, especially since it marginalizes single parents and favors rich people. The thought of forcing people to take birth control until they can prove a specific income is such a gross violation of privacy. Poor people having children isn't the worst damn problem in the world. I found out I was pregnant 2 days before I lost my previous job. The percentage of your tax dollars that go towards feeding poor kids is indescribable compared to, cough, our military spending. If you want to have a problem with tax dollars, have a problem with all those 50k military salaries that automatically double when the enlistee gets married. Or all the free tuition that military spouses receive just for having the privilege of being married to a deployed person. You can't tell me people don't abuse THAT system. Or, the 200 million dollar jets our tax dollars pay for, just to drop bombs on mud huts in Afghanistan. But no, some poor children getting free lunch at school, that's overspending! Please.
So I agree with you about not requiring income proof to have kids, but you are sadly misinformed about military pay.
Enlisted people don't make $50k a year, and it certainly does not double when they get married. You can see the actual salaries here: https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html An E-4 makes a bit more than $26k a year. While service people do get incentives for combat pay and hardship tours, they earn every single penny of that money and more. And while housing allowances increase when you have a family, they don't come close to covering the cost of living in some duty postings.
I'm also happy, as a taxpayer, to subsidize free tuition to military spouses and children. Being a member of a military family is damn hard, and free college tuition doesn't come close to making up for the missed years together.
Yes. All of this. Not sure where you got the 50k salary info. As someone who spent a long time as a military SO (I'm not anymore), I can tell you, it's no cake walk. And even though I'm a liberal and may not always agree with our country's military strategies or plans, we need to respect the fact that these people sign their lives away to protect our country. They sacrifice so much, if not everything, as do their families. I'm happy to subsidize their tuition, and spouses' tuition for those sacrifices.
I was talking about people who abuse the military system, in an effort to illustrate how preposterous it is to call for system reform just because some people can and do abuse it. Given your reactions, you've proved my point.
I was talking about people who abuse the military system, in an effort to illustrate how preposterous it is to call for system reform just because some people can and do abuse it. Given your reactions, you've proved my point.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges here, which is why your analogy didn't work.
I was talking about people who abuse the military system, in an effort to illustrate how preposterous it is to call for system reform just because some people can and do abuse it. Given your reactions, you've proved my point.
No. You used made-up numbers that are grossly inaccurate. I pointed that out, and also that being a military family is no cakewalk. @Julia70286 then shared her personal experience and agreement that she's happy to help subsidize tuition for servicepeople and dependents.
Pointing out that you're making shit up and don't know what you're talking about in no way, shape, or form proves a point about system reform. The things aren't even related.
People do abuse the system. A relative of mine married an enlistee to get the tuition paid. They don't even live together as a couple. So yes, people do abuse the system. And it's a much more costly system than, say, school lunches for poor kids. Maybe in the spirit of drug tests and income qualifications for government assitance, we should pay for someone to follow my relative and prove there is a romantic marriage a la that movie where the two guys pretend to be gay just to get some benefit.
But, I don't believe that some bad apples ruin the good of an entire benefits system.
Of course you can focus on my inaccurate salary numbers peruse imgur Picard memes, rather than distilling the essence of the issue.
Re: UO Thursday (May 26)
also so you have to prove your employment or get involved in some type of education or work search program or your benefits are cut off.
majority of people receiving benefits aren't drug addicts...
SO and I have been together: 5 Years+
BFP: 03/10
First Baby: 10/20/2016
Say you get laid off and you're unemployed for 8 weeks. You find a new job quickly, but you collect unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits. You're on government assistance; how long do you need to be on BC?
Or you've worked for the government and you're now on disability for a health issue. You're on government assistance; so that person who has an unrelated medical issue that stops them from working has to sacrifice the benefits they've earned? That's not cool.
Or you work 50 hours a week for minimum wage, which isn't enough to support a family, so you collect SNAP benefits. Your choice is the pill, which you can't tolerate, chemical sterilization, or not feeding your family. That's a really terrible choice.
I'm all for limiting abuse of government assistance, but at the end of the day, I think it's far more important that we take care of the people we have. I would much rather run the chance of abuse of government assistance than have one child go hungry, or without medical attention.
Signed, not lazy person who has had the misfortune to have to apply for unemployment twice in the last year. Sometimes you can't control reductions in workforce.
Re: Elsa
BFP #2 - Feb 2, 2016 --EDD 10/10/16 --Abigail- October 6, 2016. Heart warrior.
October 2017- Began fostering to adopt T, (DOB:November 19, 2013)
I understand why it's a good idea for people planning to have children to be prepared to provide for themselves as well as their future kid(s), although forcing any particular group of people to be on birth control would bring up major concerns for me too. Seems dangerously close to privileged (and I include as a privilege being able to find or hold a job that provides adequately, because our reality goes against the Puritan work ethic) people having resentment for having to be in this shitty rat race (maybe rightfully so!) but then taking it out on underprivileged people in the name of these mostly fictitious people abusing the system (cue the anecdotal story about a friend of a friend who used to sell their food stamps). Some people abuse anything they can, but did we punish the rich because of the Madoffs in this country? Nah because that's one person and blahblahblah. Anyway, along the lines of the original statements, someone could make the argument that people should only be allowed to reproduce if they can afford to pay for their kids' K-12 school and every other govt-funded benefit for kids. Why would I not think twice at my taxes funding schools but cringe at it providing some kids' food? It is NOT my opinion that we should cut funding for any of that stuff but I'm just saying to show how basically it would follow the same logic
Me: 32 & DH: 37
BFP #2: 2/8/16 - EDD 10/20/16
IT'S A BOY!!!!
DS Born 10/16/16
Enlisted people don't make $50k a year, and it certainly does not double when they get married. You can see the actual salaries here: https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/military-pay-charts.html An E-4 makes a bit more than $26k a year. While service people do get incentives for combat pay and hardship tours, they earn every single penny of that money and more. And while housing allowances increase when you have a family, they don't come close to covering the cost of living in some duty postings.
I'm also happy, as a taxpayer, to subsidize free tuition to military spouses and children. Being a member of a military family is damn hard, and free college tuition doesn't come close to making up for the missed years together.
DS#2 due 25 April 2019
BFP #1: 7/15/15, SB: 11/14/15
Rainbow baby DS born 9/29/16!!
BFP #3 3/26/18 | Due 12/3/18
No. You used made-up numbers that are grossly inaccurate. I pointed that out, and also that being a military family is no cakewalk. @Julia70286 then shared her personal experience and agreement that she's happy to help subsidize tuition for servicepeople and dependents.
Pointing out that you're making shit up and don't know what you're talking about in no way, shape, or form proves a point about system reform. The things aren't even related.
But, I don't believe that some bad apples ruin the good of an entire benefits system.
Of course you can focus on my inaccurate salary numbers peruse imgur Picard memes, rather than distilling the essence of the issue.