View Full Version : Conservative dancers
wanderlust08
07-03-2010, 11:22 PM
Women who end up on welfare need to go after the guys as well.
I've been trying to get the courts to track down my ex-husband for 3 years to get the $9,000 he owes in child support. Guess what? It's not gonna happen.
So, let me get this straight, you'd rather hundreds of thousands of children die from starvation or homelessness to decrease your tax payments, am I correct?
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 11:26 PM
I never said that. I don't want to support lazy people who don't want to work. Kids are completely innocent and I have no problem with making sure they have food. That's not the same as people who don't want to work. I do not want to support a person who chooses not to work or uses the lame excuse that they are "bonding" with their kid and they can't work, so instead get welfare. Btw, I am not talking about now, because times are rough. I am talking when jobs are out there and people don't want to work.
Laurisa
07-03-2010, 11:43 PM
^^I never said anything about not working solely for the purpose of bonding with your children. I said that receiving welfare while going to school as opposed to working, taking out student loans, AND going to school, while simultaneously having more time available to spend with your child is understandable. I also said that working for minimum wage and barely breaking even after childcare costs makes no sense, and that I would rather be bonding with my son than having an extra $100 in my pocket. You are twisting my words ma'am.
Okay, so you don't have children. That's what I thought. Let me tell you something that I learned from experience, you can say whatever you want about having children, but once you actually get there things change. You can plan and read all the books you want but until you are actually there, living in the moment, you cannot say what you will do. That's just a fact, about most everything in life, so perhaps once you actually have a child you can pass judgments on single moms. I'm not even a single mom and you are aggravating me, nor do I receive welfare! I'm just irritated because you are being disrespectful to the women out there who raise their children. I hate to break it to you, but I stay home all day and raise my son while his Dad is at work. I'm waiting another 6 weeks to start work because he was born early and has had a lot of doctors appointments and a few medical complications since birth.
Now, I can 100% say that I work a full time job, and guess what... I work more than you do! My job is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I don't get 'breaks' unless I pay for them because no one in my family will watch my son! NO ONE. What would you think if your club told you that you had to pay them for the time you left the club to sleep and eat? His Dad helps out if I need a break, but I'm still 'on-call' because my job never truly stops. I don't get financially compensated for what I do, I'm not shown appreciation, my 'rights' are not considered. My son screams when he's hungry, scratches when he's tired, refuses to let me put him down, causes me to delay meals until 3 PM because of his marsupial habits...but somehow I still find time to clean my house, care for my pets, and spend time with my boyfriend. Mothers are the most overworked, underappreciated 'employees' there are, and until you've been there you will never truthfully understand. So, those women that 'sit on their asses and are lazy' are STILL working. They are raising their children, and not everyone that receives welfare beats their children and neglects them, the majority of them are loving, responsible people who just didn't catch the right circumstances.
Kellydancer
07-03-2010, 11:54 PM
There are MANY woman who work fulltime, and still raise their kids, so there is no excuse for women not to work if they receive welfare. I am NOT talking women who stay at home but have a spouse who works, I don't care about them. What I care about are those women who CHOOSE not to work and instead get welfare and sit on their lazy butts. And boo hoo because they might have to *gasp* work and take student loans out. Guess what? I had a 4.4 GPA from high school, and though I was dancing I still had to take out student loans! Who's more entitled to assistance someone like me, or someone too lazy to work and is getting free assistance? I had a classmate who had three kids, worked fulltime, attended college fulltime, and made dean's list. If she can do it, others can. You are twisting my words because I couldn't care less what others do, but once it involves tax dollars and people not working, then yes I get angry. And like I said above, most states have free childcare, so that is an excuse welfare mothers use just not to work.
As for being a mom, I will have a dad just as involved who works fulltime as I will. I will make more than him so I will work and both of us will raise children. That is just as good (actually better) than a single woman on welfare without a partner. However I waited for someone like him before deciding to have kids. I didn't expect a freebie for having kids. I used birth control, and even was abstinent to make sure no kids resulted.
I never said mothers don't work hard, just that taxpayers shouldn't be supporting them for their "decision" to stay at home.
wanderlust08
07-04-2010, 12:03 AM
And like I said above, most states have free childcare, so that is an excuse welfare mothers use just not to work.
...also paid by taxpayers. Also the roads, public schools, cleaning the water, etc...
If you don't like the way the money is being spent then get out there and campaign strongly to put people in office who will. Or run yourself.
Kellydancer
07-04-2010, 12:08 AM
...also paid by taxpayers. Also the roads, public schools, cleaning the water, etc...
If you don't like the way the money is being spent then get out there and campaign strongly to put people in office who will. Or run yourself.
I support all of that. I even support childcare offered by the state (though I think they need to open it to more people, especially low income working parents not on welfare). I vote for those people who want to be stricter on financial issues and still socially liberal, but in Illinois most aren't strict on financial Democrats or Republicans. I would run myself but can't afford it.
Laurisa
07-04-2010, 10:05 AM
The woman who had three kids, worked and went to college full time and still had time to make the Dean's List probably had very limited time with her children. There is no way you could work a 40 hour work week, attend twelve credit hours a week (full time at my local college), score amazingly enough to make the Dean's List, AND still be there spending good, quality time with your children. People can act as if they have 'balance' in their life, but I know for a fact that children need consistency and predictability to flourish, and that won't be possible with scheduling like that. I completely support moms who want to pursue higher education, and if it does mean time away from your children it will definitely benefit their futures so it is worth it for sure. However, working full time, being a single parent, going to school full time and still being a great mom to THREE kids? I've gotta see this, because that is exactly what my Mom did...same number of kids, school full time, worked full time...I didn't have a mom for four years. It was heartwrenching.
Society raises our children now, that's how many parents have it. They use childcare (public or private), preschool, public school, and so forth to direct, raise, and 'babysit' their children. I don't think it should be that way.
Kellydancer
07-04-2010, 11:02 AM
So what if mom works? Society isn't suffering because of that, society is suffering because people are jumping into bed right away and having kids they can't afford. If one can't afford a baby, don't have one. Common sense. Otherwise, no taxpayers shouldn't be paying for women to not work. Want a baby? Fine then one should work. That's what I will be doing because me and my love refuse to have a child until we are financially secure. I waited until I found a guy who wouldn't abandon me if I got pregnant.
Laurisa
07-04-2010, 11:54 AM
You know, most women don't think their men will abandon them once they conceive, so count your blessings now because until you are there you can't say what your man would do. You also failed to respond to much of anything that I said.
TinkerBall
07-04-2010, 12:37 PM
My wife used to take care of everything on the home front. Then she started doing drugs and became bipolar. I had thought she had it easy staying home when I worked. After she couldn't do anything anymore, I found out how exhausting it was taking care of the house, the kids, the yard, the pool, the school, ... It was almost impossible to keep up on that and my full time job. When I had to pay for child care over the summer it was a ton of money. That's not even taking into account paying a lot to lawyers and going to court to keep her out of jail. I had a lot of neighbors complain I was not doing enough and calling the village to make my life hell. Basically instead of helping everyone ganged up on our family. One neighbor was a bitch know it all and said 'I can help destroy you'. Well the bitch know it all didn't have all the answers when her own son got hooked on heroin. He died in May from an overdose. She would get all pissed when I used to tell her to walk a mile in my shoes. I'm just making the point that life can be very very complicated. There are no simple answers. i can't get mad at mothers who decide to stay at home. If you look at all your taxes most of it is spent on wars, corrupt corporations, and pork projects. I'm happy to pay to help out a family. It's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. Kids have to come first. They need a fair chance. Just my personal opinion and not trying to put down anyone else's opinion.
bambiblue
07-07-2010, 12:37 AM
I wonder what the dollar amount of taxes goes to welfare vs. the prison system... or war, or gun controll, or the brand new escalades the cops are driving now a days... earlier I posted that SOME people need welfare and others abuse it... if someone is useing it to better themselves by going to school and actually follows thru with finsishing out their education then so be it... that person utilized the system for what it was intended to be used for... but for those who have baby after baby and still do nothing with their lives, well that's just a waste, and who the hell should HAVE to give up their earnings to support someone who doesnt want any better for themselves. Our govt doesnt push education or enforce positive changes in people recieving assistance. Instead it enables people, and becomes a way of life for many, and I think that is complete bullshit!! This is what has to stop. It really isnt fair to the people who are out there busting their humps to earn an honest living to pay for welfare recipients to have BETTER health insurance than they do.... or to pay for others to be able to eat better than they do... that is an injustice. But one thing that has GOT to change is the systems bullshit way of dealing with deadbeat dads (or moms) who dont feel it's necessary to take care of their kids... Some moms wouldn't NEED to be on welfare if the court would start doing it's job and making these guys pay... there's not ONE good excuse for a man not to pay his child support, but there's millions of em running around the face of the earth living it up while their kids do without... my ex husband had 3 kids and doesnt pay for ANY of them... IMO he doesn't deserve to eat.
wanderlust08
07-07-2010, 12:49 AM
My wife used to take care of everything on the home front. Then she started doing drugs and became bipolar. I had thought she had it easy staying home when I worked. After she couldn't do anything anymore, I found out how exhausting it was taking care of the house, the kids, the yard, the pool, the school, ... It was almost impossible to keep up on that and my full time job. When I had to pay for child care over the summer it was a ton of money. That's not even taking into account paying a lot to lawyers and going to court to keep her out of jail. I had a lot of neighbors complain I was not doing enough and calling the village to make my life hell. Basically instead of helping everyone ganged up on our family. One neighbor was a bitch know it all and said 'I can help destroy you'. Well the bitch know it all didn't have all the answers when her own son got hooked on heroin. He died in May from an overdose. She would get all pissed when I used to tell her to walk a mile in my shoes. I'm just making the point that life can be very very complicated. There are no simple answers. i can't get mad at mothers who decide to stay at home. If you look at all your taxes most of it is spent on wars, corrupt corporations, and pork projects. I'm happy to pay to help out a family. It's a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. Kids have to come first. They need a fair chance. Just my personal opinion and not trying to put down anyone else's opinion.
Please don't take offense to this, I mean this as non-offensively as possible, but drugs do not cause bi-polar disorder. BP can show up in people's late 20's or even later in life, it was probably just coincidence that the drug use coincided with the bi-polar, or just made it more apparent.
The only reason I say this is because personality disorders are sooo misunderstood. I have borderline, which is basically bipolar on fast-forward, and people have certain "opinions" of me because of it, but it's largely brain chemistry and/or repressed lessons learned from childhood.
Mental health isn't taken seriously enough in this country. I would GLADLY pay taxes on every US citizen getting a mandatory psychiatric evaluation yearly. Just think about it. If every person in the country was evaluated every year, we could identify rapists, pedophiles, alcoholics, those homeless crazy people walking around talking to themselves, self esteem issues, before it happened! And then factor in everyone getting treated for it...just think of all the problems it would solve! If nobody in America had pyschological issues or low self esteem, where would be today?
malayataylor
07-07-2010, 04:00 AM
^ Babe I've seen it first hand. Drugs changes people: The way they look, their mood everything. Before my cousin start smoking like a chimney she was the most awesome person in the world now she's soo different constantly trying to do everything to sabotage me. I'm convinced someone sprinkled a bit of crack cocaine in her weed. Her behavior now is OUT OF CONTROL!
Kellydancer
07-07-2010, 10:53 AM
I wonder what the dollar amount of taxes goes to welfare vs. the prison system... or war, or gun controll, or the brand new escalades the cops are driving now a days... earlier I posted that SOME people need welfare and others abuse it... if someone is useing it to better themselves by going to school and actually follows thru with finsishing out their education then so be it... that person utilized the system for what it was intended to be used for... but for those who have baby after baby and still do nothing with their lives, well that's just a waste, and who the hell should HAVE to give up their earnings to support someone who doesnt want any better for themselves. Our govt doesnt push education or enforce positive changes in people recieving assistance. Instead it enables people, and becomes a way of life for many, and I think that is complete bullshit!! This is what has to stop. It really isnt fair to the people who are out there busting their humps to earn an honest living to pay for welfare recipients to have BETTER health insurance than they do.... or to pay for others to be able to eat better than they do... that is an injustice. But one thing that has GOT to change is the systems bullshit way of dealing with deadbeat dads (or moms) who dont feel it's necessary to take care of their kids... Some moms wouldn't NEED to be on welfare if the court would start doing it's job and making these guys pay... there's not ONE good excuse for a man not to pay his child support, but there's millions of em running around the face of the earth living it up while their kids do without... my ex husband had 3 kids and doesnt pay for ANY of them... IMO he doesn't deserve to eat.
They definitely need to go after the deadbeat parents because there are too many. In Illinois several politicians tried to push a law saying that if you don't pay your child support, you lose your license. Of course some polticians said that was wrong because then they can't work. So what if they can't work if they aren't supporting their kids.
I definitely agree about how so many work hard to support those who aren't. I saw so many people on welfare who chose not to work at all. I resented it because at various times I had a low paying job and I'd see these people on welfare buying good food. Then of course there were times I was uninsured and needed medical, but saw the people on welfare having baby after baby (I support birth control when one is on welfare).
mandy216
07-07-2010, 07:17 PM
Hmmm.... well as someone who has worked a regular 9-5 as a single mother, i made $14 an hour i have 2 children and i made too much for help and yet was making ramen noodles as meals for my children. im not with their father anymore and he always paid child support when he could but then he was in an accident and lost his leg.
i made too much to get help, not enough to live and my ex was in an even worse situation.
Also I'm in Ohio and we have the no pay-no license law. it fails in every way. fathers who would normally pay and get laid off and cant pay for 90 days lose their lisence...how the hell does that help the kids????
im sorry but id rather pay for social programs to help in situations like these than for the gas hog SUV's the police in my area drive around in or the various other BS our money goes to. i can see bitching about paying pointless shit. we DO pay for alot of that with our taxes but paying to help someone survive....idk.
the people not working and only living off the system may piss you off but lets face it, they arent living well. i have been on public assistance and it isnt much of a help at all and wont even pay all the bills. the fact is our tax money goes to so many things that should piss you off so much more than a few welfare mothers who are lazy, or fathers who are deadbeats.
hot4ablackchick
07-09-2010, 11:20 PM
I didn't read your whole post but there are most certainly people that have kids (and more kids) just to get government aid.
I wasn't speaking in total absolutes. Of course there are people who will. I don't think it is as vast as people proclaim, and would really only apply to the 'working poor.' A welfare "moocher" is not likely to have that as motivation, as the "moocher" is already qualified to recieve the aid. For instance, if I have a baby and I am unemployed, I can go and apply for government aid. I can recieve public housing or section 8, WIC, food stamps, medicaid, and a government check. I will qualify because my income is zero if I am unemployed. I already have the aid so why the hell would I need to 'have more kids,' to get the aid?? My food stamps will increase about $100 when the second baby comes, and my welfare check will increase $60-$80 dollars. If one is already recieving the aid, the motive is not money. A baby will eat up that increase in a second. When someone who has never really had employment and lives off welfare, has a bunch of kids it is NOT for money. It may idiotic, but not the motive. Yes one can become preggo just to get aid, I was referring to people that are what some call "moochers." I knew a woman who had SEVEN kids and people said she kept having them to "get more aid." I agree she was grossly irresponsible and stupid, but she had lived in section 8 housing and recieved every kind of gov't 'handout,' SINCE HER FIRST KID!!! She already had all the aid, so every kid she had after that was only 'compensation' for the expense of the child. Its not "extra," for her. It wouldn't give a "moocher," motivation to have more kids.
hot4ablackchick
07-10-2010, 01:14 AM
Society raises our children now, that's how many parents have it. They use childcare (public or private), preschool, public school, and so forth to direct, raise, and 'babysit' their children. I don't think it should be that way.
YUP!!!! Great point Laurisa. I don't care how good the daycare is, it doesn't beat being at home. Its funny some will recognize 'people having kids they can't afford,' as detrimental to society, but wouldn't recognize a parent who couldn't parent because they had to be gone all day as detrimental. Both are detrimental. The single parent gone all day working full time and going to school full time is MORE detrimental. I'm not trying to advocate using welfare in any way, I'm just trying to point out that there are pros and cons to every situation. I worked 30 hours a week, went to school full time, and had two young kids ALONE. I felt like I never saw my kids and sadly daycare did raise them as you said Laurisa. I don't remember when my son took his first steps, what his first words were, nada. I was so buried in homework and stressed out, that his first two years are kind of a blur. I hate admitting this but its true. With my first (I was 17) I was still living at home and going to high school, so I worked part time just to get diapers and formula for her. She got to stay home with my mother who was an awesome grandmother to her.
The behavior differences between my kids are great. My son was very destructive when he was younger. He sometimes seems "grumpy" a lot. He is a good kid, but is not nearly as well behaved as the other kids. My daughter was always peaceful and could entertain herself. I gave her plenty of attention even though she didn't "require" it. My son has always been high strung and an 'attention whore' for lack of a better term. My twins are also vastly different from him, and my stepkids are as well. I can't conclusively say it was child care, but he went to to daycare at 6 weeks. Sometimes I do wish I had stayed at home, and not have been so worried about being a "mooch," that I put it ahead of my baby. Not stay home the entire time, but at least for his first couple of months. Looking back, I would have done something different. Good job for 'choosing' to stay at home Laurisa.
My stepkids have also never been to daycare. Their mom stayed at home with them until they were three. When her and my hubby divorced, she ditched. Totally. She was suppossedly a loving and attentive mother, and my hubby as well as everyone in the family NEVER expected her to leave, let alone completely abandon her kids. The pregnancy was even planned and they had been married three years!!! Saying "I know my spouse wouldn't do that," isn't protected. Even if you are the primary breadwinner you aren't protected. If you can't afford to pay all your bills + childcare on your income ALONE if a spouse left, then you are not protected. Most do NOT fit this criteria. It would be kind of insane to expect everyone to fit that criteria before planning a family. Luckily my hubby's mom was able to watch his kids when she left, because there was no way he could have afforded child care.
I'm not trying to put down single moms, or working moms. But the value of a parent staying at home has been downplayed and devalued. If someone recieves daycare from the state, it is still welfare. Going to work at McDonald's full time and attending school, may even cost the taxpayers more if she gets daycare, especially for an infant. I know I'll get flamed, but working full time + going to school full time = congrats someone else raised your baby. If someone on welfare is going to school, I think thats great. Going to attain skills and find a decent job is great. I don't think she's not "doing enough," because she doesn't work too. She's MUCH more likely to get burned out and quit school or flunk out if she tries to overload herself with studying coursework, attending school full time, and working full time. Then adding on top of it a kid you could probably parent for an hour before the child goes to bed, and doing housework/cooking meals etc. If a person never aquires the skills to get a decent job, the cycle of welfare will just repeat. She'll quit and sit on her ass, or take low wage job where tax dollars will likely CONTINUE to support her because she'll still have to get food stamps and medicaid at least, just to survive!!!! In the long run, society would have been better off if she just went to school. She's more likely to finish AND the children could have actually spent time with their parent. Great that some single parents pulled off a full time job and school load, but was it really "best" in the bigger picture?? Especially for infants or young children??
Our tax dollars will also continue to support these kids when they are in the juvenile system because they were raised by someone else and never effectively bonded with their parents, because mom threw them in daycare all day. I know there are great single mothers and working mothers. But I still do NOT support single parenthood and/or having a daycare spend most of the day with your child. I don't care if the single parent makes a good income. I don't support those on welfare who would not ever try do anything different either. I don't stop caring because, "At least I'm not paying slightly higher taxes, so fuck it." Kids need parents. A parent who is working full time, and going to school full time, is not parenting. Its impossible. My mother did it and I do admire her, but I also did not have a mother for many years. She didn't have any family support, so we were neglected. Just home all day alone after school and she got home after midnight. The biggest influence on kids, IS THE PARENTS!!!!!
This situation is best avoided. I know it can't be avoided sometimes. I know I put myself in my situation and the best thing would have been to NOT get pregnant. If I had a magic wand, I would change it. I fully support the idea of waiting and not getting pregnant. I admire the OP for this. Kudos. But again, this isn't so black and white. This is the real world and people make mistakes. Situations can also change. I think a lot of us have had risky, unprotected sex at least once in our life, when we probably could not have afforded a baby if the sex resulted in a baby.
End of rant :P
ArmySGT.
07-10-2010, 07:49 AM
I've been trying to get the courts to track down my ex-husband for 3 years to get the $9,000 he owes in child support. Guess what? It's not gonna happen.
If you have his SSN, Full name, DOB, and Mother maiden name you have more than enough.
If you need a how to guide there is a book called "The Whole Spy Catalog" published by Loompanics.
Kellydancer
07-10-2010, 11:51 AM
YUP!!!! Great point Laurisa. I don't care how good the daycare is, it doesn't beat being at home. Its funny some will recognize 'people having kids they can't afford,' as detrimental to society, but wouldn't recognize a parent who couldn't parent because they had to be gone all day as detrimental. Both are detrimental. The single parent gone all day working full time and going to school full time is MORE detrimental. I'm not trying to advocate using welfare in any way, I'm just trying to point out that there are pros and cons to every situation. I worked 30 hours a week, went to school full time, and had two young kids ALONE. I felt like I never saw my kids and sadly daycare did raise them as you said Laurisa. I don't remember when my son took his first steps, what his first words were, nada. I was so buried in homework and stressed out, that his first two years are kind of a blur. I hate admitting this but its true. With my first (I was 17) I was still living at home and going to high school, so I worked part time just to get diapers and formula for her. She got to stay home with my mother who was an awesome grandmother to her.
The behavior differences between my kids are great. My son was very destructive when he was younger. He sometimes seems "grumpy" a lot. He is a good kid, but is not nearly as well behaved as the other kids. My daughter was always peaceful and could entertain herself. I gave her plenty of attention even though she didn't "require" it. My son has always been high strung and an 'attention whore' for lack of a better term. My twins are also vastly different from him, and my stepkids are as well. I can't conclusively say it was child care, but he went to to daycare at 6 weeks. Sometimes I do wish I had stayed at home, and not have been so worried about being a "mooch," that I put it ahead of my baby. Not stay home the entire time, but at least for his first couple of months. Looking back, I would have done something different. Good job for 'choosing' to stay at home Laurisa.
My stepkids have also never been to daycare. Their mom stayed at home with them until they were three. When her and my hubby divorced, she ditched. Totally. She was suppossedly a loving and attentive mother, and my hubby as well as everyone in the family NEVER expected her to leave, let alone completely abandon her kids. The pregnancy was even planned and they had been married three years!!! Saying "I know my spouse wouldn't do that," isn't protected. Even if you are the primary breadwinner you aren't protected. If you can't afford to pay all your bills + childcare on your income ALONE if a spouse left, then you are not protected. Most do NOT fit this criteria. It would be kind of insane to expect everyone to fit that criteria before planning a family. Luckily my hubby's mom was able to watch his kids when she left, because there was no way he could have afforded child care.
I'm not trying to put down single moms, or working moms. But the value of a parent staying at home has been downplayed and devalued. If someone recieves daycare from the state, it is still welfare. Going to work at McDonald's full time and attending school, may even cost the taxpayers more if she gets daycare, especially for an infant. I know I'll get flamed, but working full time + going to school full time = congrats someone else raised your baby. If someone on welfare is going to school, I think thats great. Going to attain skills and find a decent job is great. I don't think she's not "doing enough," because she doesn't work too. She's MUCH more likely to get burned out and quit school or flunk out if she tries to overload herself with studying coursework, attending school full time, and working full time. Then adding on top of it a kid you could probably parent for an hour before the child goes to bed, and doing housework/cooking meals etc. If a person never aquires the skills to get a decent job, the cycle of welfare will just repeat. She'll quit and sit on her ass, or take low wage job where tax dollars will likely CONTINUE to support her because she'll still have to get food stamps and medicaid at least, just to survive!!!! In the long run, society would have been better off if she just went to school. She's more likely to finish AND the children could have actually spent time with their parent. Great that some single parents pulled off a full time job and school load, but was it really "best" in the bigger picture?? Especially for infants or young children??
Our tax dollars will also continue to support these kids when they are in the juvenile system because they were raised by someone else and never effectively bonded with their parents, because mom threw them in daycare all day. I know there are great single mothers and working mothers. But I still do NOT support single parenthood and/or having a daycare spend most of the day with your child. I don't care if the single parent makes a good income. I don't support those on welfare who would not ever try do anything different either. I don't stop caring because, "At least I'm not paying slightly higher taxes, so fuck it." Kids need parents. A parent who is working full time, and going to school full time, is not parenting. Its impossible. My mother did it and I do admire her, but I also did not have a mother for many years. She didn't have any family support, so we were neglected. Just home all day alone after school and she got home after midnight. The biggest influence on kids, IS THE PARENTS!!!!!
This situation is best avoided. I know it can't be avoided sometimes. I know I put myself in my situation and the best thing would have been to NOT get pregnant. If I had a magic wand, I would change it. I fully support the idea of waiting and not getting pregnant. I admire the OP for this. Kudos. But again, this isn't so black and white. This is the real world and people make mistakes. Situations can also change. I think a lot of us have had risky, unprotected sex at least once in our life, when we probably could not have afforded a baby if the sex resulted in a baby.
End of rant :P
I realize not everyone can go to school fulltime and work fulltime, but with those on welfare, they should at least work parttime and go to school parttime. Here's the problem we rarely hear of: the women only going to college to be prevented from being kicked off welfare. I had a friend who was a lazy leech and welfare told her she'd get kicked off unless she went to school. She was a bad student too and barely graduated high school (I think she was ranked last of second to last). So she took two classes she had no interest in just to keep it. She barely passed them. She never studied either and ended up failing out of college. I'm not saying those on welfare should be required to both work fulltime and attend college fulltime, but many people can do a variation, like school fulltime and work parttime or vice versa.
As for a parent at home, sure in theory it's a great thing to have one parent at home, but in these economic times, not likely. I know that if I have a child I will still have to work. The guy I love doesn't make much and in reality I'll be the bigger breadwinner. If we decided one of us could stay home it would probably be him, but this is a risk because what if I lost my job? We've already decided that in the event we have a child, we will both work (after leave, and I hope both of us get parental leave). One of our parents will babysit since they are all retired. I would not be happy putting my child in daycare and grandparent watching is great. Sure, we'll miss firsts, but this can't be avoided unless both of us don't work. This is a reality for most people and it's not right when working people can't stay home, but people think those on welfare deserve it. They don't because they are using my tax dollars.
Laurisa
07-10-2010, 12:26 PM
^Well I'm glad you have your parents volunteering to watch your potential children, but unfortunately my son's father and I have zero relationship between the four parents we have between us. This is the situation a lot of parents face, lack of support. They are all utterly useless, so expecting anyone to go out of their way for us like that would be asinine. Our son will still have one stay at home parent, because the roles will be reversed since I will have the potential to make more money than him dancing. Also, his work is not ideal, and while dancing presents it's own share of problems we feel it will better suit our family.
We're considering putting him in daycare from 9 AM until 1 PM for three to four days a week so we can go to college and have some alone time. I don't feel like 12-16 hours a week of daycare will influence him negatively. We've recently stumbled upon a family friend that is offering to watch him in her home for an affordable rate, but she does have school aged children of her own and watches my son's cousin who is three weeks older than him. I really would prefer him to have complete, one-on-one attention. These options will be explored, and ultimately a private daycare probably will not be the option we used.
Thanks to hot4ablackchick for the encouragement! :)
threlayer
07-12-2010, 07:44 PM
You know what's funny? Black people as a whole are very conservative when it comes to issues like gay marriage and abortion. I know, I attended a black church years ago and have many black friends and relatives. Interestingly, many are switching back to the Republican Party, like my sister in law who proudly calls herself a conservative Republican African American.
Without taking a side one way of the other, there is a BIG flaw in your argument is tis quote.... you reasoning is confounded because many church-going blacks (and others) have conservative views. If you were more familiar with, or used, blacks in general instead of this sub-population, your argument, though still anecdotal, would have a bit more validity. As it is now there is no basis at all for your conclusion as presented.
Arguments that include clarity of logic are more successful.
Kellydancer
07-12-2010, 08:39 PM
Without taking a side one way of the other, there is a BIG flaw in your argument is tis quote.... you reasoning is confounded because many church-going blacks (and others) have conservative views. If you were more familiar with, or used, blacks in general instead of this sub-population, your argument, though still anecdotal, would have a bit more validity. As it is now there is no basis at all for your conclusion as presented.
Arguments that include clarity of logic are more successful.
I am very familiar with church going blacks since that's the majority of the people I know in real life. Most are very conservative when it comes to issues like abortion or gay marriage. Even ones who are Democrats and support welfare tend to be anti abortion and gay marriage.
threlayer
07-13-2010, 10:40 AM
I fully agree with that characterization. But is certainly does not apply to the majority of blacks younger than middle age.
HailToTheBoob
07-17-2010, 02:58 PM
I know people who literally can't get married because if they do one of them will lose their benefits and they won't be able to live together. Makes no sense whatsoever esp. in a society that pushed marriage. Ugh.
tempest666
07-17-2010, 11:43 PM
I'm sure in this industry we have seen, heard, or had our share of baby daddy\baby mama drama. IMO you should have a kid when you can financially and emotionally support one. Whether baby has a mommy, a mommy and a daddy, 2 mommies, 2 daddies is irrelevant. My SO and I have decided to wait until we are both done with school. (Also it was alleged that he would spawn the next antichrist)
Kellydancer
07-17-2010, 11:54 PM
I'm sure in this industry we have seen, heard, or had our share of baby daddy\baby mama drama. IMO you should have a kid when you can financially and emotionally support one. Whether baby has a mommy, a mommy and a daddy, 2 mommies, 2 daddies is irrelevant. My SO and I have decided to wait until we are both done with school. (Also it was alleged that he would spawn the next antichrist)
You have your head together on tight and that's very impressive you feel that way. I feele xactly the same.
tempest666
07-18-2010, 12:06 AM
^ thx :)
On the subject of immigration: They are already here. Mexican, Russian, Canadian, Martians, whatever there are 11 million here already. Something needs to be done to address that before anything else. Am I in favor of mass amnesty? Hell no. Remember that quote from Young Guns II about the coy dog? " You keep feeding them, they keep coming around" We don't need 11 million more coy dogs coming around and overburdening this damn country. If you are here already, at least learn a few effin phrases in English when dealing with day to day public life, even if its just to say "I don't speak English" in English.
I live in a border state that has at least two sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants and issues drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Let me tell you, when I get my purse stolen and have to jump through hoops to get my license, but someone can enter this country illegally and get one quicker, I have a definite problem with that.
tempest666
07-18-2010, 12:13 AM
Dammit I still can't edit! There needs to be either restrictions on who gets citizenship ( I have seen it in El Paso where women try to have their babies born in the US) or a clear cut path to citizenship for the ones already here that are CONTRIBUTING and productive members of society.
My great great grandpa jumped a damn fence to get here. I remember him, although he died when I was only 5. He always taught us "English at school, Espanol a la casa" and he stressed the importance of education. (Most of my family did get started reproducing a bit young)
Kellydancer
07-18-2010, 12:05 PM
There definitely needs to be restrictions on immigration. I've seen so many stories (from the mainstream media) about these women who come here to have anchor babies and get welfare. They do it because not only do they get welfare, their kid can bring in more family members. They are mis using the 14th Amendment (which was to make sure slaves were citizens) and it sickens me. I am tired of the local welfare agencies requiring translators because most can't speak English.
My paternal grandmother came here legally from England, yet she had to jump through hoops to come here. She was married to an American Army serviceman (my paternal grandfather) but they still didn't make it easier. She knew English (duh!), and she never took advantage. Why make it easier for people who come here ILLEGALLY? It makes me sick and if Obama passes this immigration reform he's talking about I will not vote for him again.
shift_6x
07-18-2010, 12:14 PM
Some things I can agree with you on and others not so much. I definitely agree that women who have multiple kids are sometimes abusing the system. Idk that people realize these are lives that they r bringing into the world. Babies who turn into grown ups---their upbringing these single mothers are responsible for..Sometimes these kids become neglected or abused...This isnt always the case but some of them dont have the greatest life Im sure. This is where I am ProChoice.
SerenaSin
07-19-2010, 06:06 AM
I grew up in poor communities of color my whole life, and I didn't know anyone who purposely had children w/ the intention of "getting more money". As if single mothers on gov't assistance live in the lap of luxury or something /:O
Higher birthrates in some communities have to do w/ different cultural attitudes towards childbearing/rearing, lack of access to birth control or sexual education, women's lack of financial independence from men (or lack of assistance in leaving them) and therefore patriarchal rule over women's bodies, depression/hopelessness/disempowerment, the acceptance of teen pregnancy/large families as a legitimate lifestyle choice, etc.etc.etc. Being on government assistance tends to be seen as just that, assistance, not the end in of itself, not with one basing all their reproduction decisions on how much $$ they can get.
Sometimes it's the kinda thing you'd only understand if you grew up in these communities and were, like me, part of a "big" poor family on gov't assistance occasionally ("big" by today's standards; there were 4 of us children).
Everyone's gonna have that story about that lady they knew who (they assume) had a buncha kids in order to get a "fat" welfare check. Then again there are also guys who like it when girls shit on their chest so there's all kinds in this world I guess....
sxcbbw
07-19-2010, 06:56 AM
^ preeeetty much.
tempest666
07-19-2010, 12:12 PM
Right now a major facet of the immigration debate is the DREAM act which gives undocumented immigrants that came here at age 16 or younger the chance to attend college.
I'm a little on the fence about this one...some of these kids came here to the states at a very young age. But on the other hand, it sends a message that coming into the United States illegally will be rewarded.
It's not entirely the immigrants faults that they are here. They wouldn't continually risk life and limb if we didn't keep holding out oppurtunities for them. There needs to be a crackdown on employers who knowingly employ and exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor.
As for the dream act, only time will tell if it passes.
Kellydancer
07-19-2010, 12:23 PM
Right now a major facet of the immigration debate is the DREAM act which gives undocumented immigrants that came here at age 16 or younger the chance to attend college.
I'm a little on the fence about this one...some of these kids came here to the states at a very young age. But on the other hand, it sends a message that coming into the United States illegally will be rewarded.
It's not entirely the immigrants faults that they are here. They wouldn't continually risk life and limb if we didn't keep holding out oppurtunities for them. There needs to be a crackdown on employers who knowingly employ and exploit illegal immigrants for cheap labor.
As for the dream act, only time will tell if it passes.
I'm mixed on that. Part of me says the kids usually didn't know they were illegal, but then the other part says we shouldn't reward them because others will do it. Besides, if they came here illegally, they aren't citizens anyway because they weren't born here, and we don't do the same to legal immigrant children who come here.
tempest666
07-19-2010, 01:41 PM
^ goes back to my whole "coy dog" argument. We need to stop feeding them so they'll quit coming around. Hell if I had a chance to pop out a kid, get free medical and assistance, and possibly make more $$$ in a day than my family had in a year, damn right I would brave the trek. Especially if the country is too busy with other things to do much about prosecuting and enforcement.
justifymylove
07-19-2010, 06:28 PM
^^ I don't understand the objections to the Dream Act. So people talk about the importance of education and learning English on one hand but then characterize an opportunity to gain education as a 'reward'?
Besides, if they came here illegally, they aren't citizens anyway because they weren't born here, and we don't do the same to legal immigrant children who come here.
What do you mean by 'don't do the same'? They don't need to do anything for legal immigrants because legal immigrants don't require the opportunity to gain legal residency.
Someone needs to explain this to me a little more clearly :)
tempest666
07-19-2010, 06:47 PM
http://vw.vrvm.com/gtime/db_43497/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8kXb7for&detailindex=1&pn=0&ps=4
here is a link I found, for some reason wikipedia is not working on my blackberry
justifymylove
07-19-2010, 06:58 PM
Thanks tempest, I read the article but it didn't tell me anything new. Why do you think it's potentially a bad idea?
tempest666
07-19-2010, 10:11 PM
Thanks tempest, I read the article but it didn't tell me anything new. Why do you think it's potentially a bad idea?
I think it is a good idea to open up a path to citizenship for the undocumented youths, especially for education. But IMO it is also a very grey area. Some have called it a smokescreen for amnesty. (Not me) I'm inclined to agree that certain prospects may be favorable to illegal immigrants, but no more so than any other benefits they currently receive.
My only beef with undocumented immigrants came with the above mentioned purse incident. Why should I go through hell when I'm a legal resident of the United States, but they can arrive here illegally from wherever and obtain a drivers license with no trouble at all.
peachplumpear
07-20-2010, 03:12 PM
I only read the first page of this thread but I would like to add my own little tale: my little brother was laid off ( for being lazy, thus dispensable to the company) anyway, he was eligible for unemployment but he didn't apply for 8 months later when he had been homeless for a while and suffered a debilitating jaw injury. So I read the brochures he had and told him: "hey bro, they want you to be looking for work, you can't just get benefits and sit around downtown" he was like "yeah I know" sure enough during his phone interview they asked him and he replied honestly that he hadn't been looking. So he got food stamps but his benefits were denied. I feel bad for him because he's so depressed but it would have been even worse for him to get that money for nothing. Let it go to the people busting ass putting out resumes and pounding the pavement. Also he got Medicare to pay for his jaw and stayed with my parents while he healed.
justifymylove
07-20-2010, 10:56 PM
Some have called it a smokescreen for amnesty. (Not me) I'm inclined to agree that certain prospects may be favorable to illegal immigrants, but no more so than any other benefits they currently receive.
Hmm. In my view this plan is a response to the desire for education rather than the act of being an illegal immigrant. But, similar to student visas, it seems that potential problems are likely to be encountered not in the granting of visas but in the lack of proper enforcement of length of stay. They say that this residency is contingent on certain terms, but it seems that many people overstay student visas with no issue. Is that where you foresee it being problematic?