Printable View
I am very uncomfortable over the integrity of the leading republican candidate. Politifact shows that only 19 percent of his political statements are half-true or better. Compare that to Hillary who has 71% half-true or better and Bernie at 32%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsmith
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
That seems pretty low for Bernie. I read it as closer to 70% at Politifacts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Yes. I stand corrected. Mia Culpa.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
You know what I'm sick of? People with no work ethic who expect a handout to improve their situation. Prime example is the daughter of a coworker. The other day coworker and I actually had it out at lunch. Coworker is late 30s. Had daughter at 16. On welfare for a while, but got a job and worked her way up. She's Filipino. Daughter had a baby at 21, baby daddy barely in picture. Girl and baby live with my coworker. Girl works a little, driving for Uber, but only to make a bit of money. What set me off the other day is that coworker said she wished her daughter got help from the gov't. I told coworker her daughter getting pregnant without a husband or a steady partner was not my responsibility. If her daughter doesn't have the work ethic to actually keep working more than a bit, I'll be danged if I pay for that.
I work my arse off. I can't stand people who have no work ethic. If you're not disabled or sick, you have no reason to be unemployed. Coworker's daughter is lazy, coworker is enabling her, and I told her so. I don't coddle people. I kick arse.
I don't like Trump, but I'm plain spoken myself, so he's been entertaining to watch, that's for sure.
Interesting that you mention she's a Filipina. Is that relevant in some way?
women have done the not working to raise kids model for awhile. It's not entirely fair or right, but a lot of people will marry and let a man support them while they just raise kids (I have always been too proud to consider that frankly, it seems deeply wrong for the man to be the only one working outside the house - especially it seems unfair to the man - too much too shoulder alone). They'll say stuff like raising a kid is a job, but that has never been remotely plausible to me (it's effort, that is true, but it's not a job)Quote:
I work my arse off. I can't stand people who have no work ethic. If you're not disabled or sick, you have no reason to be unemployed. Coworker's daughter is lazy, coworker is enabling her, and I told her so. I don't coddle people. I kick arse.
I used to be so jealous of my husband when I was home with the kids and he went to work, and had the freedom to take time off and go to lunch with his friends, go to the gym after work, and pretty much call his time his own, and reap recognition from his boss and peers while he was at it. I had no free time (as in zero), no recognition, no lunch, no gym.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I've known a lot of corporate colleagues who cut their their maternity leave short because they'd rather be at work than at home with their kids.
I'm not saying I regret my choice AT ALL, I'm just saying that it takes raising a child to know exactly how draining it is. Are there women who bring the nanny to the country club pool with them so they can sip wine and nap during the day? Sure, but that's the minority.
But to Tradd's point, there are abuses all over. As liberal as I am, I do tend to get annoyed at anyone--whether a young single mother of ANY race or a wealthy person or a corporation--who tries to the game the system. It is annoying to be around people who take advantage of others--that's for sure, but that trait certainly crosses racial and ethnic lines--I could name white people in my own family who could claim it.
Depending on the daughter's skillset she may well end up spending her entire paycheck on childcare. May as well stay home and bond with the kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
I think Trump is only one aspect of the politics of anger. Bernie Sanders seems to me to be hawking the same snake oil from the other side of the street: promising peace and plenty if we will only join him in his hostility to the malefactors of great wealth. College campuses seem overrun with pampered proletarians demanding the power to quash the rights of the ideologically unworthy. In some cities, vandalism and looting seem to be an accepted form of political expression. The trendy new construct of "White Privilege" seems to be used primarily by white people seeking to race-bait other white people. Inequality is decried all over, particularly in the most unequal precincts, which are generally run by the party demanding equality. Rural militias take arms over who has authority over the middle of nowhere. Eveyrone seems to have a favorite villain.
But are things really that bad? Are Lex Luthor and the Koch brothers cackling in their secret headquarters? Is Hillary Clinton drafting a lese majeste clauseto the first amendment? Has Goldman Sachs contracted with the NSA to outsource their credit rating function? Will the Obama administration gift us with a final series of Erastian executive orders to subdue the bitter clingers? Are we truly on the brink of chaos, strife and destitution?
Or are we simply in a period of hysterical political rhetoric that will simply fade into a rather embarrassing footnote to a fairly uninteresting period of history?
I hope you're right, even as I wish we could stifle the modern Robber Barons--at least a little. Eisenhower-era tax rates, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I'm in!Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
:+1:
just be sure to clock in and out for lunch as every minute must be accounted for and made up some way. By friends you mean coworkers right? Most of us work miles and miles away from any real friends and their jobs, making seeing them at lunch entirely nonviable (this is NOT EUROPE with it's dense cities where you hang out for a 2 hour leisurely lunch with friends or something afterall - this is the U.S. where the pressures of work and distance alienates us from our friends further). And coworkers are really a poor substitution for friends, you can't talk to them about things the way you might friends, so it's always the same boring safe topics that bore me to death, I'd rather eat alone and do, I much prefer my own company to that inane chatter (powerball is the topic du jour for coworkers now, I am so sick of hearing about powerball I can't even say. Listen delusional idiots: you are not going to win the fricken powerball! enough about powerball already!).Quote:
I used to be so jealous of my husband when I was home with the kids and he went to work, and had the freedom to take time off and go to lunch with his friends
by the end of the day I'm far too tired to think about gyms, that's the reality for most it seems. But yes you have a tiny amount of time to call your own and it can be true me time. It seems to me the stay at home mom has far more time to call their own if they enjoy what they do because isn't time enjoyed with kids their own in a way work never can be? Isn't playing with the kids their own time in a way a job can never be?Quote:
go to the gym after work, and pretty much call his time his own
or not, most people aren't reaping a heck of a lot of recognition these days. this reaping recognition stuff is more a mythical conception of work than the reality much of the time. Near invisibility seems far more often the reality.Quote:
and reap recognition from his boss and peers while he was at it.
isn't playing with the kids free time? Doing jigsaws with them? Baking cookies with the kids? Teaching the kids stuff like sewing etc.? This very much seems like free time to me, almost the very definition of play, even though it is true it's not "me time", which people also need (hire a babysitter occasionally or I guess there is no money for that because one paycheck barely covers bills - poor suffering husband who has the entire responsibility for whether a whole bunch of other humans eat on him). Of course you can't do this playing with the kids with a screaming infant I guess, but that stage is temporary.Quote:
I had no free time (as in zero), no recognition, no lunch, no gym.
They probably shouldn't have had kids. I have no problem with them working (in fact if we insist that everyone not working lacks worth ethic then ...), but if they actively hate being with their kids - nope probably wasn't the best choice.Quote:
I've known a lot of corporate colleagues who cut their their maternity leave short because they'd rather be at work than at home with their kids.
"Modern Robber Barons" are a very popular choice of scapegoat right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
But if "stifling" some unpopular group was the solution to a nation's problems, wouldn't someone over the course of history have hit upon just the right villain to defeat?
Well it's not like I'm advocating a French-style purge of the aristocracy. But now that I think about it, that worked pretty well for the French. :idea:Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Wow, lots of stuff around the mommy wars. And why is it moms who are in this instead of parents? I know men who take a primary role or stay home. However my job is childcare so I see working parents, some without jobs who have kids come to the enrichment clubs I run.
I stayed home a long time. I had times I was jealous of my husband for some of his freedoms and times I really appreciated the role I had in the family. And yeah, I worked hard. You can be a stay home parent in many ways, one is hiring out everything possible and 'playing' ranging to cooking everything from scratch, doing taxes, lots of work keeping to strict budgets, and in my case a large DR visit load. My ex worked an hour away from home so there was no option to have him take a DR appointment now and then, but eventually they got a little healthier and I was able to ease back into outside jobs.
It's free if you can walk away at any time to go to the bathroom by yourself. It's free if you can walk away and read a book and trust that the kid won't stick a penny in a socket (which my DD did). It's free if you can say, "I'm tired of this now, why don't you just go to sleep for 2 hours and I'll see you later" and they, of course, comply.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
I'm not saying that motherhood does not have its own rewards. Of course it does. I loved being a mother. But so does work. I enjoyed work (and still do), and after I had kids and then returned to work, I used to say that I went to work to relax. I had a FAR more relaxing day behind my desk than at home.
Watching 4 kids under the age of 7 is NOT free time, no matter how committed you are to the job. Your mind is ON for at least 14 hours a day.
I saw life choices as:Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Motherhood
School
Work
The first two were too much work for me given the return on satisfaction and fun. I chose Work as my only path, and that was right for me.
So true, Catherine. I never realized how easy work was until I was home with my toddlers. Good God, that was exhausting. And it's not just being on 14 hours a day--there are the nights where you are up with croup, the visits to the ER, the constant vigilance. Work was much easier for me, and a hell of a lot more fun. And I adored my kids, and did not put them in day care. Who knows, maybe that would have been better for all of us.
We found the first five or six years of our daughter's life to be a sort of suicide watch. No matter how much effort you put into "child-proofing" the house, they find remarkably ingenious ways to put themselves in danger. That, and their fascination with using toilets in ways outside the intended purpose, required eternal vigilance.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
ApatheticNoMore,
Somebody has to raise kids (the alternative is the current generation gets very old and dies off as food production and health care end and we become extinct.
If you get paid to raise kids (nanny, coach, teacher, housemother, clergy, babysitter, tutor, etc) it's a job. If you don't, it's still a job. Some jobs are terrific. Some jobs suck. Sometimes they are the same job to different people.
I quit working to raise my kids full time. Dh and I were both happy that we had that choice. I loved that job. Not all of it, but most of it. And the best parts far outweighed the worst for me. I think my kids benefited by being raised by someone who loved raising them. My mil stayed home to raise her kids and she clearly hated it. Actually, my theory is she stayed home to clean her house and was stuck with her kids. They would have been better off if she had gotten a paying job and hired someone who found joy in calming a screaming infant and reading stories and doing crafts and projects and playing games to raise them.
My dd1 hopes her dh will raise their kids (wedding ths summer) as he'd be terrific at it, but if not, she plans to hire out most of the work, because it is not a job she would love full time. Most evenings and weekends she's ok with.
I also love the job I have now, where I get paid to help raise other people's kids. I am a great teacher. I was a great mom. I'd be a terrible, miserable corporate drone.
It would seem that If you enjoy what you are doing, that is time for you and if you hate it it is work (task done for external reward/avoidance of negative consequence?) wether you are paid or not. I would argue that there are times teaching my class is more my own time than playing with my kids was (I prefer teaching how to attach a handle to teaching how to lose or win with grace.)
Dh doesn't love his job, but he's good at it. And so far, the good parts (including company health club, lunches out with co-workers who have become his friends, and good pay) compensate him enough for the worst parts - including working 7-bedtime every day on what is supposed to be a 3 day weekend. (oh yeah, and retirement. His job has a retirement package.) My retirement package from raising kids involves having my "products" return free labor.
well you can't stay in school forever, even an MD eventually graduates. But I was good in school in a way I never am at work, so I should have stayed in school a little longer for certain. If you mean being a professor, once upon a time that would have sounded like a dream job, but now it's way too dog eat dog as so many try for it and so few get it. I don't think I'd be good at motherhood,so for the sake of the kids I never reproduced (I never though it was fair for them to have me as a mother, and in many ways I don't think it's fair to bring people into the world), however I think it would have real satisfaction in a way work has only deep soul sucking emptiness that leaves you deeply depressed and desparing at the end of the day wondering: "is this all there is?". Really though the full time motherhood choice isn't much respected (you are a traitor to feminism). The school forever choice isn't much respected (when are you going to get a job already, you shiftless good for nothing). Work is respected, in a way nothing else is, in this society.Quote:
I saw life choices as:
Motherhood
School
Work
So true! "Well-rested mother" is probably an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by rodeosweetheart
I do not blame ANM for thinking that endless rounds of finger painting, diaper-changing, cookie-making is free time. I realize a lot of people don't see that a mother's "free time" is having to plan and pack for every short trip out of the house and hope you get back having remembered everything you were there for, and without losing a kid, or having one have a tantrum in the check-out line. A mother's "free time" is going years without the simple pleasure of going to a movie because who wants to spend precious baby-sitting budget on a movie?*
*ETA: I remember my husband was out of town and a friend from church said, "Let's go to a movie," and I said, "I can't go to a movie! I've got the kids!" She talked me into getting a babysitter. I hadn't been to a movie in probably 4-5 years, and I still remember the pure pleasure of sitting and watching "Running on Empty" with River Phoenix in the dark with the popcorn and the soda. Every time I see that movie in the TV listings, I recall it fondly as my first post-Mom movie.
Lol! I remember when we moved and they interviewed me for the church bulletin and asked what the last book was I read. I said "green eggs and ham.". You really had to go back more than three years to get the kind of answer they were looking for.
ApatheticNoMore, I think that the fact that we as a society repect work for which you get paid more than work for which you do not, and pay more for work that does not involve meeting basic human needs (advanced medicine excepted) is part of the problem. It's a key player in the suicidal middle class white male, the middle aged female executive heart attack, and the concept of the "welfare queen"
Choice is the greatest! I know that I was great at the million multi-tasks and now I basically do that at work. I get feedback that I am really patient and capable, but I did not start that way with my first kid. All I wanted for awhile was control of my life back!
Make no mistake, as a working girl I did not resent coworkers being home "with sick kids" for more than a moment. Once or twice I probably did resent them, but I got over that fast, and early. Because I could see in my imagination what that sick kid thing all entailed, that was a big NOPE for me. Id rather be at work. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I stayed at home until the youngest of my 3 went to school f.t. It was hard work but I never regretted it. My youngest had a chronic illness that would sometimes have him miss a month of school at a time. ER visits in middle of night, etc. I was always on duty. I never had so much as a glass of wine because I had to be on it 24-7. It would have been much easier to work and when I did go back it was. Thankfully my hubby was supportive but yeah the only time I was free was when my Mom watched the kids. Easy to make assumptions when you have not done it.
I chose to have children but I also chose a husband who I thought would truly co-parent with me and I would work half time, going back to full time once the kids were in school. I was raised not to be dependent on a man, I needed to work because that was what I deeply believed. We worked different shifts so our children didn't have to go to daycare. Both my pregnancies were high risk, DS was a preemie and after all those months on bed rest and being with him 24/7 for the first 9 mos of his life, eventually I needed the structure of work. We could've lived on ex's salary but I did not do well at home with no imposed schedule, I found being a SAHM very difficult, I also had PPD so that contributed to how hard it was. So I started back half-time and I was a better mother because of it. My ex switched to nights and he stayed up everyday until I got home from work. He was the most capable, nurturing dad I knew, he thrived when at home. We probably should've done the opposite, me work full time, him half time. Does that mean I should not have had children, that I found I needed to work outside the home meant I was unfit to mother? I think that's a load of crap. Children thrive with 2 loving parents and it matters not who works and who doesn't.
Eventually, for other reasons, we divorced and successful co-parenting ended because he chose to run me down to the kids, tried to break our bonds. That's not really germaine here, just being honest. But even without successful co-parenting, children can still thrive. And children thrive with single parents who have to work. Not for a second did I wish or believe that I should not have had children. That is an immensely personal decision that should not be determined or judged by others. I would argue we can agree on that. Why can we not agree on that when it comes to impoverished single moms?
I can attest that being a SAHM is work for the moms or for the dads. Was my career harder? It doesn't matter, it's comparing apples and oranges. It's time to stop arguing this issue, make your own choices to work or stay home, to breed or not, the grass is not greener on the other side. The feminists who went before us fought so that we could have a choice, not so we would argue endlessly about which is the better choice.
And it's really time to stop criticizing "welfare" moms who never got the Work to Welfare programs they were promised. It makes no sense for a woman to earn minimum wage if she has to pay the majority of that on day care. It is wrong to say who can breed and who has to be sterilized chemically so as not to add to children living in poverty. Provide training, child care and these women will work. But we will never know this because this country devalues this population of women so much, it's sickening. As for Welfare Queens, dig a little deeper, they are, for the most part, an urban myth. The majority of these moms grew up impoverished in broken homes, attended the shittiest of public schools, received no guidance that there even are better options after HS, were in no way prepared for college and we expect them to rise above all that with zero help and succeed. Could you do that? Maybe yes, because the users on here are above average intelligence. Some women can rise above the way they were raised totally on their own, but we should should offer a helping hand to those who can't.
I totally agree with you FS. I was a social worker and saw this stuff first hand. We had a really successful program that offered up to 2 years of job training and then free childcare, etc and these woman went back to work. It was also cheaper for society. Welfare queens are definitely an urban myth. I think having 1 parent working p.t. is great but you have to be in jobs that allow you to work different then the day shift so you don't need daycare. I have friends that never stopped working and that did not make them bad parents either. They all raised great kids.
thank you, the 'welfare moms' are people I work with. In fact until the last year our school district paid so low that half of our front line staff were on some type of social assistance. I now have many families who get the state child care assistance and they are working and doing great, I doubt they would be able to do all that they do for their kids without that support, and it is evaluated every year and a parent fee is set so the state also benefits from the parents getting better jobs, paying more into the system. I really like that grandparents who take their grandchildren get help through this system, several families have had the parents improve enough to take custody back which is a success.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
Right now I am thinking a lot about Michigan, both the Detroit schools that have pictures posted of how they are crumbling but also the Flint water emergency. That is going to cause massive brain damage and learning disabilities in that city.
thank you for the work that you do, it must be satisfying to see families succeed. I always saw the crap end of the stick when I did traditional home care. Little kids being raised by grandma or great-grandma who was sick enough to need my services. They did their best to raise those kids but many of these women were very ill and unable to do a whole lot. So I saw kids being removed from the home or just being failed in every way but not on purpose. I hated that piece of my job, seeing what true poverty looks like for all involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe Girl
Yes. Just to prove this isn't confined to blacks or poor whites.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
SAHM are quite a different thing from a 20-something who had a kid out of wedlock and whose family members think the gov't should be giving help to since she's a single mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Family members are providing childcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Thanks for clearing that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by freshstart
and would someone provide a graph of government monies given as corporate welfare vs. welfare to the supposed horde of able-bodied individual "moochers"? Let's get this into perspective so if the goal is to spend taxpayer money in the best possible way we can see who the true takers are in our society? Continuing to blame our economic woes on the poor is a waste on every level.
Well I'm white, I'm male, and due to wise thrift shop purchases and loving to read I can appear as if middle class. But I'm not angry......things are better for me than they have been in some time. Lots of banquet shifts, some primo mystery shops due to building business relationships with schedulers and I'm starting to sell used books online too. It is possible that I may leave the Medicaid rolls which to me is nothing short of amazing. And did I mention I'm happily married too? I believe we enter and exit seasons in our lives and I have entered into a very good season in my life out of nowhere. As to politics.....I'm all for Sanders but will vote for Hillary if she gets nominated which no longer seems preordained. Funny but I'm very deeply in love and politics don't seem as vitally important to me now. Truly I am lucky to be at this place in my life and I'd rather have this happiness and my ongoing struggles than be alone and middle class for real. I guess I've even lost my envy of the middle class. Rob
may this period last a very long time for you
Freshstart, Thank You. That's very kind of you.
So glad to see that things are going well for you and awesome that you are so in love:cool:.
Thank You too, Teacher Terry....Rob