CL-WTF on ISYN Saturday, June 27, 2009
.... WHAT?!

Feature Ad:
1) Looking for a Baysitter (Bella Vista)
Hello there. I am looking for a babysitter that has an open schedule. The babysitter also needs to be willing to go to classes through CCIS (it is an agency that provides me with state subsidy for daycare). I believe it is 3-5 classes I am no sure how long they are. It is located in South Philly off of Water street, it is not far from the Riverview movie theatre. I am not able to pay myself, I am a single mom that is very cash poor right now. It would be one to three shifts that would be til 11:30 - 12:00pm at night and you also have to be available for weekends. You would be watching my 2.5 year old son Ethan in my apartment. I live near 10th and Bainbridge. He is learning to use the potty and usually remembers to go but it is good to ask him also. He is a very good child, he is just a little boy that has a lot of energy and loves to play and laugh. He loves to go to the 2 parks by where I live, or go for a stroll either him walking or in the stroller. I have cable and interenet so there are plenty of things to keep him and yourself busy and also a fully stocked fridge and pantry. To sweeten the deal I have free laundry in my building.
Original URL:
Special Thanks this week to MissDee, BeckM and all of the Anonymous Submissions we received... you did a great job! Remember, CL-WTF will be Posted every Saturday. Please send next weeks Ads HERE.



TC said...

Number are too poor to pay your own babysitter and yet you have cable???? Must be nice to have the taxpayers foot the bill because you decided to have a kid.

world's best nanny said...

#1. How does laundry "sweeten" the deal??

4. Not a nanny position? I emailed them and set them straight. This IS a nanny position, they are trying to get away with not paying a nannies salary. Garbage in, garbage out.

Wicker Park Nanny said...

wait, #1 receives state subsidy for day care and yet she isn't going to be paying for the daycare? ... so ... where does that money go?

nannyneedsanap said...

How can a seven month old be independent?

just another mommy said...

#4 is delusional. If I have to go to your home to watch your kids, you better believe it will cost more and it will be considered a nanny position. If the kids come to my house, it will cost less because I will still be able to have my children around and attend to my household needs. I have done both and believe me, it's easier for me to keep your kids in my house. And I charge much less for that.

I haven't kept kids in the parent's home since having kids of my own because I have to be able to have my kids with me. But when I did, the rate was much higher.

glamnan said...

I believe for job #1 you would get paid through the state agency. They would send you a check in the mail. To receive money for watching her child you have to take the required class first. I've done something like it before. Although the pay was only $3 an hour. Not even worth my gas to get there.

CrabbyMissDee said...

I sent in number 4, and why do people not get that watching children in their home is a nanny position, and watching them in my home is daycare?

"Understanding the Difference Between A Nanny And Daycare Provider"

"Nanny Job Duties"

"Daycare Days"

These classes should be REQUIRED for all parents.

meena said...

I think number one is trying to say that the sitter would get paid but through the state.

And TC you sound really ignorant. I myself am on assistance right now due to circumstances beyond my control and I have cable. I actually have a bundle deal with a phone/cable and internet company, the phone and the internet which are needed for my job and as far as the cable, I don't go out and buy things or eat out or pay for nights on the town so for me and my family it is our only source of entertainment.

I think you sound like a snob and you should think before you speak because you have absolutely no idea what this person's situation is. Why judge her because she is on public assistance?

I remember being in college and it sounds like a job I would have wanted: laundry certainly sweetens any deal when you have no place to do laundry. I remember one person I babysat for use to let me take my laundry over when I sat for them and it was much appreciated.

Wicker Park Nanny said...

well, assuming that is the case, that #1's employee would get paid through the state, then i guess the only problem is that she should have made that clearer in her ad. it should say something like, "after you take the classes you will be paid through the state." the way it is now is confusing.

hopefully this assumption is correct. otherwise i agree with TC. (drop the cable and pay the sitter!)

TC said...

Meena I am far from ignorant. I was raised not to live beyond your means. Right now because I can't afford the extra 50 bucks a month I don't have cable. Right now because I can't afford the extra 15 a month I'm stuck with the basic internet plan which means my internet runs slow. If I was on assistance I would cut out all luxuries and cable and internet are both luxuries. I don't mind helping people in need but when you are asking me for help AKA Taxpayer you better not have me pay for luxuries that *I* don't even have.

TC said...

BTW I do qualify for assistance but because I decided against the luxuries I can make it on my own without government assistance. Again before I was even to ask for help I would cut out everything that wasn't essential.

Upstate Mom said...

What was the WTF about #7??

cali mom said...

what's the WTF about ##? Actually, I'm missing the WTF in a few of these.

#4, because they are providing the food for their OWN child (as opposed to taking it out of the nanny's paycheck?) thinks that means they don't have to pay a decent salaray and imagines that this is somehow not a nanny job? WTF do they think it is?

cali mom said...

Whoops, I meant what's the WTF on #3.

Lola said...

Most cable costs 29.99 or so a month, hardly a "luxury" and certaintly not enough to pay a babysitter!!

A single mother working full time would qualify for child care assistance in my state. It's not like cash assistance. It's a very helpful form of govt. assistance and keeps many, many single mothers OFF welfare and working.

Lola said...

Oh my!! #10 will go in the other room! to smoke! How about OUTSIDE. If you are going to smoke at all!!

Hey, at least she's honest, and parents will know what they are getting, but I feel bad for kids who have to be in smokey houses. I did when I was a kid and even though I am a smoker, I NEVER smoke in my house. Ever. I go outside even on the coldest/rainiest/windiest days. Gimme a break.

one side of the coin said...

As the Kindercare (ha!) mom pointed out, paying for child care is difficult even for middle class families. I think seeking state subsidy to be able to afford decent child care is preferable to offering the $100 per month she spends on cable for a babysitter and
a) getting ridiculed on ISYN for such a low wage and
b) putting her child at risk with whatever psycho will work for that amount.

MinuteMuggle said...


I think your posts do come across as self-rightous and naive when it comes to public assistance. Not everything is in black and white. All situations are different. There are lots of different kinds of assistance to get: WIC, heating assistance, housing assistance, daycare vouchers, etc. They are there for people who need it, and I don't judge someone because they are on public assistance of any kind. Some people are on their own suddenly due to death, illness, (for themselves or their child) domestic violence, sudden loss of income, no family around to help, etc. There are a million valid reasons why someone's financial situation would change suddenly.

I don't agree with people who seem to be on welfare forever and ever and not even try to work, but from my own experience with it it is for people who are struggling, are working, and just need a little help. It's not as simple as cutting out your cable tv. Every situation is different, I will say that.

Also, if someone is to be happy and be a good parent, their quality of living has to be good. I don't think that thirty dollars a month for cable tv is scandelous by any means if it makes things a little easier for the family that the kids can watch Playhouse Disney in the morning and Mom can relax and watch Food Network at night.

It doesn't make someone a loser because they are on assistance. Just my opinion.

twinkiesmom said...

Number 24 needs further education on why being a nanny is not a volunteer position. Annette is living in a dream world in which nannies are mythical creatures who love children and don't have to pay the living expenses of ordinary folks.

delusional said...

To everyone who is so upset about cable: I find it appalling that anyone on any kind of assistance has cable. My husband and I are both employed full-time and go to school full-time, and we get our internet at school and watch movies on DVD instead of having cable. We hardly make enough to have anything left over to EAT, let alone pay for cable. Why should the tax dollars WE PAY go toward the CABLE BILL of someone who is on assistance when we don't even have cable ourselves?

Now, I'm not knocking anyone on assistance. I truly believe some people need it, and that a lot of them are honest. But seeing people go through wal-mart lines buying their food on their EBT cards and making a seperate cash purchase to buy a hundred dollars worth of dvd's, cd's, expensive ice cream that costs $6/gallon or a $7 bottle of shampoo, OR having a luxury like cable is wrong and it makes me sick. If you have money to spend on all those things, you can spend your own money on food instead of making the taxpayers buy it for you.

Also, something that makes Mom's life a little easier is a luxury. Life is hard. Suck it up.

Marypoppin'pills said...

Upstate Mom
As I've said before, WTF? doesn't always have to be a bad thing. I decided to go ahead and Post #7 because I thought it was cute and funny... like her kids just drive her nuts!

Marypoppin'pills said...

WTF? on #3:

"Our eldest daughter who is 10 years old, is already a very good supervisor but I need someone to help her for those hours."

Just sounded odd. I have noticed a lot of these Ads saying their kids are self-sufficient/independent, etc... and they are 8, 9, 10 years old.

glamnan said...

I agree, cable is NOT for people who are getting goverment assistance. Not too long ago I was in a financial hardship. It was all I could do to pay my rent, car payment and medical. I couldn't afford the luxury of cable and internet. Seriously.. stop using tax payers money for entertainment. Drag your ass to the library and use their internet and check out their movies. I also can't stand people at the grocery story paying for their food with government vouchers and then paying cash for a bunch of beer and cigarettes. WTF??

Self-Righteously Ignorant said...

Gosh all this complaining about people on assistance with cable and not one person mentions the Single Military Mom who can only afford to pay 80 to 150 a week.

Wonder how much the CEO of a Taxpayer Paid "Private" military contractor pays his day-care providers.

And TC, delusional, and glamnan none of you mentions your children while you list off all the PERSONAL sacrifices you've made. Yes, it's quite the sacrifice to have a DVD player, and I suppose you'd be fine with these struggling moms dragging their spawn into your school's internet access areas. Will you pick them up and drive them over there? Hope you didn't use any assistance to pay for any of that college tuition, or books.

I don't have kids, never been on assistance, but I would much prefer my tax dollars go to help CHILDREN than to help the owners and stockholders of corporations keep their yachts. TC, delusional, glamnan, sounds like you aspire to be yacht owners, as opposed to decent human beings.

And if 50 bucks a month gives a CHILD the joy of watching saturday morning cartoons then so be it. I'm sure you imagine these assistance mom sitting around watching soaps and eating bonbons all day. And still foisting their kids off on gov't subsidized daycare, so they don't have to share.

And remember also, it's not so easy to just pick up a tv signal these days. Which of you, TC, delusional, or glamnan is willing to buy and set up the rooftop antennas these kids will need to watch "free" TV?

TC said...

Self righteous sweetheart you don't know a thing about me.

I have a son and a husband in the military, he just got back a few months ago from his 3rd tour in Iraq. I know what it's like to struggle and I don't fault anyone that needs assistance but if you do then you need to make sacrifices.

(BTW go back and read the posts again you've confused me with a few other posters)

How about I decide to get cable, and better internet and then apply for foodstamps and wic and child care assistance and any other government assistance I can think of?

I'm sorry but people who expect the government to pick up the pieces while they sacrifice NOTHING is what is wrong with our country at the moment.

Cable and internet are LUXURY ITEMS and are not needed to survive. End of story, I don't give a shit if someone thinks it makes their life better. Hell nice cars, and vacations, and a big screen tv, to go in my brand new mansion would make my life better but that doesn't mean I'm going to get them. Life sucks at times and we have to learn to adapt. Get help if you need it but don't expect someone to pay for cable and internet because essentially that's exactly whats happening. That money you are paying towards cable and internet could be going towards childcare or food or whatever you asked the government to help you with

TC said...

ohh and you don't need to put an antenna on the roof, again sweetie I don't have cable. You get the box which with the government help costs 10 bucks and then you hook it up to your TV and you spend another 5-10 bucks on the antenna that sits on top of the TV and there ya go, no need to get on the roof.

Now You're Even More Self-Righteous said...

(BTW go back and read the posts again you've confused me with a few other posters)

No, you egomaniac, I was talking to other posters as well.

glamnan said...

Kids don't "NEED" the joy of television. Have you noticed the childhood obesity epidemic? Kids need to be outside playing not inside watching cartoons. Good grief! I didn't have cable OR internet growing up and I bet half the people on this board are the same way. It's a LUXURY not a right. And quite frankly as a tax payer I'm sick of paying for other peoples luxuries why I work 11 hour days. But everyone has their own opinion and I certainly wouldn't call you "self-righteous" for expressing your own.

oh please said...

Actually, the government is not paying for the cable, in this instance; it's paying for the daycare, as evidenced by the fact that the state (apparently) will pay the babysitter directly. Again, $30-$100 a month is not enough to afford child care, whereas it is enough to afford cable.
If you qualify for public assistance but choose not to take it, that's fine, but it doesn't make you any better than people who choose to take it.

Lola said...

Like I said before, CHILD CARE assistance is allowing these mothers to WORK. And with the money they make WORKING they are paying for cable. Hello? They are paying taxes too. And likely if they have solid, govt. assisted childcare, they may get a promotion and raises for not missing work and therefore not need child care assistance anymore!!


cali mom said...

I'm somewhat torn on this cable vs. public assistance issue, but had to roll my eyes at the suggestion that kids would be deprived of their childhoods by not being able to watch Saturday morning craptoons. I mean cartoons. Seriously, of all the unnecessary crap and bad habit forming garbage that kids are exposed to, TV, and most especially "kiddie" TV are at the top of the list. Some educational shows, preferably commercial free, are OK, but anyone who argues that it makes for better parenting to be able to park a kid in front of cartoon garbage and commercials aimed straight at young kids with oblivious parents and impressionable little minds for hours on a Saturday morning is NOT making any valid point.

G. said...

It seems to me that with the exception of a few posters here, they have had no experience in dealing with people on government assistance. I don't personally think you should judge someone unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.

I used to feel the same way until I went through it myself. Some people don't have cars to go to the library, and it is hard for them to get around and about to go to the library to use the internet/dvd's there. If you are struggling, working full time, and recieving assistance, there is no reason in my mind to deprive yourself and your family the small luxury of cable tv. I think it is very easy for people to judge what they don't understand. Everybody has their vices. If a parent is not on drugs, not spending money on going out, not buying new clothes or things, etc., I feel they deserve at least some things in life, and they can choose what that is.

I think a lot of people on this board are very judgemental and just want to see people on assistance be miserable and have absolutely nothing, just to sit there and think about "how they should never have had kids in the first place if they couldn't afford them." This is an ignorant statement. There are so many reasons why a parent may be on one kind of assistance or another.

We are not all freeloaders. Most of us, myself included, work very hard for what little money we make and are trying to get back up on our feet. In the meantime, it would not help to be miserable, and if thirty dollars a month for basic cable helps one make it through the day (I know it helps me) then so be it.

Momma Bear said...

When I was a kid, my dad had bad luck with jobs. It was during the farm crisis of the 80's and he worked in poultry processing plants so sometimes work was hard to find. Assistance such as unemployment, food stamps and other help got us through the bad times.

That being said, we were on assistance several times over the years. I can remember that, most of the time, we had basic cable. It was something that we could do as entertainment any time of day, especially on killer hot days in Arkansas when you couldn't do much but lay in front of a fan and spray yourself with a spray bottle. So I consider cable a utility. There are times when it gets cut off, just like phone, water and electricity but it is important.

And about the $6 ice cream on food stamps. When things got bad, buying food was my reward and treat. I had gotten good grades at school and I remember being so happy to go get a container of orange juice and some ice cream that was all mine. I am not saying that there aren't those that abuse things but there is always another side of the story.

cali mom said...

I'm just wondering where in the world someone could be working FT and still manage to qualify for public assistance? From my experience, anyone making over $5 hr is ineligible for anything unless they are pregnant or disabled in some way.

Lola said...

Cali mom, you are likely thinking of cash assistance. Various other programs exist that have a higher income cut off. Foodstamps are available in my state in amounts that decrease as income goes up. The more you make, the less you get. They can be a life saver for single mothers and other low income families. You must have children or be homeless to qualify. Child care assistance has an even higher income cut off, probably because it keeps many people in the work force that would otherwise have a hard time keeping a job if they had to pay completely out of pocket. There is usually a co-pay involved that is also on a sliding scale. For all of these programs you must report income bi-annually or any time your income goes up. Then they adjust your benefits as needed.

(MIL works for the department of human services)

MinuteMuggle said...

Cali Mom,

It is entirely possible to be working full time and be below the poverty level. Sometimes a person's income is less than their total rent/mortgage and utilities. In those instances, they may qualify for some type of assistance (food stamps, WIC, heating assistance, etc.)

As one poster said, it can be a lifesaver for a single parent who is in a situation that is out of their control.

I don't know how many women I have spoken with who are scared to leave their abusive husbands because they don't know how they will get by and support the kids and still make it. In cases like these, a helping hand is needed and nothing to be ashamed of.

Jacksmom said...

Did it ever occur to any of you that maybe she lives in a house/apartment where the landlord supplies the cable? Or that some/one of her college classes are conducted online, making internet access absolutely critical?

People are always so quick to judge the actions of the poor, feeling entitled to comment upon the lifestyles of "those we pay to support." In fact, unless you know this woman, you have absolutely no way of knowing her true situation and all your assumptions are just that - assumptions.

HumMom said...

Cali Mom,

Where in California do you live? Just look around you. Our state has many programs available to the working poor, of which there are a great number. $8.00/hour x 40 hours/week = $320.00. Could you survive on that without help?

penn said...

You are right. But certain people don't have a clue what it is like to pay their bills because they never have to worry about money or about working. So they never have to stop and think about how much things cost. Life is so black and white to some people. It's sad.

HumMom said...

I absolutely agree - unfortunately, there are people whose work is to work the system. It's really unfair, though, to paint every one in that situation with the same brush. Most people truly do want to improve their lot in life and some need help doing so.

My point, which you got, is that life is very rarely black and white - there are a million shades of gray. And, unless we know the details, it's unfair to assume that this woman was one of the people who is abusing the system.

cali mom said...

Thanks for all the info. Thing is, there is a federal "poverty" level which has essentially no relevance in the real world depending on where you live. So a person could be making $8.00/hr in San Jose, be WAY above the so-called "poverty" level, but that's like making $8/hr in NYC. San Francisco actually has a city minimum wage of something like $11 hr, which any employee working within the city limits has to earn. But in remote Kentucky, you could practically buy a mansion with a swimming pool for that wage. What I'm getting at is that the question of "could you live on that amount?" is neither here nor there when it comes to qualifying for different forms of public assistance. A single, not disabled or pregnant person working FT for state minimum wage plus ¢25 would have a very hard time making ends meet and would not likely qualify for any form of public assistance. But would, of course, be required to pay full taxes to support all those making only minimum wage. (Or more, but pretending they are unemployed).