Kelly Crawford Brags About Not Being of Food Stamps

[oscar]

GolightlyGrrl (06/11/11 09:38:54)

This bitch!

So easy for her to brag about not being on gov't assistance when so many things have been handed to her. Most parents do not have people gifting them with handouts of clothes, tools, cell phones, sewing machines and money. And this may be a shock to Kelly but most parents, and non-parents, I know do not go out to eat all the time, are very frugal, keep TV watching to a minimum, and don't buy a car for each of their children. We're not the "Real Housewives."

As for the Internet slander aimed at you, keep this is mind. Slander is spoken, and libel is written. Kelly, you are not being slandered and you are not being libeled. Get over yourself.

Last Edited By: GolightlyGrrl 06/11/11 12:11:57. Edited 1 time.

fundiefan (06/11/11 09:51:47)

She has an overwhelming sense of entitlement and uses that to judge everyone outside her little bubble.

booksnbeats (06/11/11 09:58:54)

I like how she throws in "student loans" as part of unneeded debt. Damn right my husband and I will be paying off our loans...with the jobs that our education will allow us to have. Not everyone can be a stay-at-home mom/daughter and not have to worry about money.

GolightlyGrrl (06/11/11 10:25:26)

I saw that, too. I wouldn't be surprised she didn't have a lot of student loan debt. Being a single mom of a child "born of sin" there is no doubt she got a lot of grants, which you don't have to pay off. Lots of single moms at my college got a boat load of grants.

Mompom (06/11/11 10:43:47)

Deleted because it felt too smug! Sorry!

Last Edited By: Mompom 06/11/11 11:12:07. Edited 1 times.

mrsdalloway (06/11/11 10:56:01)

Can we give the poor lady a break? She's going through an extremely rough time. I personally vote for a moratorium on snarking on her. Please?

Turtle (06/11/11 11:03:07)

It's a snark board. If you are bothered by snarking on a particular person, then it would be best not to open threads about that person.

I'm thankful that, at the moment, I can provide for my kid's needs. If there comes a time that I can't, I'd take help in a heartbeat. It seems a no-brainer to me.

Mompom (06/11/11 11:10:30)

Is my comment too offensive? I'm willing to take it down if it's too mean. I don't want to pile on her either.

Lissar (06/11/11 11:13:29)

Sure. As soon as she extends a little grace to others, I vote we extend some to her. Which will be at about a quarter to never.

thisolgirl (06/11/11 11:15:45)

"We anticipate that as our children get older, we not only have more hands to work in the garden producing food, or cutting firewood, etc., but we have more possibilities of everyone sharing in the family’s economy."

I'm kind of curious to find out what age Kelly expects her crotchfruit to start supporting her sharing in the family's economy. I can certainly understand an adult child living at home being required to contribute financially, but this is Kelly we're talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if Kelly requires a cut of any money her children make at their part time jobs. After all, what's the point in having 658464 kids if they can't start taking care of you as soon as possible?

hoipolloi (06/11/11 11:17:34)

What an obnoxious post, written in the classic "I'm all right, Jack" manner.

Kathryn31 (06/11/11 11:19:08)

Was Kelly unmarried when she had her first child?

duplessis3 (06/11/11 11:20:30)

Y

ou know, the UUs who had homes destroyed aren't going online and begging for all UUs to support them. Nor do they feel like some supernatural chaotic good being saved them, while killing their neighbors. Of course, I'm sure Kelly would say that UUs deserved for being godless atheists. (redundancy on purpose.)

SnarkyJan (06/11/11 11:20:41)

Not as rough as her neighbors the Lee family, who lost their father in the tornado. She's getting snarked on because, with all the help and goods she received, she should have smiled, thanked the donors publicly and spared some sympathy for those far less fortunate than herself and her family. Instead, she told the world that she received this largesse because she's so godly.

GolightlyGrrl (06/11/11 11:28:02)

This!

mrsdalloway (06/11/11 12:56:54)

Hm. Maybe I missed where she said/insinuated that. To me, the series of posts where she recapped the tornado experience seemed genuine, humble, and she expressed a lot of gratitude to those who have helped her family physically and financially. I agree that in the past she's come off as arrogant and self-absorbed, but she seems really shaken by what's happened. She's going through a hell of a time right now and I just think she should get cut some slack. :/

lilwriter85 (06/11/11 12:59:49)

I won't give Kelly a break from snarking. I do sympathize with her and her family. But the comment she made in another blog about not smelling like a homeless person pissed me off. Kelly isn't any better than those taking government assistance. I'm glad that people are helping her family, because I don't think her children should suffer more.

chengdu (06/11/11 13:03:52)

A few months ago, Kelly would've said all FEMA was bad

Now that she actually might have needed it, she is "not sure" whether it is right or wrong to take it.

Jencendiary (06/11/11 13:07:33)

mrsdalloway wrote:

Do you even go to this school?

debrand (06/11/11 13:17:11)

Are we reading the same post? She started out all right. Someone made the assumption that her family was on food stamps and she corrected them. Also, she mentioned that she no longer could say if accepting FEMA was right or wrong. In some cases, she acknowledged, families might not have a church communty to help them

Her discussion on Food Stamps offended me. After my husband retired from 24 years in the military, he had trouble finding work. For a short while we had to go on food stamps. It was embarrasing to us both. She mentions foodstamps and begins a discussion about how Americans try to live above their means. I assure you, my family was not living above their means.

The only thing that we don't do that is on her list is not go to Walmart. I hate Walmart but it is one of the closest stores in my rural neighborhoods.

debrand (06/11/11 13:23:55)

My son, Chris, has helped our family in the past. I hate taking any money from him and certainly do not expect him to assist us. He should be able to use his hard earned money to save for a car or some other item. This is an issue that I disagree with Kelly. Certainly, I don't think that it is wrong for an older teen to occasionally help out the family. I can also understand that some families might be so poor that their kids might have to help. What I don't understand is purposely planning for children to work so that you can take their money.

Bella99 (06/11/11 13:45:03)

Bella99:

My grandmother tried to pull this on my mother. In those days, the only way to get out was to marry the first creep who came along.

As a senior in high school, I would occasionally stock the fridge, but it was not expected. My mother was working 60 hour weeks then and if I wanted something in particular before the weekend I went to the store.

When Her Maj is old enough to work, I will be making her save some for college or a vehicle. Not to support our family (unless it is urgently needed).

doggie (06/11/11 13:53:17)

You mean when she would have the whole tornado happen again because she would not want to give up the love and attention she got? is that the post you missed? or the one with a tornado shaped like a heart?

LynnKaboom (06/11/11 14:00:00)

Childless (06/11/11 14:19:24)

Or how about the lack of compassion she showed toward the victims of the catastrophy in Japan. She refused to even pray for them, let alone send money or other donations. But when tragedy strikes her family, she expects everyone to bend over backward to help them and then declares herself godly. She's a horrible person and I refuse to cut her some slack. When she removes her head from her ass and starts acting like a human who cares about those around her, then I might reconsider.

[Elle]

Would you mind rapturing my replies? Thanks.

[oscar]

Elle (06/13/11 08:55:22)

No one's snarking on her losing her home. But if she's choosing to continue talking stupid shit, then that's her choice, and so is fair game for snark.

Elle (06/13/11 09:02:30)

She's insinuated it by what she HASN'T said. She's NEVER ONCE thanked those who've helped her. Tens of thousands of dollars plus tens of thousands more in household and luxury goods have been lavished upon her (I'd gladly lose my home in a tornado if I could receive what she has - that's how much she's been given, her life rebuilt for her with luxury goods, not cast-offs, and tons of money), and she STILL has NOT thanked the donors. She hasn't acknowledged that there are many other Christians out there who haven't received any help (and as far as she's concerned, non-Christians don't deserve to live, she's so filled with hate). She's just gone on and on about how no one needs to accept government help because she hasn't, while failing to acknowledge her mini-celebrity status that's helped her so much.

Elle (06/13/11 09:09:04)

If she needs it, then it's all right. But in a few more weeks, since she won't need FEMA, it'll be wrong and she'll ask why people aren't turning to churches while ignoring how much of her help has come from people around the world on the internet.

Elle (06/13/11 09:11:19)

I've got a problem with people who expect their pre-teens to basically work for their room and board, as Kelly clearly plans it to be.

Elle (06/13/11 09:15:54)

I forgot about that. This shows just how self-centered and EVIL she is. She's not a Christian, no matter what she says. Jesus didn't withhold help because someone was less than perfect. His friends were the underbelly of society, the ones Kelly would spit on. If Jesus and his disciples were to knock on her door, begging for a glass of clean water, she'd slam the door.

[oscar]

Would you mind rapturing my replies? Thanks.

No problem, Elle!

[Effie]

Hey... Does Kelly know about us? She has written about "hate groups" and "Internet slander". In the comments section she wrote: "I am all too familiar with these hate groups..."

[Koala]

Hey... Does Kelly know about us? She has written about "hate groups" and "Internet slander". In the comments section she wrote: "I am all too familiar with these hate groups..."

We're a "hate group" now are we? A "hate group" "persecuting" Kelly with internet "slander"?

What does that make her?

[Cartmann99]

We're a "hate group" now are we? A "hate group" "persecuting" Kelly with internet "slander"?

What does that make her?

I'm sure if you asked Kelly, she would say that she was a Christian who is continually persecuted for speaking the truth that Jesus laid on her heart. :roll:

(Yes, I do live in Fundieland. How did you know?)

[MamaJunebug]

"Do you even go to this school?"

Great response!

[Effie]

We're a "hate group" now are we? A "hate group" "persecuting" Kelly with internet "slander"?

What does that make her?

Good question. Btw. I was right that she knows about us, if not then... then now. ->

Anne says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:15 pm

you arBe so correct, these hateful, bitter women are from that free jinger site and they live for spewing hate against Kelly and other women who simply teach Bible truths

We are not spewing more hate than she in fact is. We criticize her for her opinions. We question her statements. It's not hate. It's being critical. She writes negatively about several groups of people like a) working women b) childless women c) homosexuals. :naughty:

I fail to see how she would be any better than us. I don't criticize her because she is a Christian or a woman. I "spew hate" on her because she has spewed hate on people like me. It's like a defence mechanism, I guess.

[ems]

Hello all...let's see how long it takes me to figure out this new forum.

Re: her expectation that her children will contribute to the "family economy". Please don't think I'm defending Kelly or anything. However, I honestly think in this case it's just a different way of looking at the world, and not one that is neccessarily "wrong." One thing I've noticed is that the fundies seem to have a very collectivist outlook that puts them at odds with most of American society. They seem to greatly place the family above the individual to degrees that I think are unhealthy, but I think that's the way they look at the family's income, as something to be shared rather than something for the individual. So they of course financially support their children, but any income the children/teens bring in goes to the unit rather than the individual. That income may end up going to the children, but they see it first and foremost as "family income." Fundies and people from countries that are typically "collectivist" probably have this in common.

Lest you think I am actually defending Kelly, though, in her case I think it really is all about her. On thing that always sticks in my mind from her posts is when she described the measly little portions of chicken pasta or something that she served her children, and a few entries earlier or later she bragged about indulging herself in some chocolate truffles. Yes, I remember those truffles; they sounded so delicious. Of course she never talks about treating her kids to things like that.

[Elle]

ems, Kelly is vile. She wouldn't offer up a prayer for Japan or Haiti, claiming it was god's punishment, but when it happens to her, it's a test from god and everyone needs to give her money and new things.

[aubrietta]

Hello all...let's see how long it takes me to figure out this new forum.

Re: her expectation that her children will contribute to the "family economy". Please don't think I'm defending Kelly or anything. However, I honestly think in this case it's just a different way of looking at the world, and not one that is neccessarily "wrong." One thing I've noticed is that the fundies seem to have a very collectivist outlook that puts them at odds with most of American society. They seem to greatly place the family above the individual to degrees that I think are unhealthy, but I think that's the way they look at the family's income, as something to be shared rather than something for the individual. So they of course financially support their children, but any income the children/teens bring in goes to the unit rather than the individual. That income may end up going to the children, but they see it first and foremost as "family income." Fundies and people from countries that are typically "collectivist" probably have this in common.

Lest you think I am actually defending Kelly, though, in her case I think it really is all about her. On thing that always sticks in my mind from her posts is when she described the measly little portions of chicken pasta or something that she served her children, and a few entries earlier or later she bragged about indulging herself in some chocolate truffles. Yes, I remember those truffles; they sounded so delicious. Of course she never talks about treating her kids to things like that.

The "family economy" is one of necessity for Kelly & co. When you have a gazillion children, and you are raising them on one income, stealing your children's money to pay the gas bill having family members contribute to the family pot is sadly necessary. This is a different way of looking at the world, and one that many families in third world countries employ to survive. The Crawford's choice to have as many children as they do, with the limited financial means that they have, forces them to have an economic world view this is more commonly found in underdeveloped countries. This is just a dumb move, in my opinion.

I would love to have a large family. But I'm not going to have more children then I can afford without having them need to contribute to the "family economy". I supposed the tornado is a mitigating factor, but I'm pretty sure that if the tornado hadn't happened, Kelly still would have expected her kids to pony up the cash for her "family economy". My family was poor when I was growing up. Poor as in using a calculator when grocery shopping because we only had $32 to feed us all for two weeks poor. I babysat, got money for my birthday etc, and not once did I need to contribute to the "family economy" my money was mine to do with as I saw fit. I was encouraged to save it to purchase myself things that I wanted that did not fit into my parent's budget (such as a sewing machine at age 14). I would have been resentful and sad if I had been expected to contribute to some "family economy"concept at a young age. I also began paying rent when I got a "real job" but I think that's different then what Kelly is talking about.

[lilwriter85]

The "family economy" is one of necessity for Kelly & co. When you have a gazillion children, and you are raising them on one income, stealing your children's money to pay the gas bill having family members contribute to the family pot is sadly necessary. This is a different way of looking at the world, and one that many families in third world countries employ to survive. The Crawford's choice to have as many children as they do, with the limited financial means that they have, forces them to have an economic world view this is more commonly found in underdeveloped countries. This is just a dumb move, in my opinion.

I would love to have a large family. But I'm not going to have more children then I can afford without having them need to contribute to the "family economy". I supposed the tornado is a mitigating factor, but I'm pretty sure that if the tornado hadn't happened, Kelly still would have expected her kids to pony up the cash for her "family economy". My family was poor when I was growing up. Poor as in using a calculator when grocery shopping because we only had $32 to feed us all for two weeks poor. I babysat, got money for my birthday etc, and not once did I need to contribute to the "family economy" my money was mine to do with as I saw fit. I was encouraged to save it to purchase myself things that I wanted that did not fit into my parent's budget (such as a sewing machine at age 14). I would have been resentful and sad if I had been expected to contribute to some "family economy"concept at a young age. I also began paying rent when I got a "real job" but I think that's different then what Kelly is talking about.

I agree a "family economy" is necessary for Kelly's family. I have known other families who have "family economies" for different reasons. There was a family at the Catholic parish that my family attended when I was a teen, who had to use the "family economy" after the father became disabled and had trouble trying to get disability. There were only three kids in this family and two of them were teens at that time and the mother felt bad that she had to take some of the money the kids were making from part time jobs.

[debrand]

What seems odd to me is that it appears that Kelly chose to be poor and need a family economy.

[Shirley MacLaine]

I fucked up somehow. Doppelposten! And quoting myself.

[Shirley MacLaine]

That's their worldview, but I wonder how it works in practice? I mean, beyond helping with chores, how much do Kelly's children actually contribute financially? Bria has shot a couple of weddings. The hideous-baby-drawer (although, yeah, he's very talented given his age and I assume lack of instruction) draws hideous babies. I mean, if Bria scored a fulltime minimum wage job and contributed her earnings to the family pool they'd be up a grand a month at least.

I also wonder how much the Crawfords pull in from all the eBooks, scripture songs CD, bath products, etc. Particularly the scripture songs CD - after hearing the song from it Kelly posted the other day, I'd love to know how many people are proud owners.

[Koala]

What seems odd to me is that it appears that Kelly chose to be poor and need a family economy.

Exactly. I don't think it's fair for her to keep the baby mill going if she and her dear, sweet headship can't afford them.

In fact, I would much rather see Kelly get off her baby producing ass and get a job, before she took money from her kids.

You know, for someone who seems to be sooooo against gov. assistance, Kelly sure doesn't seem to mind taking money from other people.

She was living in her parents house before god saw fit to send the tornado JUST for her spiritual development :roll: Now she is raking in money and goods hand over fist from the church and internet peeps, all the while claiming it's the churches "job" to support her.

I find it strange that it hasn't occurred to her that just maybe she should try to support herself.

[Koala]

GROUPTHINK....the whole lot of us :lol:

"Kelly, there’s really no reason to post their bitter, malicious comments because they simply repost them on their board anyway so that they can get a high-five from the mob over there. These ladies (term used loosely) are not interested in debate or understanding you better. They are political, social, and, yes, religious bigots who are incapable of seeing anyone’s point of view that does not closely align with theirs. Their site is the ultimate groupthink where there is no individuality nor room to express alternative positions. Anyone who dares to defend the “fundie†lifestyle is ridiculed, labeled a troll, and eventually silenced.

My dear sister, don’t worry about them or their greedy desire for attention. The Lord has given you an amazing platform here to minister to women and their families. Please don’t be derailed by those who do not have eyes to see or ears to hear."

Ladies :lol: You mean pearl clutching, submissive, baby making "ladies" like Kelly and her ilk???

Groupthink :roll: Because Kelly's board really fosters independent, critical thinking.

Fundie trolls? Aren't fundies the great trolls of life? And how exactly do we "silence" them??? Is there something I don't know? :twisted:

Greedy for attention? Attention whore, thy name is Kelly! :whistle:

[Boogalou]

I think that there might be ulterior motives behind the family economy. If the money kids earn needs to be contributed to the family it is, quite obviously, not staying in their pockets. Thus, it makes it difficult for them to do things like save for college, save up first and last months rent, etc. and give them the tools necessary to live a different lifestyle than their parents would strictly allow. (After a major natural disaster things are quite a bit different, but the idea of a family economy sounds like it was the plan all along)

It is interesting how "forced sharing" is evil government communism in the form of taxes, but in contributing to a family economy it is biblical and Godly.

[treemom]

I get really tired of people harshing on vacations. We decided to forgo other things because vacations are more important to us. It is a pet peeve of mine.

[EmmieJ]

. My family was poor when I was growing up. Poor as in using a calculator when grocery shopping because we only had $32 to feed us all for two weeks poor. I babysat, got money for my birthday etc, and not once did I need to contribute to the "family economy" my money was mine to do with as I saw fit. I

Based on your description, I would say that my own little family is "financially strapped" at times. Yes, I've used a calculator at the grocery store when I had between $7 to $20 left for groceries with several days before the next paycheck was due. And I have borrowed money from my son once in awhile so I could put gas in the car. However, that money has always been repaid, with interest.

I recall stories from the Depression, when kids had to drop out of school to sell newspapers or otherwise earn an income to help support the family. But those were drastic times, calling for drastic measures. To willfully have so many children that those children then need to help support the family is not right.

I think I'd rather be on food stamps than taking my kids' lawn-mowing money.

[Koala]

My grandparents were as poor as church mice, until I my mom was grown and gone. Thankfully their financial situation improved greatly after that.

I'll never forget my mom talking about the day she graduated high school. Her parents begged her to go to college. Both of my grandparents already worked, but they told her they would be happy to take second jobs to put her through. She didn't take them up on it, but neither of us have ever forgot how much they were willing to sacrifice for her.

My father in law worked to put his sister through college, when their dad abandoned the family. He gave up his own education for her.

Queen Kelly could take a lesson from them.

[Swamptribe]

We recently just got off food stamps. Foodstamps helped out for a few months until we were able to get back on our feet. I even made a point of telling our case worker how much we appreciated the help through these hard times, and that she and her co-workers had done their part to make a very tough time for our family much less stressful.

Foodstamps is a program we all (US taxpayers anywho) pay into. It is a goverment fund set up to help those in need. Taking advantage of it when you need to isn't something to be ashamed about. The reason programs such as foodstamps exist is because organizations such as churches weren't cutting the mustard. And yes, some do take advantage of such social programs as welfare. Then again, some people also abuse the charity of such organizations as Churches.

[Koala]

Well, that answers that.

Kelly had no insurance (why would she since it's the churches "job" to support her?)

She says they were in a "rent to purchase" agreement.

Which leads to 3 questions:

1. Why didn't Kelly pay extra so her parents could get home-owners insurance on the house?

2. Why didn't Kelly's parents insure their assets?

3. Why didn't Kelly have renters insurance?

There is one woman down thread talking about how home owners doesn't pay for everything anyway, so why bother? Ummm, maybe so Kelly wouldn't be a complete charity case right now?

[Love]

I get really tired of people harshing on vacations. We decided to forgo other things because vacations are more important to us. It is a pet peeve of mine.

I agree with this. Its up to each of us to decide what is most important to us. And vacation is vital to my family, since we are not close to all extended family members.