It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moms: I cannot afford to work!!

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Looks like TPTB need to make a decision.

Do they want more slaves right now, or more slaves for the future? They cannot have their cake and eat it too...


The only way to eat a cake is to first have a cake, so yes, "they" can have their cake and eat it too. What they, or anyone else cannot do is eat their cake and have it too. In terms of this so called "TPTB", I believe the Georgia Guide Stones names 500 million people as the optimal population for Earth is that 500 million is what they believe they can reasonably manage. 7 billion? Fuggadabout it. Too many Spartacus' to enslave them all.




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
back in the day it was perfectly normal for a family to live off of one salary and have someone stay at home (usually the mother) its a shame that it isnt as easy to do that anymore. its also a shame the way family life has gone down the tubes so bad in this country. it is tough to try and make it happen and pay for day care. it would be nice if the grandaparents could babysit but nowadays even most grandparents are working too!!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Our standard of living is decaying.

Back in the industrial revolution, children worked in sweatshops. It's the next phase, once you've put grandma to work.

It's called peonage.


look it up.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


Well, that would take care of the daycare issue wouldn't it?

Nah, I don't think any parent is going to go for that. They'd leave their kids home alone before putting them in sweatshops.
edit on 19-4-2012 by BrittanyLea because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Couples planning to have a family need to do the math BEFOREHAND to ensure that they can properly provide for that child.

Depending on circumstances, sometimes it's more cost effective for a parent to stay home and raise the kids. In other cases having two incomes works out better. I guess I'm weird in that I really enjoyed working, and that, in conjunction with the additional income, made it worth me going back to work after a few weeks of maternity leave.
edit on 4/19/2012 by ~Vixen~ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by BrittanyLea
 


really, it's quite alarming....
I've been watching the trends for years, and have said this before!!! the income needed is just climbing up the income ladder.
at one time, minimum wage earners could find a decent sitter they could afford, lots of moms out there that were home and willing to take an kid for the extra income, now, you have teachers quitting because it more sense financially to not work than to pay a sitter???
and then you have this small group that really need to have the two incomes, otherwise, they are living in a worse state than the single moms on welfare....

so, well, what can I say, regardless of who you chose to blame for this mess...our economy is really messed up big time when college grads can't make enough to cover thier work expense..

we've all heard the term right to work, right?? well those teachers have the right to work, and they were working, till someone came along and meddled into the economy in this country and started subsidizing poor workers childcare at insane amounts, so insane those teachers can no longer afford to work!!! their right was stripped from them.....under to guise of "making those lazy welfare moms earn their bread"!!!



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
What's sad is my sister makes more then I do, and she sits on her butt all day doing nothing. She collects from the state. While I go out and find a hard working job, I sit on my arse all day because I get 4 hours a week plus I go to school. Pathetic. Something is wrong with this picture. Think I'll have my sister go get me disability so I can live the American dream.

I mean I am just as disabled as her. We both have the same disability. Okay not the same, I'm not crazy, she is.

edit on 19-4-2012 by Manhater because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Having a child, or creating a family with many children is nothing at all like purchasing expensive automobiles for your garage. A child, any child, is worth far more than any Jag, or Mercedes, or even an Aston Martin or Rolls Royce. Children are not privileges that belong only to those with a bank account and full approval of the current system, children are the right of any parent, and those children born then take their full rights as living creature, great or small.

The truth of the matter is, in regards to this economy, we all brought this on ourselves, and frankly, blame is irrelevant. Stay at home Mom's, doing so because it is more cost effective to do so, are women taking full responsibility for their family and motherhood, and do not deserve any derision or bogus blame for having a child without some elitists snobs approval.


Having a child is Not a Right. It is a Responsibility. Yes, they are more precious than cars - all the more reason to count the cost and have one only if you have the means to take care of one.

You don't go buy a car not knowing where the next payment will come from do you? You cannot have a child without knowing if you can feed and clothe that child at the least.

A Right? My God Man.. If it were a Right then homeless people could have em in droves ( and I suppose the government would pay for them too) . Free speech is a Right. The ability to bear arms is a Right. Having children is Not a Right.

This is whats wrong with this country today! Too many people having children who can't afford it, never had a clue how they can afford it, and then they wind getting assistance paid for by my tax dollars and up putting a strain on the economy that effects the rest of us., not to mention that kid doesn't get a quality life.

At one time I would have agreed with you that every couple should have children - but in today's climate money is very hard to come by in the amounts one needs to raise their kids properly.

I normally enjoy your posts but you are way off base on this one.

I agree that if they have kids moms should do what they can to best provide for those kids and if that means staying home is better, then so be it ( provided the husband can provide) Some people do have the best intentions and get stuck in a bad situation and do need assistance, But all too often people have kids without thinking. This must be stopped. Elitists snobs have nothing to do with this. I'm talking about common sense.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


When a couple decides the time is right, you are expecting them do know what their economic condition will be a decade and a half from now.

No working-class family can plan the next decade with any confidence. Only folks like the Romneys can manage such a thing.

I mean, the child could be born with an expensive disease.

Or the government could change the tax code. Or your industry could be wiped out. Or you could contract an expensive form of cancer. Or you could lose a lawsuit.

Someone famous once said, "It is the business of the future to be dangerous."

Let me guess, you grew up in a financially secure situation. It is usually the "haves" who are sure the "have nots" are unqualified to raise children.

Class warfare is insidious because we seldom recognize it when we are the perpetrators.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tovenar
 


Unless you have a fat bank account, and sometimes not even then can you be sure you are financially able to afford a kid for the next 18-24 years. Layoff, work injury, car accident, many many things, not forseeable can go wrong. Happens all the time, to people who are always doing the right and responsible thing. Some people don't see that. I didn't see that until the construction business crumbled before my eyes, it was unimaginable to me as a skilled worker, that I would be out of work for years.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Orrr,

Those of us who are providing members for the workforce, creating teachers and doctors, get a little slack for contributing to the society and the continuation of the human race.

Comparing children to a range rover is the dumbest thing I have seen on ATS.

Its actually pretty selfish that you insist two people carry the load of creating the cardiologist that will save your life and many others.
edit on 19-4-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


I dont mind government assistance so long as there are clear starting and ending points in place. Its one thing to have a child that is planned and go from there. Having a child simply to have a child while not having anything in place to help pay for that child is problematic.

As far as the expense of having / raising a child I completely agree on the expense. I see a catch 22 though because of the cost to watch over children while the parental units are at work.

Could a partial solution be to have businesses involved with work related daycare?



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I am a single mother of four, and a stay at home mom by choice. If I were to return to work, most of the money I did make would indeed have to pay for daycare. So I can compensate with those who can't afford to work.

PLPL



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


If they didn't extort us for gas and there were jobs that were not minimum wage crap ass jobs, this would not be the case, sadly it is... and child care is just pathetic 627 bucks a week and your kid will be either neglected or abused or both because these freaks don't have to pass psyche evals.

edit on 19-4-2012 by ldyserenity because: missing a letter



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by tovenar
 


When a couple decides the time is right, you are expecting them do know what their economic condition will be a decade and a half from now.

It's not really about predicting future economic conditions, but at least taking prudent steps to ensure that when you reach that juncture you're prepared to deal with the changing times. What is the outlook for your chosen career field? Do you have the skills necessary to remain competitive in that field long-term? If things go bad, do you have alternate job choices? What type of education do you have? Do you have savings/investments/insurance available to fall back on if things don't work out as planned? All of these questions, and more, need to be asked before you decide to build a family. People not planning ahead are most often the ones that are struggling financially.


I mean, the child could be born with an expensive disease.

Nothing is more heartbreaking than dealing with unprepared parents who need to work even in the most desperate of times.

I remember a situation several years ago when I lost a patient during surgery. I went to notify his parents, only to find Mom waiting alone. I asked where dad went, and she replied "oh, he went back to work." Having to break horrific news to parents is gut wrenching, but having to do so in the absence of a supportive spouse or loved one is beyond compare. Dad went back to work because they weren't prepared to support that child. They lacked the finances, and they had no insurance. If you aren't prepared to support that child, then you really have no reason to bring it into this world.


Someone famous once said, "It is the business of the future to be dangerous."

I'd counter by saying that when you're raising a family, you primary focus should be on stability rather than living dangerously.


Let me guess, you grew up in a financially secure situation. It is usually the "haves" who are sure the "have nots" are unqualified to raise children.

Class warfare is insidious because we seldom recognize it when we are the perpetrators.

I don't see this as a class issue, but rather an issue of responsibility. If you can't provide for the needs of a family, yo really shouldn't be having one until you can.


Originally posted by nixie_nox
Its actually pretty selfish that you insist two people carry the load of creating the cardiologist that will save your life and many others.

If you aren't prepared and can't afford to send that kid to medical school, that cardiologist will, likewise, never exist, and could very well end up as the next struggling WalMart checkout clerk.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by DavidWillts
I don't see the point in having children you cannot afford.


Pretty sad you have to be "rich" to be able to exercise your God given right to maternity.

You obviously don't have kids, or if you do................................


Just because you have the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. I have the "right" to destroy my car with a hammer and I have the right to crap my pants as I walk around town instead of stopping and using a bathroom. But just because i have the right to do those things does not make them any less stupid.

That is why people with lower IQs have more children, with the low IQ comes the tendency to make bad decisions.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


I agree that there should be some level of financial stability before procreating. However, it is so unstable nowadays and I think that's what many are trying to say. They were at one time stable and now are not. Things change. Lost jobs, health issues, lost spouse/partner etc. Also, if your scenario worked, there would be A LOT less people in the USA, world. Who's going to wipe all those rich old folks asses in the nursing home? Who's going to serve you your coffee and breakfast at Denny's? Who's going to pick the fruits and vegetables to sell at the supermarket? Who's going to be the school janitor. Because I'm sure you are well aware that well-bred rich people won't want their childen growing up to obtain those menial employment positions.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
What I did to combat this problem was to start driving a school bus because that was the only employer/job that would let me bring my baby to work with me, and the kids enjoyed playing with him too. It pays well too.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by ~Vixen~
 


I agree that there should be some level of financial stability before procreating. However, it is so unstable nowadays and I think that's what many are trying to say. They were at one time stable and now are not. Things change. Lost jobs, health issues, lost spouse/partner etc. Also, if your scenario worked, there would be A LOT less people in the USA, world. Who's going to wipe all those rich old folks asses in the nursing home? Who's going to serve you your coffee and breakfast at Denny's? Who's going to pick the fruits and vegetables to sell at the supermarket? Who's going to be the school janitor. Because I'm sure you are well aware that well-bred rich people won't want their childen growing up to obtain those menial employment positions.

I absolutely understand the challenges many face, and I applaud their efforts to responsibly provide for their families. Unfortunately many in the world aren't responsible, and this shortcoming manifests itself in many negative ways.

As far as population, I don't believe that we need to continue to reproduce at the rate that we currently do. We can't support or fully employ the 300+ million Americans that are already here. No need to exasperate the problem. For the younger generations the growth may not be overly apparent, however when I compare how things were 40+ years ago, I see a huge problem with congestion and overpopulation that we as a society cannot continue to sustain or ignore.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


All rights are a responsibility. Everyone has the right to life and they have a responsibility towards that life. Everyone has the right to speech and they have a responsibility towards that right. Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms and they have a responsibility towards that right. Everyone has the right to have children, and they have a responsibility towards that right.

You keep equating children with cars as if you're not getting that most are rejecting the lame analogy. Children are not cars, nor are they property, and you would think one proselytizing the responsibilities of children wouldn't need that explained to them.

You have no lawful authority what-so-ever to declare who has what rights. It is not up to you or anyone else to determine what is not a right. Further, you keep alluding to welfare as if you approve of the government program and do so in order to declare some bogus authority determining who can and who cannot have children. Again, you have no lawful authority to tell other people they can or cannot have children. Attempt to prevent a homeless person from having a child and that action would be criminal.

You like to yammer on in thread after thread, post after post, what is wrong with this country, but you can't seem to make up your mind. In this most recent post it is all the people you disapprove of having children that is the problem, but post after post, what I see is someone who endeavors to dismiss the unalienable rights of other people, and frankly that's what is wrong with this country, not all the homeless people having children, but the children who've determined that they do not have to respect the rights of others and they clearly believe they're the center of the universe.

Your whimsical nature is not a foundation for logic and reason, and law is law regardless of the time or circumstances. All law is rooted in the unalienable rights of individuals and these laws do not need your agreement in order to be law.

Tragically, in this day and age "common sense" is for the common who lack sense. It is common that common sense has become another word for mindless knee jerk emotions. If it were common sense you spoke to, you would not have dismissed the rights of others so easily, at least not without understanding that the very same eraser that erases other people's rights erases your own. Fortunately, and common sense will tell you so, unalienable rights cannot be erased.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join