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.
Originally posted by ~Vixen~
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)
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by CALGARIAN
We've struggled with this.
In our situation half of my wife's paycheck goes to childcare.
I feel the pain.
Originally posted by dawnstar
can anyone guess what
"you shouldn't have kids till you can afford them" and " you should have sex, unless you want a kid" equals???
let's all freak all those conservatives out and become celibate!!!
you shouldn't have kids unless you can afford them, and are sure you will be able to afford them 20 years down the line..
you shouldn't have sex, unless you want kids!!!
and let's keep knocking the availability of birth control pills....no, don't expect help if you want to take them, don't expect your insurance to pay for them...
just saying that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them, just doesn't cut the grade!!
having a miscarriage can get your a prison term in some states..
Originally posted by Damrod
Originally posted by ~Vixen~
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)
That is not quite fair or realistic. Consider this.
What happens when you and spouse have great jobs, a tidy little nest egg and decide "let's have a baby" and then TSHTF ...
and one or both of you lose your jobs? Say it's a deep recession and lasts for months or years and wages have dropped and jobs are more part time than full time....You can't plan on that scenario.
I saw this attitude pop up a couple times across this thread and I find it to be disheartening that selfish people say things like that...Do you really think if they chose differently it would effect what Uncle Sam is going to suck out of your paycheck? Hahaha....they are still going to take it and just spend it on more bullets and bombs.
Not everyone out there decided to have a child just to go on the dole...shiz happens sometimes that no one can possibly plan for.
But all that aside, if you do the math, it is not so hard to see why it becomes counter productive for both parents to work. Sure, you may have to adjust your lifestyle but so be it. It can be done and still be a good life....if you don't pine for wealth, extravagance and shiny toys and distractions.
My wife stayed at home till my youngest daughter was in high school and capable of getting herself in the house and fed after school. We didn't have a flashy life, but we had all we needed....and both kids turned out pretty good...scholarships and all.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There are some families who put off having a family until certain financial goals were met. This is fine, and as advise goes it is probably not a bad idea to actually plan a parenthood, but then again it would probably be nice if Planned Parenthood was exactly what the name implies instead of a contraceptive and abortion clinic.
If we're going to have a welfare system then those who accept assistance do not in any way what-so-ever surrender their rights. If the pompous and preening "taxpayer" has a problem with this then do away with welfare, but do not use welfare as a justification to argue against people's rights.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If we're going to have a welfare system then those who accept assistance do not in any way what-so-ever surrender their rights. If the pompous and preening "taxpayer" has a problem with this then do away with welfare, but do not use welfare as a justification to argue against people's rights.
I'm not sure what you mean, what do you mean by welfare as a justification to argue against people's rights? Im just not seeing that.
Most people hate Planned Parenthood over abortions, but that only accounts for 3% of their operations. Contraception is an integral part of family planning. I really don't see how that's a problem.
It is just nobody's business which adults have children when and how much they have in their bank accounts at the time of conception.
All through this thread I've seen plenty of insinuations that women on welfare should not have children.
They shouldn't but im not saying we should take away their right to have children. When you sign up for welfare to agree to their terms. One of those is that they are not going to cover any more children you decide to have.
I haven't made the pretentious, pompous, and preening "taxpayer" do a damn thing, and it was I who went straight to the elimination of welfare, and it was also I who asserted that neither side wanted anything to do with that, and here you are proving my point. You don't want to do away with welfare, because then you can't make pretentious arguments like "if the "taxpayer" is going to be made to pay for blah, blah, blah..."
Note the not so subtle change in pronoun from "their" to "you".
Let's get this straight. I have never been on welfare, and I am the one arguing let's get rid of welfare...you know that bomb I dropped that you're ignoring so you can keep blah, blah, blahing about "taxpayers" and "welfare" rules.
Your advocacy of a welfare system is worse than the hand wringing liberals.
Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You don't want to do away with welfare, because then you can't make pretentious arguments like "if the "taxpayer" is going to be made to pay for blah, blah, blah..."
I do want to get rid of welfare, but I have learned two things.
1. You must really like just reading what you write
2. You like to make things up to
And that is why i am done here.
I strongly disagree, if you are going to make the taxpayers pay for your children you are really making it their business by every definition of the word.