Moms: I cannot afford to work!!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ~Vixen~

 

There was no insinuation, I flat out stated you used a remark I made to point out the irony of a thread where people want to scoff at the idea of poor people having children and how they believe parenting takes planning, and how Planned Parenthood is anything but planning a family, and you decided to ignore that and instead sold Planned Parenthood. I never asked anyone if they could supply some data on Planned Parenthood, and I didn't even make my post in reply to any of yours. Entrench yourself all you want on this issue, your post on Planned Parenthood was clearly a defense of that organization.

What I said...

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.
********
I don't agree with their stance on certain issues, however they do provide some services that are beneficial to many, such as contraception. Appreciating such services isn't an endorsement, it's simply acknowledging that they do also contribute positively to our society, and aren't infinitely evil as many would choose to believe.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

There is no perfect plan for that, however too many people go in with NO planning whatsoever. When they face that prospect, they have no money saved, they have no insurance coverage for the child, and that childs welfare is put in jeopardy because of it. Ewings is a very rare affliction, however much of the treatment costs should be covered by insurance coverage. Upfront planning to ensure our children are protected in cases such as that is what I've been advocating throughout this thread. To answer your question directly, I believe I put away approx $20k for each of my first two, and $400k on my third. (due to known prenatal medical issues)

Whooa am i understanding you right , you saved 400 k before having your 3rd child? I dont know any middle class familys who could do that.

Why dont we put the blame where it really lies, the corrupt government and the people who let it ruin the country. Things are more expensive because the dollar isnt worth what it used to be and will be worth toilet paper one day soon if things continue. Remember when men were the sole providers and a family could leave off a single income? The Fed reserve constantly printing endless money for bail outs and the next war have devalued the dollar so much. The cost of living rising and your pay not rising in tide with it.

Their is a reason in the 50s you could raise a family on a single income and now you cant. And it has nothing to do with single moms, welfare recipients or the like.

Look no further than DC and also the laid back lemming dumbed down American populace who allowed our politicians to run the dollar and this country into the dirt.

Originally posted by Deranged74
Whooa am i understanding you right , you saved 400 k before having your 3rd child? I dont know any middle class familys who could do that.

When we planned our first two kids, both my husband and I were active duty military officers. $20k was a huge investment, but our belief was that it was our ultimate responsibility, as parents, to ensure that their needs were always met.

By the time we planned our 3rd child almost 20 years later, I was a doctor and my husband was a senior engineer with a well known aerospace corporation. We initially planned to nest $50k for her, but when we found out about certain prenatal medical conditions, we liquidated some assets and raised the available amount accordingly. I'll admit that our situation isn't necessarily indicative of what may be considered "mainstream," however the concept of parental responsibility remains the same.

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Originally posted by Deranged74
Whooa am i understanding you right , you saved 400 k before having your 3rd child? I dont know any middle class familys who could do that.

When we planned our first two kids, both my husband and I were active duty military officers. $20k was a huge investment, but our belief was that it was our ultimate responsibility, as parents, to ensure that their needs were always met.

By the time we planned our 3rd child almost 20 years later, I was a doctor and my husband was a senior engineer with a well known aerospace corporation. We initially planned to nest $50k for her, but when we found out about certain prenatal medical conditions, we liquidated some assets and raised the available amount accordingly. I'll admit that our situation isn't necessarily indicative of what may be considered "mainstream," however the concept of parental responsibility remains the same.

Like your thinking.

What amazes me in all of this is the idea that people should be free to exercise their right to procreate, no matter the cost to the state.

Hasn't life changed in the last 40 years? My grandmother had 9 children and a hard life of poverty because she had little control due to contraception being unavailable at that point.

Exercising a right to procreate feels like a concept which is based on some people having lost their grip on reality.

Having children is costly, I cannot align my thinking with the idea that anyone other than the parents should be picking up the bill.

I understand that children are the future, but I find it unbelievable that people feel they have a "right" to bring another human being into the world. The right to be a parent.

Isnt that a little bit of weird logic?

reply to post by Deranged74

The minimum wage was put in place so that dad could go out to work and support his family while mom stayed home and raised the kids.


I'm sure it was a nice idea at the time. Too bad that still doesn't work today.

We also made the decision of me quitting my job to stay home when we found out we were having twins. My entire paycheck would have gone towards daycare and gas, so I wasn't about to go work to pay someone else to raise my babies. I work from home though and I was so lucky to find the job I have because we were strapped. His income alone without any overtime will pay the bills but that's it, so my job helps as I buy the groceries and extras we need.

reply to post by selfharmonise


There are tons of studies and stats that show the smarter the person the later in life they wait to have kids.

And lets face it. it's cheap to have sex.
especially when you are poor and don't have anything else to do.

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
People bring this on themselves. people should Not have children if they first do not sit down and figure if the can actually afford children or not.

Well obviously people have been having children since time began. It's only in more modern era of the last few hundred years that less moneyed women have been condemned for doing it.

The difference is that back in the day (30's, 40's) ,families were increased due to needing help on the farms/ cotton fields (this is true). So it was nothing to know a woman who had 10 children. In fact, it was the norm...(Think about how many kids most of your grandmothers have)

Nowadays, technology has taken over much if not all of that labor. It makes no sense to have 10 children.

reply to post by selfharmonise


Not weird at all. In fact, its the way that I believe. Reproduction should be regulated; its not a right, its a privilege, and with all privileges, they are made to be revoked if not done responsibly.

Wow, I think JPZ nailed quite a few of you to the wall.

As for "having the money", There are plenty of rich people who have money flowing out of their ears who can't raise children. My husband brings in about 40K a year, I hustle on ebay to make money. I was 28 when I had my son, was married for 6 years at that point. Didn't plan it at all, just kinda happened. I guess that must make me some kind of low-IQ slobbering welfare queen. Of course, I've never gotten any welfare, but whatever. I'm not well-off, guess i shouldn't have had a kid.

You will never be ready for a kid no matter much money you've got. You think it solves every problem. Nope, your kid can still be a screwed up mess no matter how much money you have. Oh, and the longer you put it off the harder it's gonna be on ya when you have it. Sorry, I didn't want to be 50 and chasing a 10 year old around.

I never thought I'd see the day when people on this site actually advocated for those without money to be denied their reproductive rights. People in the U.S. seem to have nothing but contempt for those they perceive as "poor" and they fawn at the feet of the rich. Maybe they will throw you some table scraps, who knows?

Originally posted by antonia
Wow, I think JPZ nailed quite a few of you to the wall.

As for "having the money", There are plenty of rich people who have money flowing out of their ears who can't raise children. My husband brings in about 40K a year, I hustle on ebay to make money. I was 28 when I had my son, was married for 6 years at that point. Didn't plan it at all, just kinda happened. I guess that must make me some kind of low-IQ slobbering welfare queen. Of course, I've never gotten any welfare, but whatever. I'm not well-off, guess i shouldn't have had a kid.

You will never be ready for a kid no matter much money you've got. You think it solves every problem. Nope, your kid can still be a screwed up mess no matter how much money you have. Oh, and the longer you put it off the harder it's gonna be on ya when you have it. Sorry, I didn't want to be 50 and chasing a 10 year old around.

I never thought I'd see the day when people on this site actually advocated for those without money to be denied their reproductive rights. People in the U.S. seem to have nothing but contempt for those they perceive as "poor" and they fawn at the feet of the rich. Maybe they will throw you some table scraps, who knows?]

Saying that people should ensure that they can afford kids before having them isn't looking down on anyone, it's advocating responsibility for your choices before dragging a child into a potentially hazardous situation.

Our kids are important and absolutely deserve better than that.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


I'm laughing out loud. Really. One must be a doctor and have save nearly half a million dollars before having a child? That takes the cake. Must be nice living in your superior world. Us "unfortunates" who only make $150k a year could NEVER save $400k cash in ten years, unless we eat at the local charity and live on the streets. Is that a magical number or something? What happens when you get in a car crash and cant be a doctor anymore? Did you set aside another $2 million for that? Poppycock.

How about when your hunny no longer finds you attractive and you get divorced - by your reason you have planned for this too - split your income...and how about when your house burns down? I'm sure you planned for that. What other contingencies did you plan on? What exactly does $400k cover? Nice you thought to save money - so did we. Spending over $100k in one year alone on medical bills wipes out our (upper 80%) income. Nice yours is in the top 95%. Again, apparently only doctors and engineers who marry should have kids - this is what can be deduced by your theory - also, by your reasoning, many (without going into detail - I can if you want me too) of the worlds GREATEST HUMANS should NOT have been born because their parents weren't filthy rich. Do you know how many people are not as fortunate as you had children who eventually made the instruments you depend upon and even gave you and your hubby jobs? According to you, these people should NOT have been born. Eletist and absurd.

Ah what h...here are some people who never should have been born according to you:

Poor people who never should have been born according to some

again

CJ

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I am getting nothing but romanticism here.

For every 'superstar', how many are living in abject poverty?

What's the percentage?

You don't need to be stinking rich to have kids, you only need enough.

Vixen's only mistake was mentioning the scale of her personal wealth. That's raised jealousy in the inverted snobs on the board.

The point she makes is good.

She held off parenthood until she felt she could afford it.

Those measures are personal.

Everyone should exhibit that level of responsibility.

Forget the scale, accept the concept of parental financial responsibility.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by selfharmonise

 

Not weird at all. In fact, its the way that I believe. Reproduction should be regulated; its not a right, its a privilege, and with all privileges, they are made to be revoked if not done responsibly.

I think that's the point I made.

Reread my post.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ~Vixen~

 

I'm laughing out loud. Really. One must be a doctor and have save nearly half a million dollars before having a child? That takes the cake. Must be nice living in your superior world. Us "unfortunates" who only make $150k a year could NEVER save $400k cash in ten years, unless we eat at the local charity and live on the streets. Is that a magical number or something? What happens when you get in a car crash and cant be a doctor anymore? Did you set aside another $2 million for that? Poppycock.

I never said that you needed to put away that much, but you should put SOMETHING away. I put a lot away because my daughter had a congenital heart defect that I knew was going to be expensive and require extra attention. It happens, but as a parent, the responsible thing to do was to prepare ahead of time.. Having money doesn't guarantee anything, and even with a lot of money put away my daughter still died at the age of 3 months.

You talk about me living in my "superior world," but you never realize that despite greater earning potential, some of us actually donate to charities and help those in need. I probably donate more money to charity than a lot of people make total, but I feel that if my contributions can save other families the grief that I had to endure it's all worthwhile.

How about when your hunny no longer finds you attractive and you get divorced - by your reason you have planned for this too - split your income...and how about when your house burns down? I'm sure you planned for that. What other contingencies did you plan on? What exactly does $400k cover? Nice you thought to save money - so did we. Spending over $100k in one year alone on medical bills wipes out our (upper 80%) income. Nice yours is in the top 95%. Again, apparently only doctors and engineers who marry should have kids - this is what can be deduced by your theory - also, by your reasoning, many (without going into detail - I can if you want me too) of the worlds GREATEST HUMANS should NOT have been born because their parents weren't filthy rich. Do you know how many people are not as fortunate as you had children who eventually made the instruments you depend upon and even gave you and your hubby jobs? According to you, these people should NOT have been born. Eletist and absurd.

I'm sure you'll also be overjoyed to learn that my "elitist" husband is also passed. Money doesn't make one better, nor does it make us immune. We may make more, but some of us also contribute more to help those who aren't as fortunate. I've donated countless hours of my time treating patients FREE OF CHARGE, including MANY while practicing at Children's Hospital in Aurora, CO. I guess that doesn't make a difference though, huh?

reply to post by ~Vixen~


Christmas in a side car. Now why would you think I would be happy to hear your husband died? Additionally, what does philanthropy have to do with it? So I must have missed your point. Saving $38 dollars for your children is now just as good as $400k - as long as you saved the $38. Got it.

CJ

reply to post by selfharmonise


Mmmhmmm. Again, so if I save $12 dollars I'm all good to go? Got it.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by ~Vixen~

 

Christmas in a side car. Now why would you think I would be happy to hear your husband died? Additionally, what does philanthropy have to do with it? So I must have missed your point. Saving $38 dollars for your children is now just as good as $400k - as long as you saved the $38. Got it.

CJ

[snip] I'm so sick of people that would trivialize a persons suffering simply because they have a belief in responsibility.

What pisses me off even more is that the majority of my donations were made in Colorado while practicing at Children's Hospital in Aurora. I've worked hard to benefit your own community, and all I get is grief. You go ahead, save your $12 and raise that child on hopes and prayers. I just believe that such makes you irresponsible.

reply to post by ~Vixen~


What? Again, where in the world would you get any inkling I would be happy about your personal loss? And again, what does your giving of your time have anything to do with having children?

Edit to add: If you are doing charity work to make yourself feel better than you may want to rethink the point of it. IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU.

Edit to add: Perhaps it was you that helped us in deciding NOT to go to Children's Hospital for our treatment. Nasty know it alls who "give" their time while expecting people to bow at their feet all the while they secretly feel pity for those they are helping. Sheesh.
CJ

Originally posted by ~Vixen~

Saying that people should ensure that they can afford kids before having them isn't looking down on anyone, it's advocating responsibility for your choices before dragging a child into a potentially hazardous situation.

Our kids are important and absolutely deserve better than that.

And once again, you are boiling it down to money in the bank. There are plenty of people with money in the bank who can't raise a kid. The Hilton's come to mind. Their kids are wild ass floozies. All the money in the world didn't spare them the embarrassment of having a kid give a blowjob on camera. It doesn't seem to save the Karadashin's who have several empty headed tits for brains daughters. So how did money help them? Money may help you survive, but it's not going to make you any better at raising a good human being. Plenty of people have been raised quite well on hopes and dreams. Poverty isn't a death sentence or the end of one's life. It doesn't mean you are doomed to always be poor.

The simple fact is it's easy for you sit and pass judgement when you were never in the shoes of the people you condemn. Stuff happens, some women get married and have kids then get dumped for another woman, some women get married and their husband dies, some women have kids and then happen to get disabled. Dispite what you say, life happens and you can't plan for all of it.

Either way, I don't get what this has to do with the OP. These women aren't welfare sponges. They just made the calculated choice to stay home because working wasn't profitable. The very fact they can stay at home shows financial stability in today's economy. I will say this, I live in Tennessee. If you can't live on 40K in Tennessee you need to think about your priorites. You will not live lavishly, but you will live well.