Epiphany
Established Member
meowzers!
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:54:10 GMT -5
Posts: 476
|
Post by Epiphany on Apr 6, 2011 13:32:32 GMT -5
But I think that the programs should provide 'help' rather than provide a 'living' - ie, teach a man to fish, not feed him a fish. UE should be on a declining scale, every week the check should be lowered to encourage finding a job (rather than gaming the system for 99 weeks). And we could have work camps to make use of some of the available labor. Agreed. The native american reservations are (mostly) a prime example and result of generational welfare.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Apr 6, 2011 13:35:15 GMT -5
What happens when one of the mothers has an addiction or mental health issue? What happens if one of the mothers is abusive to the other women or children? What happens when the one with the issues is really really really good at hiding them (or the other members of the household are terrified to say anything about the abuse)? What happens when one of the mothers has a family member or a boyfriend (doesn't have to be the baby's daddy) who's physically abusive and maybe one day turns up outside the group home with a gun or a can of gas and a match?
What happens when such a mother is successful at turning around her life - but then has to return to the environment that lead to her problems in the first place (she goes back 'home' to her family and friends)? Or what if her 'past environment' follows her to her new life? It's mighty hard to cut one's ties to family and friends and just start over and never speak of your past (or to your past) again.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 6, 2011 13:42:36 GMT -5
I think the main role of government is to ensure the protection of our civil liberties and safety. It should protect our freedoms set out in the Constitution and provide protection while not overstepping Constitutional authority. These are our real 'entitlements', and I think we often forget about this and instead focus on financial 'entitlements'.
As far as state policy for helping guard against poverty or starvation, I agree with Phil. A modest and efficient welfare state is needed to establish order and ensure that people who legitimately need assistance (such as those with severe disabilities) aren't overly punished for circumstances beyond their control. We can afford these types of expenditures very easily.
As far as food stamps, unemployment benefits, child benefits, health benefits are concerned, I think the government's role in financial matters is first to create conditions for economic growth. With growth comes the type of economic progress that is the foundation for anything. I support targeted and time-limited programs to help assist people through difficult transitions. Capitalist societies have to be destructive as inefficient industries and businesses give way to more efficient ones. A modest safety net helps keep people plugged into the system and able to move along with the economy.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 13:42:37 GMT -5
I disagree with Firebird's perspective that you can't let the children suffer. Using this logic, I should have been provided a Harvard education and have Bill Gates financial resources. Compared to Bill, I'm suffering.
I think that's apples and oranges. Defining suffering as not getting to go to Harvard is very, very different than defining suffering as starving. The latter is the scale I was using.
It's important to be reasonable in your definition of what constitutes suffering. Baseline survival is one thing; I'm very against providing anyone any hint of luxury for any reason. If they want that bad enough, they can get it themselves. A college education very much qualifies as a luxury item.
|
|
Anne_in_VA
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Posts: 5,509
|
Post by Anne_in_VA on Apr 6, 2011 13:45:27 GMT -5
I agree that we need to provide the most basic necessities of life for those who are down on their luck. The problem as I see it is that there are too many ways to scam the system including having more babies out of wedlock with no father in sight.
I've written many times on here about DIL who has two babies with two different baby daddies, gets WIC, food stamps, welfare, etc. She is currently going to college, but gets a subsidy for that too. It's my understanding that many of these programs end after a specified period of time, but she's going to milk all of them for as long as she can.
I also think that there needs to be some sort of training, like a technical school for those kids who don't have the aptitude or inclination for college. The mentally ill also need some sort of safety net. I've seen too many mentally ill that live on the streets because they can't get the help they need, whether it's medication, group housing or whatever. They've closed the psych hospitals as well as many group homes and where are these people supposed to go? In some cases, they were thrown out on the street with no aftercare.
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 6, 2011 13:51:09 GMT -5
Many people think that 'welfare' (meaning income supports to single parents, food assistance, housing vouchers) was drastically changed in 1996 to have strict time limits. It really wasn't.
The only time limits were limits placed on state aid that was in part paid by the federal government. States are allowed to (and most do!) let people stay on the system for their five years with the federal aid and then have a separate state program if they go past that point. If federal monies are not used in the program, it is perfectly legal. This is the case in many states with the highest welfare expenditures including California and New York.
If states have a completely state run program (as a few do), then the time limits don't even apply to them. The time limits also don't apply if the child is no longer living with the biological parent (in most states). Also, there are many exemptions if the child has any behavioral problems (like ADD or ADHD), the child needs special attention, the child has any illness, the parent is taking college classes, and so on and so on. A relatively small amount of people on welfare are bound by the time limits passed in the 1990's.
|
|
|
Post by sue on Apr 6, 2011 14:09:22 GMT -5
"One thing which 98% of the posters emphatically agree on is that the "poor" should be given significant assistance. To varying degrees, they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it."
Define "people who can't afford it". A lot of it comes down to choices. My ex does not have health insurance because... he can't afford it. Really? He smokes a pack+ a day, as does his stay at home wife, no kids in the home, but she is "disabled" so she can't work. I am not knocking anyone with a disability that legitimately prevents them from being employed, but the woman is able to do quite a bit... well, except actually WORK. He has several thousand of dollars "invested" in karaoke equipment for a side job that's never actually made money. His real job is being an independent contractor, construction, which in this part of the country means he works about 7 to 8 months out of the year. The other months he takes off because, well, he deserves it. He hasn't filed taxes in years. They have money to go to the bar every weekend. But, he can't afford health insurance...
|
|
mandyms
Established Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:31:11 GMT -5
Posts: 416
|
Post by mandyms on Apr 6, 2011 14:12:45 GMT -5
"One thing which 98% of the posters emphatically agree on is that the "poor" should be given significant assistance. To varying degrees, they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it." Define "people who can't afford it". A lot of it comes down to choices. My ex does not have health insurance because... he can't afford it. Really? He smokes a pack+ a day, as does his stay at home wife, no kids in the home, but she is "disabled" so she can't work. I am not knocking anyone with a disability that legitimately prevents them from being employed, but the woman is able to do quite a bit... well, except actually WORK. He has several thousand of dollars "invested" in karaoke equipment for a side job that's never actually made money. His real job is being an independent contractor, construction, which in this part of the country means he works about 7 to 8 months out of the year. The other months he takes off because, well, he deserves it. He hasn't filed taxes in years. They have money to go to the bar every weekend. But, he can't afford health insurance... Agreed. My ex is like this. Can afford a $600 car note, but can't afford insurance or to fix his heater in his house. Then wonders why he can't have our daughter on weekends...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 14:16:00 GMT -5
Most people who receive ongoing cash assistance are not on welfare, but getting SSI... i think that is a program that could use overhaul. But it is NOT the same program... "our forefathers never envisioned the "pursuit of happiness" would include what some people today view as the right to do and have whatever they want." Sure they did... You are allow to PURSUE whatever you want ... (as long as it doesn't impede anyone else's rights)... it says right to pursue... not right to obtain... firebird
|
|
Anne_in_VA
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:09:35 GMT -5
Posts: 5,509
|
Post by Anne_in_VA on Apr 6, 2011 14:22:41 GMT -5
stats - I Goggled my states welfare (Temporaary Assistance To Needy Families - TANF) program and there is a 60 month limit on the assistance that can be provided within certain guidelines and that is a lifetime limit. In addition, from what I've read, the adult caretaker may be required to participate in a training program as specified in the documents I read.
I did not see any other state programs for those who go beyond that 60 month limit.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Apr 6, 2011 14:32:46 GMT -5
You know, I might not be as against welfare as I am if it came with certain conditions... You must serve x hours of community service each week, or you have to show up to a building that is equipped with educational materials like math books, reference books, training books, etc, etc. There are computers to look for jobs. You can bring your kids to an on-site daycare. But you MUST show up at least 20 hours a week. No playing on the smart-phone, to tv, etc. But really, some families are just generation after generation of welfare queens because they've learned that no work = do whatever I want all day and I'll still be taken care of.
The rules, the way they are now, don't help the people who are trying to work their way up in life. I'd say more, but my lunch break is over and I have to go back to work, because no one else is paying my bills.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 14:40:09 GMT -5
I agree that i'd rather see education/works programs. I think there can be a big building where you go and leave your kids and either go take some career or trade classes, or get your days work assignment, and then collect your pay at the end of the day...
But i think this should be the way it is unless you are truely disabled (can't do ANY work... ) Even a lot of disabled people in our area, if they are capable, go to a work center that packages hangers... I don't see why we can't have 100% employment (you know what i mean)... with the government as employer of last option, but you work for the assistance/extended unemployment (whatever...) ... I'd much prefer a works program...
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Apr 6, 2011 14:52:15 GMT -5
I agree that i'd rather see education/works programs. I think there can be a big building where you go and leave your kids and either go take some career or trade classes, or get your days work assignment, and then collect your pay at the end of the day... But i think this should be the way it is unless you are truely disabled (can't do ANY work... ) Even a lot of disabled people in our area, if they are capable, go to a work center that packages hangers... I don't see why we can't have 100% employment (you know what i mean)... with the government as employer of last option, but you work for the assistance/extended unemployment (whatever...) ... I'd much prefer a works program... I would totally support this concept - even recognizing that it would, in the short term, cost more than our current system.... These centers would have to be located where they could be reached on foot or by public transportation - so there'd have to be a LOT of them! They'd have to be equipped and staffed. AND, the taxpayer would still be paying out what they are now in addition to all of the above....$$$$
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 14:53:24 GMT -5
"One thing which 98% of the posters emphatically agree on is that the "poor" should be given significant assistance. To varying degrees, they are strong advocates for subsidizing lifetime healthcare, free food, free/reduced education, free/reduced housing, free/reduced transportation, etc, for people who can't afford it." Define "people who can't afford it". A lot of it comes down to choices. My ex does not have health insurance because... he can't afford it. Really? He smokes a pack+ a day, as does his stay at home wife, no kids in the home, but she is "disabled" so she can't work. I am not knocking anyone with a disability that legitimately prevents them from being employed, but the woman is able to do quite a bit... well, except actually WORK. He has several thousand of dollars "invested" in karaoke equipment for a side job that's never actually made money. His real job is being an independent contractor, construction, which in this part of the country means he works about 7 to 8 months out of the year. The other months he takes off because, well, he deserves it. He hasn't filed taxes in years. They have money to go to the bar every weekend. But, he can't afford health insurance... I gave you karma for this, Sue. This is what people who yell about taking care of the "poor" don't seem to take into account as often as they should. Plenty - not all, but plenty - of people are poor by choice.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Apr 6, 2011 14:56:46 GMT -5
My ex does not have health insurance because... he can't afford it. Really? He smokes a pack+ a day, as does his stay at home wife, no kids in the home, but she is "disabled" so she can't work. I am not knocking anyone with a disability that legitimately prevents them from being employed, but the woman is able to do quite a bit... well, except actually WORK. He has several thousand of dollars "invested" in karaoke equipment for a side job that's never actually made money. His real job is being an independent contractor, construction, which in this part of the country means he works about 7 to 8 months out of the year. The other months he takes off because, well, he deserves it. He hasn't filed taxes in years. They have money to go to the bar every weekend. But, he can't afford health insurance...
It seems to me that the healthcare reform law addressees exactly this issue.....
|
|
stats45
Established Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 16:52:12 GMT -5
Posts: 415
|
Post by stats45 on Apr 6, 2011 15:09:48 GMT -5
Hi Anne. Here is a great resource about welfare time limits. www.mdrc.org/publications/51/overview.html50% of all welfare cases are in New York and California, two states that have state programs that are not bound by TANF rules. This means that there are effectively no real time limits for most people. You can also see that few people actually have had benefits stopped because of time limits. This is in part due to all of the expections and exemptions on the state level. I do agree that the work requirements (or training requirements) were a good reform.
|
|
parker1b2
Established Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 21:51:28 GMT -5
Posts: 256
|
Post by parker1b2 on Apr 6, 2011 15:11:02 GMT -5
I was listening to talk radio today and they said that currently since times are tough 41 million Americans are receiving food stamps. But what I found interesting is that if you are a family of four and make 50k or less a year you can qualify for food stamps. Yes some people need help, but if you are making 50k a year I don't think you should qualify. The system is broken.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 15:17:21 GMT -5
Healthful food, basic shelter, basic medical care, education and a certain degree of safety.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 15:24:44 GMT -5
Someone wrote something on the blog I referenced in the OP that has been sticking in my mind ever since I read it (and actually it more or less inspired this post). It said something like, "In every nation in every time period in the entire world, it has always sucked to be poor. There's never going to be a society where it doesn't suck to be poor. [Evil, bloodsucking Republicans] want to make things better for the rich because it's never going to not suck to be poor anyway, so why not just let them deal with their fate and improve things for people who actually have something upon which to improve?"
But a couple of things popped into my head when I read that:
1) Our definition of "poor" is very, very different than a lot of countries. Yes, some people are homeless and hungry here but our welfare system (for better or worse) is so vast and expansive, and charity organizations are so prolific, that while poverty is no fun here, it's not a matter of life and death as much as it is in other countries, where you can quite literally starve to death because there's not enough food to go around.
2) If it's always going to suck to be poor (which I agree with), then as a poor person wouldn't your first priority be to stop being poor as soon as possible? It certainly was for me when I was broke. I could barely focus on anything that wasn't directly related to getting myself out of the mess I was in, because I knew that mess (left unchecked) was going to lead directly to a life of poverty and it was really going to suck and I didn't want that. So I made every effort to get myself out, ASAP.
3) Following up on #2, it's not really the world's job to care about your personal circumstances. I know that sounds cold and is really easy for me to say, but honestly? It's true in a cold sort of way. If you look around and realize, hey, no one gives a crap about my bad financial situation, so it's up to ME to fix it, THAT'S when things start to turn around. Only in this country, we DO give a crap about people who are in financial trouble so that realization never happens.
Personal responsibility will always win the day for me but again, I wonder how much of my own outlook comes from the fact that I've been very lucky, my big risks have pretty much worked out for me, and I started out with a much better hand than an awful lot of people. It's easy to take responsibility for my choices (and want others to do the same) when my choices have mostly led to positive results for me.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 15:26:48 GMT -5
Healthful food, basic shelter, basic medical care, education and a certain degree of safety.
How much education, Anne? Because personally, college is REALLY pushing it for me. Yes, college is expensive but a lot of people deal with that by working while they're in school, keeping their loans manageable, and choosing marketable majors. I see no reason why others that choose not to do those things should get a free ride.
And how much medical care? Should we be required to give everyone expensive cancer treatments, or just not to let them die if they're bleeding from the head?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 15:35:16 GMT -5
Firebird.... ADULTS can choose to be poor... Children have no choice...
Having college educated adults helps ALL of us... we have an intelligent, innovate workforce and voting citizenry... College educated people are less likely to lose their jobs in a recession and more likely to make more income (and pay more taxes) than non college educated people...
I'm not saying everyone needs a 100K education... but i think that basic, state school education at a reasonable price (ie. what the federal government is willing to hand out in loans, i think its like 35K? ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 15:36:42 GMT -5
I think that we should have quality pre-k through 12th grade instruction. It's shocking how much of college is spent on remedial work. I believe that if kids got a good education through high school most would only need 2-3 years of college, unless it was something like an engineering major. That would reduce the overall price of college. Pre-k programs have been shown to increase academic and social skills.
For medical care: I believe all women should access to family planning/gynecological health services. I personally draw the line at extremely expensive treatments/surgeries that will not improve the quality of life or extend life only a few months if it is funded through the government. I also don't like the use of expensive equipment when cheaper methods work just fine. A local surgeon is one of the few people who are trained on using a remote, robotic arm to do surgery through a camera. He was interviewed on what he thought about it. He said that there is no proof for the average person that the outcomes are better (the technology in this procedure was developed for the military) and the equipment is expensive - driving up the cost of the surgery - but that his patients demand it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 15:45:43 GMT -5
5% of medicare patients die each year... a full 30%- 1/3 of medicare each year is spent on THOSE patients. We need end of life planning, long before the end comes, so that patients are not being subjected to interventions that they do not want... and as Anne says we need to be realistic about extremely expensive treatments/surgeries that will not improve the quality of life or extnend life only a few months... The government should pay for proven methods with good track records.
We also need to change pharama..
If we could do these things, we could better afford to give everyone health care...
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 15:49:50 GMT -5
Firebird.... ADULTS can choose to be poor... Children have no choice... Having college educated adults helps ALL of us... we have an intelligent, innovate workforce and voting citizenry... College educated people are less likely to lose their jobs in a recession and more likely to make more income (and pay more taxes) than non college educated people... I'm not saying everyone needs a 100K education... but i think that basic, state school education at a reasonable price (ie. what the federal government is willing to hand out in loans, i think its like 35K? ... I disagree. I mean, college is a great thing but it's very much a luxury item, and there are already ways to make it affordable. And most people go to college at 18 or older. At 18, you're an adult, not a child.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 5:39:31 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 15:51:17 GMT -5
Two separate things theres... sorry... the first as that children don't actually get a choice in being poor...
The college thing was a separate thing... I think what most of us forget is the societal benefits we all get from these programs.
|
|
ronbuck
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 14:23:47 GMT -5
Posts: 54
|
Post by ronbuck on Apr 6, 2011 15:53:50 GMT -5
"What do you think that people are entitled to have, regardless of their income level, background, personal finances, or anything else?"
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
|
|
Post by sue on Apr 6, 2011 15:54:20 GMT -5
"I gave you karma for this, Sue." Yay, karma... thanks, Firebird "It seems to me that the healthcare reform law addressees exactly this issue..... " gardeninggrandma... while I went off a bit on a rant about my ex, the point I was trying to make is that "poor" is not always all that "poor". I smile when people categorize me as "poor"... single mom, 2 kids, $25k/yr, you get the picture. In the interest of full disclosure- yes, my kids have been on state medical before. Yeah, I'd like to make more money to have more options, but I don't feel "poor". I pay my bills every month, we have food on the table, a house that's ours, clothes and a car that's paid off. Yeah, we live in a very LCOL area, but my pay meets all of our needs and quite a few of our wants. That is not "poor" IMO, not something the government should be subsidizing. I have an EF and retirement funds, neither as high as I'd like them, but they're growing. I compare it to my ex who makes similar money but very, very different choices. I occasionally get to hear "must be nice" from my ex. There is no explaining to him that he could have what I have if only he made some different choices. If he has money, it has to be spent. I think I'm one of the few people I know whose standard of living actually increased when I got divorced?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 15:55:58 GMT -5
I think that we should have quality pre-k through 12th grade instruction. It's shocking how much of college is spent on remedial work. I believe that if kids got a good education through high school most would only need 2-3 years of college, unless it was something like an engineering major. That would reduce the overall price of college. Pre-k programs have been shown to increase academic and social skills. For medical care: I believe all women should access to family planning/gynecological health services. I personally draw the line at extremely expensive treatments/surgeries that will not improve the quality of life or extend life only a few months if it is funded through the government. I also don't like the use of expensive equipment when cheaper methods work just fine. A local surgeon is one of the few people who are trained on using a remote, robotic arm to do surgery through a camera. He was interviewed on what he thought about it. He said that there is no proof for the average person that the outcomes are better (the technology in this procedure was developed for the military) and the equipment is expensive - driving up the cost of the surgery - but that his patients demand it. On the first point I agree with you - but there again, what does "quality" mean? There was that thread a few weeks ago about someone's friend trying to lie her way into a different school district because they weren't planning on being in their neighborhood by the time the kids were school-age, so it didn't matter that the schools sucked. That's bad planning, and I don't think that family is entitled to lie to get a higher-quality education than they were willing to pay for in the first place. And anyway, who's to say they wouldn't have gotten a "quality" education in their own district? I basically agree with your take on health care, although it gets slimy since there are so many experimental treatments of diseases that may or may not extend life, and there are so many people who don't want to support abortion, etc. etc.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 15:59:01 GMT -5
Two separate things theres... sorry... the first as that children don't actually get a choice in being poor... The college thing was a separate thing... I think what most of us forget is the societal benefits we all get from these programs. Sorry for misunderstanding. I did lump those together. But how do you propose we pay for everyone to get a college education? Why should people who are already paying for their own selves/children to get a college education be forced to subsidize the college education of other people just because they didn't plan for it?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Apr 6, 2011 16:02:22 GMT -5
"I gave you karma for this, Sue." Yay, karma... thanks, Firebird "It seems to me that the healthcare reform law addressees exactly this issue..... " gardeninggrandma... while I went off a bit on a rant about my ex, the point I was trying to make is that "poor" is not always all that "poor". I smile when people categorize me as "poor"... single mom, 2 kids, $25k/yr, you get the picture. In the interest of full disclosure- yes, my kids have been on state medical before. Yeah, I'd like to make more money to have more options, but I don't feel "poor". I pay my bills every month, we have food on the table, a house that's ours, clothes and a car that's paid off. Yeah, we live in a very LCOL area, but my pay meets all of our needs and quite a few of our wants. That is not "poor" IMO, not something the government should be subsidizing. I have an EF and retirement funds, neither as high as I'd like them, but they're growing. I compare it to my ex who makes similar money but very, very different choices. I occasionally get to hear "must be nice" from my ex. There is no explaining to him that he could have what I have if only he made some different choices. If he has money, it has to be spent. I think I'm one of the few people I know whose standard of living actually increased when I got divorced? You deserve even more karma for this, since you're an excellent example of people who make the necessary choices to live within their means without expecting help from anyone. I can't imagine it's easy to make $25k work for a family of three, but not only do you do it, you're saving and investing to boot. Major kudos.
|
|