muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 16:02:00 GMT -5
How far in advance should we have planned? What is the acceptable level of planning in advance is ok?
I mean should I have planned for my husband to have 4 surgeries in 4 years. Or maybe it should have been 12. We have health insurance, so that was planned for, but you still have to pay the deductibles (times every year).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:04:08 GMT -5
And to answer Angel's previous talks about "going underground" and "begging and stealing". I'm not even talking about forcibly taking your kid from you. I'm talking about if you want to receive welfare under some kind of program (whichever programs are vetted out for that), then in exchange we're going to take care of your kid while you get on your feet. I don't necessarily want it for every welfare program, or on day 1 of receiving aid, or forcibly. If you want to downgrade your lifestyle and not take the aid, then great.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:04:48 GMT -5
Than IMO you are arguing that the majority of Americans don't love their kids.
Because a hell of a lot of people - NOT just the ones receiving aid - don't plan as well as they should. Even YM-ers. Many get lucky and it works out for them. Some hit hard times temporarily but muddle through. And yes, some end up on aid. Most wean themselves off it.
I think sometimes we tend to forget that we are a very self-selecting, financially literate, above-average-intelligence population, and not everyone thinks the way we do.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:05:07 GMT -5
::Which is good in theory, but pretty unenforceable without a major violation of constitutional rights.::
How? You have another kid, you lose your funding.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 25, 2012 16:06:21 GMT -5
::But, do you really think that if I lose my job & remain unemployed for 6 months & can only find a McJob after that, that it is truly in my kid's best interest to be in an orphanage?:: Personally, I don't think unemployment is welfare, so you can collect that all you want. And personally, I think you can probably afford your kid on a McJob. I pay $17K/yr in daycare. So without some sort of subsidies or welfare, I find it very unlikely that I could. If my kids were older, it would be a different story. Of course, by that point I probably would be uninsured, have lost my house, & moved in with my parents. So I suppose after working 12 hour nights I could always convince my mom to stay up all day & watch the kids so I can work. I think what started this conversation is that someone said these kids should be put in orphanages & put up for adoption. Orphanage or whatever, I think it would be emotionally more damaging to have kids moving around when we could give the parents some food stamps or whatever instead. Since both programs have cost & one is emotionally better for the child, then why make it harder than it needs to be except if you are trying to punish the parents.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:06:30 GMT -5
::How far in advance should we have planned? What is the acceptable level of planning in advance is ok? ::
Well what everyone seems to be talking about as an example is needing food stamps during a short term unemployment. I certainly think being able to provide food for a few months is a pretty low threshold.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Oct 25, 2012 16:06:57 GMT -5
Which is good in theory, but pretty unenforceable without a major violation of constitutional rights. The only way I can see it working is paying people NOT to have kids (isn't there a country that does that?) A country you mentioned earlier - India - used to offer men a clock radio or small amount of money in exchange for a vasectomy. Here in the US, I'd be willing to set up a program that offers an iPad in exchange for vasectomies.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:07:07 GMT -5
Sorry, I misread that as somehow forcing people not to have kids.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 21:17:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 16:07:26 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but my grandfather and his siblings were in an actual orphanage in this country during the 1930s. I think that isn't such the great plan it is touted to be...
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:07:55 GMT -5
Which is good in theory, but pretty unenforceable without a major violation of constitutional rights. The only way I can see it working is paying people NOT to have kids (isn't there a country that does that?) A country you mentioned earlier - India - used to offer men a clock radio or small amount of money in exchange for a vasectomy. Here in the US, I'd be willing to set up a program that offers an iPad in exchange for vasectomies. Totally! (I swear there is some country that gives people a tax refund/EITC-type credit for not having children, or for only having one child... looking it up now.)
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:08:47 GMT -5
::I pay $17K/yr in daycare. So without some sort of subsidies or welfare, I find it very unlikely that I could. If my kids were older, it would be a different story. Of course, by that point I probably would be uninsured, have lost my house, & moved in with my parents. So I suppose after working 12 hour nights I could always convince my mom to stay up all day & watch the kids so I can work.::
In a vacuum...you're right. I also think we need to provide more aid for things like childcare, low income housing, job training, etc. You get more leeway if you're willing to pack up your life and move to an area where workers are needed. You get more leeway if you're willing to take job training in areas where we need more people trained.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Oct 25, 2012 16:09:50 GMT -5
Which is good in theory, but pretty unenforceable without a major violation of constitutional rights. The only way I can see it working is paying people NOT to have kids (isn't there a country that does that?) How would doing that be a violation of constitutional rights? I'm not a lawyer but I don't remember anywhere in the constitution that says a person has the right to get government assistance to support children they can't afford. That can't be in the constitution otherwise they would have had things like SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, etc in the 1700s (The fact that we didn't have these until the 1900s is telling). All this is saying is that we will help support the children you have if you have fallen on tough times. You choose to have more kids while on assistance, you are on your own. I can't see what's wrong with that. It isn't the govt saying you can't have kids... it is the govt saying we won't support those children. And govt support of children is not in the constitution. So breed away... just don't put your hand out for anything..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 28, 2024 21:17:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 16:09:52 GMT -5
::How far in advance should we have planned? What is the acceptable level of planning in advance is ok? :: Well what everyone seems to be talking about as an example is needing food stamps during a short term unemployment. I certainly think being able to provide food for a few months is a pretty low threshold. Some people end up with spouses who are ill. Some people never make it to a well paid job because they can't. This very much effects one's ability to save and prepare. We made 90K a year when we had our kids. Just sayin'
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:10:45 GMT -5
::Than IMO you are arguing that the majority of Americans don't love their kids. ::
And?
It's a lot more fashionable to talk about how you'd die for your kids than to admit the truth that for a LOT (I won't say majority even if I think it might be true) of people, loving their kids is really based on a selfish motivation.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:11:30 GMT -5
I already said I misread it...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:12:30 GMT -5
::We made 90K a year when we had our kids. Just sayin' ::
It's not how much you make when it comes to whether you've planned for the hard times.
::This very much effects one's ability to save and prepare. ::
the point is that you save and prepare BEFORE having the kids, so if you haven't saved and prepared already, you don't have them.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:13:23 GMT -5
What type of plans are you talking about, then?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:15:28 GMT -5
What type of plans are you talking about, then? I'm just saying if you make $150K, but you spend $150K, you haven't done much to plan for the hard times. Amount made per year doesn't tell much, other than a potential opportunity to save. It doesn't mean anyone's actually saved. Emergency funds, insurance, etc. Obviously more income makes that more possible, but I do feel a lot of people have the attitude "I make enough to support kids so I'm being responsible having them", when the reality is they haven't actually done any planning whatsoever for any hard times in the future.
|
|
Mardi Gras Audrey
Senior Member
So well rounded, I'm pointless...
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Mardi Gras Audrey on Oct 25, 2012 16:24:40 GMT -5
From what I've seen (Many of my friends and relatives are on/have been on various aid programs over the years), the "needs" keep getting refined and higher. It used to be you just needed shelter, energy, food, and a home phone. Now, you need a room for each person (even children, no sharing), cable TVs, cell phones, etc.
For things like WIC, the income threshold seems to be too high. I think people let this one go because we like the idea of providing food and nutrients to children (see that as a"good program"). I do know people who are on it right now but are probably people that would get skewered here (One guy I know's family is on it because his wife doesnt want to breast feed. Not can't, not doesn't have the time/facilities/works in an area not conducive, not baby won't latch. She just doesn't want to. This baby was planned even though he works a low wage job and she is a SAHM. They wanted another kid (they have 2 under 5 and 1 school age already) so they planned it out and she got pregnant.). Now, do they qualify for other aid? Yes. Do they mind taking it? No. Their position is that it is there to help people like them so them taking it is totally fine.
I think one reason it seems like everything is expanding is because a lot of the programs have been expanded because Congress hears about 1 or 2 sob stories about people who were denied. Because these stories are compelling (but a small number of cases), we feel like we want to "do something to make sure that doesn't happen again". So what do we do? Increase the thresholds so that "it doesn't happen again". We now get the one or two cases we were trying to prevent but with it comes thousands more cases were people that previously didn't qualify now qualify and they figure what the heck... "free" stuff!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:26:38 GMT -5
::From what I've seen (Many of my friends and relatives are on/have been on various aid programs over the years), the "needs" keep getting refined and higher. It used to be you just needed shelter, energy, food, and a home phone. Now, you need a room for each person (even children, no sharing), cable TVs, cell phones, etc. ::
And that's why I think the whole taking kids away thing is overblown. If you redefine "need", you're not taking kids away from hardly anyone, because you're also not giving handouts to hardly anyone. If people have enough to provide for their true needs (i.e. shelter, not necessarily the 5 bedroom home you had before losing your job), then they dont' get anything.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 25, 2012 16:27:02 GMT -5
...::: the middle and upper classes AREN'T having kids. At least not enough kids to replace the people who are dying. So SOMEONE needs to have those kids, unless we're going to loosen our immigration policies... :::... But one of the reasons that responsible middle and upper class people aren't having kids is that they find they can't afford them due in part to the increasing taxes and regulations that are encouraging the lower classes to have kids. Not a good plan for a society. Actually a big reason they can't afford them is due to their own choices. We can't have the kid's share a room. We have to pay for every kid's education. We can't downgrade our lifestyle & be a single income family, but we can't afford additional daycare either. People could have a lot more kids if they wanted. I don't care that they aren't, but it is due to the choices they are making. Edited to fix my ridiculous double negative. Yea grammar! Angel, Yes I choose to pay for my child's daycare, medical care, education, clothing, food and save for future college expenses. If I had more children I would not be able to do that AND save adequately for my retirement and would end up relying on the gov't. So yes I am making a responsible choice and will continue to resent having to support those who CHOOSE to have more kids when they can't support what they already have. Your message above seems to imply that people who only have the children they can support without government assistant are selfish and I find that insulting! It is not about being able to maintain a "lifestyle" it's about being able to support my choices!
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 16:27:53 GMT -5
Right, but not only do you have to feed your children which you can get assitance for, but you need to pay your mortgage - because even if you put your house on the market the day you lose your job, you will still end up paying for it for a month, you have to pay for utilities. We've got 4 months e-fund in the bank. We would have 6 months if my husband didn't have the issues he has had this year. WE'd have a year if he hadn't had the previous 3 surgeries. It is compounding. We decided to have DS after surgery #2 because DH was supposedly better. We conceived #2 after successful PT (which would have been an additional 2 weeks of E-fund in the bank) - that didn't continue to help him. So now I have an almost 3 year old, a baby on the way in 2 months and a husband who is about to have back surgery.
Not everyone. It is amazing when you have health problems how fast your money can be gone through. I try not to add up how much has been spent on my DH's health problems in the last 5 years because honestly it makes me a little ill and this is with insurance. The doctors all agree that they come from 20+ years of doing physical labor for a job. He had already transitioned to an office job when the problems really started, but by then it was too late.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:34:09 GMT -5
::Right, but not only do you have to feed your children which you can get assitance for, but you need to pay your mortgage::
What I'm saying (which I take it you don't agree with, but which I'm clarifying) is that I don't think you should get any assistance in that case. I don't think you should get food stamps to buy food if you're living somewhere which costs more than the determined "need" for housing in your area. I don't want to pay for someone's food stamps while they pay their mortgage on their McMansion (again, not saying you have one).
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 16:44:59 GMT -5
So the message I'm getting is that if you really loved your kids, you'd have a 5-year EF, fully funded retirement, and insurance to cover anything that would possibly go wrong in the next 18-22 years before trying to conceive.
If that were the case, you wouldn't get even 5% of the population to have kids. Which would present a pretty big problem within a generation or two.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Oct 25, 2012 16:51:02 GMT -5
Actually a big reason they can't afford them is due to their own choices. We can't have the kid's share a room. We have to pay for every kid's education. We can't downgrade our lifestyle & be a single income family, but we can't afford additional daycare either. People could have a lot more kids if they wanted. I don't care that they aren't, but it is due to the choices they are making. Edited to fix my ridiculous double negative. Yea grammar! Angel, Yes I choose to pay for my child's daycare, medical care, education, clothing, food and save for future college expenses. If I had more children I would not be able to do that AND save adequately for my retirement and would end up relying on the gov't. So yes I am making a responsible choice and will continue to resent having to support those who CHOOSE to have more kids when they can't support what they already have. Your message above seems to imply that people who only have the children they can support without government assistant are selfish and I find that insulting! It is not about being able to maintain a "lifestyle" it's about being able to support my choices! So are you pro-life or pro-choice?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:51:32 GMT -5
::So the message I'm getting is that if you really loved your kids, you'd have a 5-year EF, fully funded retirement, and insurance to cover anything that would possibly go wrong in the next 18-22 years before trying to conceive.::
If that's what you consider "temporary hard times" then yeah, I guess. I do believe that somewhere in there I threw in "reasonably", which I realize is highly debateable. I do believe that if you lose your job for 6 months you should still be able to afford food for your kids, I don't think that's all that high of a standard.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Oct 25, 2012 16:54:42 GMT -5
So the message I'm getting is that if you really loved your kids, you'd have a 5-year EF, fully funded retirement, and insurance to cover anything that would possibly go wrong in the next 18-22 years before trying to conceive. No one is saying this. All we want is for you (not me) to provide for the kids you have chosen to have. Because shit never happens after you already have kids even with "proper" savings in place before you have kids?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Oct 25, 2012 16:56:12 GMT -5
No one is saying this. All we want is for you (not me) to provide for the kids you have chosen to have. Because shit never happens after you already have kids even with "proper" savings in place before you have kids? I won't say "never", but do you think that majority of parents had kids after having a "proper" plan in place to provide for them including temporary times of hardship? But yes, sometimes shit happens, and if shit happens to you, the responsibility to take care of that falls on you, not someone else.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 25, 2012 17:09:49 GMT -5
Lone, did your kids go to public school?
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 25, 2012 17:28:52 GMT -5
or things like WIC, the income threshold seems to be too high. I think people let this one go because we like the idea of providing food and nutrients to children (see that as a"good program"). I do know people who are on it right now but are probably people that would get skewered here (One guy I know's family is on it because his wife doesnt want to breast feed. Not can't, not doesn't have the time/facilities/works in an area not conducive, not baby won't latch. She just doesn't want to. This baby was planned even though he works a low wage job and she is a SAHM. They wanted another kid (they have 2 under 5 and 1 school age already) so they planned it out and she got pregnant.). Now, do they qualify for other aid? Yes. Do they mind taking it? No. Their position is that it is there to help people like them so them taking it is totally fine.She'd get WIC if she breastfed. www.fns.usda.gov/wic/policyandguidance/BreastfeedingFoodPackageGuidance.pdf
|
|