So, curlcoat, you have lived on a form of social assistance that is provided by the social safety net, and even when not being supported by society, you still do not support yourself and instead rely on someone else, but you are upset about children sharing crayons and you rail on about socialism.
At best, you are a nutter, one hell of a hypocrite, and of course a socialist.
Aye. It’s mooching scum such as curlcoat that make me realise what a villainy socialism is.
I’ve yet to meet/hear of one of those supposed libertarians who rail about the parasites refuse to become parasites themselves. And they don’t even say it in a “yeah, I know, I know, but I’m desperate” ways, but rather, they just seem to think it doesn’t apply to them. Doesn’t even register.
I think what we have with curlcoat is a classic case of psychological projection. Deep down inside, she despises herself for being dependent on other people. In order to avoid these negative feelings towards herself, she unconciously projects these feelings on to other people. This is why she spends an inordinate amount of time ranting on the internet about those other lazy bums on the public dime, without even the slightest hint of irony.
I was a single mom at 19, with a job where I made less than >$10K a year. I took no money from anyone, except for once, when I borrowed $200 from my dad to fix my car. No child support, either.
Things got better slowly, over time, because I worked hard, learned new skills and made better decisions. My husband and I cleared just under $100K last year.
So, here’s one person.
That’s certainly impressive. Just out of curiosity, how did you afford paying for your residence, food and clothing for the two of you and childcare while you worked on less than $833 per month? How long were you able to live so modestly?
My rent was $425 with paid utilities, I paid my aunt $60 per paycheck to watch my kid, and anything else was fit in around the edges. We had no new clothes, just hand me downs, and never went anywhere that cost money. Our food was basic (I still get teased about a shopping list - it had “Meat - $4” on it).
We actually did fine, because it was just the two of us, and little kids are easy to please with no money. I had a great basement apartment on a huge field, so we played outside a lot, and bubbles and balls are cheap. I mean, it sucked, but not to a depressive extent.
I lived that way for about a year, then got a job making $16,500, then bumped up to $20,000 after about six months.
I find your industriousness laudable, and I do admire people with a strong and independent work ethic.
One quibble - you might add in subsidized child care to the $200 from your dad when listing the things you took from other people. Nothing wrong with that, but having family to perform childcare is not an option for everyone.
Really, we should have let curlcoat and spouse starve. Would have taught them a lesson, so maybe curlcoat would not be a parasite on the backs of working people today.
I didn’t mean to imply that no one actually lived up to their philosophy, but specifically the ones who seem to rant and rave about the parasites leeching off everyone are the ones who end up taking assistance with no irony. Blalron is probably right about the motivation in most cases. Or just a general feeling of “oh, well, yeah, it’s okay when I take help, because I’m awesome and not abusing it at all and I’m worth saving. Not like those filthy, inferior parasites who normally use these programs…”
Seriously-- $60 per month for childcare is either “family rates” or “Unshaven Guy In a White Van Daycare LLC”.
It was $60 per paycheck, so $120 a month, and my aunt wouldn’t take any more from me.
I switched to a traditional day care a year or so later - I am quite familiar with day care rates.
This is part of the problem - people who think that a parent only needs to be loving and so on tend to have children they cannot afford. It’s like people who believe that “two can live as cheaply as one” so they get married and go forth in the world, only to find out that it isn’t true. In the case of the children, they are already here and you have situations like them getting “humiliated” because they don’t have the same supplies as their classmates. Or more serious things like them being left alone far too young because their parent(s) must work and can’t afford daycare.
Actually, the point is that folks like me used to be the norm. Somehow, the attitude now is “I deserve it and shouldn’t have to wait for it”, which is why so many people are over their heads in debt.
Huh?
Does that include the amount that comes back when they file with the IRS and get their child credits?
What? You are saying that people cannot live on 20K a year AFTER they pay their rent/mortgage? Jesus freaking Christ, we live in Southern California where things are really expensive, and our bills after mortgage are FAR less than that. Of course, we aren’t trying to keep up with the Joneses in terms of cars, vacations, toys, etc. My car needs to be replaced, preferably before the transmission goes out, but it isn’t going to happen until we can buy one for cash or close to it. From savings, not from the IRAs.
I’m sure it’s true of some. Given how irresponsible people are when they are working, I can’t believe that even a significant minority are in financial trouble through no fault of their own. But then that means you’d have to research it and it’s just so much better to assume the best about all these folks, isn’t it? And throw money at them.
No.
One is not a parasite if one is merely getting back the money they paid in for that purpose.
No, that is the whole point of us paying unemployment and disability taxes - to use them if necessary. Plus, we could have “ridden out” that time on just savings if necessary - my point was our month expenses are so low that we got by just fine on very little.
However, I personally have never applied for unemployment myself since moving to California over 15 years ago, despite having been out of work several times. It just didn’t seem necessary to get that $300 a month when Mr Curl was working. So the state still owes me and I won’t get that back.
That’s true - I have no concept of how kids in the bible belt grew up back then, or even now. It does seem to be a problem with separation of church and state to use the church as a reason to not have an abortion and then expect the state to pay for the subsequent baby tho.
Planned Parenthood, adoption. Plus all of the insurance policies I’ve had have covered abortion, tho I don’t know how common that might be. According to this, the average cost of an abortion 10 years ago was $372 - don’t you think that people who cannot come up with that amount in an emergency shouldn’t be raising children? And no bullshit about how they had the kids when they were flush and now aren’t.
Before anyone else decides to beat their head against the wall in trying to explain to **curlcoat **what it’s like in Reality Land, you must remember … her views are born of the fact that her own father didn’t even like her. Didn’t want her. Only produced spawn for the sake of society.
What the fuck do you expect her to say about children now?
Yes.
No, I’m saying that they are not going to be readily able to save enough to cover their full paycheck indefinitely in the event of a job loss. Try reading what I type.
BTW, I checked the US statistics, and it’s estimated that people in that income bracket spend about $2100 per person on food. So now we’re down to $14000. $1000 per month more or less for healthcare, savings, car, gas, clothes, god forbid entertainment. Toys and furniture for the kid.
That’s enough to put away $500-600/mo for medium-term savings, certainly. At that rate, it’ll only take five years to be able to cover missing paychecks for 9 months.
So what’s the message here? No having kids until you’re 30+? No luxuries whatsoever until you have a year’s salary as cushion if you want to have a kid?
Yeah, why can’t today’s young people learn to steal from local businesses and marry rich like you did? Lazy bastards!
This whole thread is so ridiculous on so many levels. I get that your stance is that kids shouldn’t be made to share because you think it will make them think it’s okay to collect property (or tax) and redistribute it. Now, I know that that idea is seriously grievous to you, but the reality is that they will one day be taxpayers and they’ll find out that contributing to the public good is a reality of life, like it or not. Just like you, they’ll probably like some of the things their taxes support and hate other things (hopefully not with the fiery fury you have managed to muster). Maybe they’ll understand better than you that not everything goes your way all the time, and they’ll manage to be a little less fiercely selfish than you are. We are all part of a larger community, and kindergarten doesn’t seem too early to start to learn that lesson.
Also, I really don’t understand why Americans have such a kneejerk reaction to the very word ‘socialism’, let alone any even vaguely socialist ideas - “Oh noes! People working together! Say it ain’t so!”
I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but even using “crayons” as a metaphor, I don’t see sharing as Socialism. The teacher taking everyone’s crayons and redistributing them equally? Socialism, unfair, and (IMHO) bad. One kid sharing with another of his own free will? Not Socialism. (Equal to Charity, I guess. Or loans, if the kid asks for his crayon back and then uses that as leverage to ask for his own favors). Teacher encouraging, but not forcing, kid to share? Tax breaks for charity isn’t Socialism either.
Why is everyone so polarized? I think both sides are totally batshit insane…
I did - you were trying to claim that amount of money didn’t “leave a lot of room for error or bad luck”, which would only be true if they didn’t have any savings before having the children and/or they spent most of that 20K instead of saving a decent amount. Sure, there will be a few people who have really bad luck and lose their jobs for a really long time but various hits on Google have it that the average is 6-7 months, which is not even close to “indefinitely”.
Well, there’s another problem - what the heck are they buying? Mr Curl and I eat fairly well and buy food in a pretty expensive area, and outside of fast food and restaurants, we don’t spend that much on the two of us each month. And actually, that includes things like paper towels, beer, cigarettes, shampoo and other non-food items.
I hope they aren’t buying furniture, and really even toys & clothes, every month. Plus you listed savings here and below.
Which is why they should have savings before they have the kids. Plus, how often is it that people have a devastating financial crisis within a few years of having kids? Well, other than the cost of said kids…
Why not? Having children is as much a luxury item as anything else someone wants rather than needs to survive. Why do you feel that people who are not likely to be able to support their child(ren) without outside help have more right to make selfish decisions than those who want anything other long term expensive item? Remember, I’m talking about before they have the kids, so no bleating about “think of the innocent children who didn’t ask to be born”.
I resent the implication that beer is a non-food item. Beer is the breakfast of champions.
Also, curly, you should really get around to forgiving your own parents at some point. Just let go of the hate, man. It’s a huge drag on your karma and shit.