I don’t need any handouts, but I always except free jeans, shirts, etc.; from people who don’t want them. I shop at thriftstores. I go to yard sales.
I do this because, well, why spend money if I don’t need to? I have found it is far trendier to say that I do it for the environment.
When I have kids, I will continue to do the same thing. I wore hand-me-downs as a child, and it didn’t kill me. It’s part of teaching your children to save money, and not to be taken in by flashy advertising…You know, so they don’t end up crying about their credit card debt 20 years in the future.
And it’s from a Planned Parenthood book, hardly impartial.
But whatever, I give up trying to get you to actually produce any actual evidence for what you claim. You are just looking to justify judging these people to be less evolved than you for making choices you wouldn’t make for yourself.
Tell me, would you be comfortable being judged in the same way? It’s not a choice they would make so it’s not okay for you?
And another thing, since when is asking for a cite whining? Huh? Let me check, this is the SDMB right?
I suspect it’s for the same reason that my brother wore my hand-me-downs even after my family had some level of monetary comfort.
Is it? How can we weigh the value of another member of the family existing against a trip to Stone Mountain? What’s the relative weight of each experience?
Apart from second-hand clothes, which are a resource not in short supply in the handouts world, they receive no other “handouts” on a regular basis from anywhere – unless, I supposed, you consider the child tax credit a handout.
Second-hand clothes are never in short supply in the handouts world. If they were draining a resource that then cannot go to someone else that needs it, I would agree – but no one’s running out of second-hand clothes to distribute. (I say this with some professional experience as a Knights of Columbus member who has supervised clothes donations drives for fifteen years).
You are correct in that they are two different things- I’m just illustrating that whether the mother went to college or not does not dictate what a child will do.
Bricker- they accept church donations. Its my understanding that church donations are intended for those in need. Anyone, no matter how wealthy, is free to shop in thrift stores, accept donations from friends, etc. but I think donations from a church are usually reserved for those in true need.
As for the benefits of another sibling vs. going to a state park, well, yes, that would be debatable if each child was able to have a meaningful relationship with every new sibling, but since that’s simply not possible, time wise, I don’t see how a new sibling you don’t have time to bond with could be a benefit, whereas seeing the outside world definitely could.
And I have never heard anyone on these boards so much as breathe a whisper of the idea that a poor, inner-city mother should refrain from having a child based on her lack of college education or her likely inability to pay for that child’s college.
I think you need to expand your understanding of church donations. What church do you attend, and how do they handle clothing drives there?
I have meaningful relationships with more than 19 people in my life, and I don’t even live with most of them. Why do you conclude it’s “simply not possible” for the children here?
No. Did I miss something? I admit I don’t read every thread, but if such sentiments were ever voiced, I didn’t see them and can’t imagine them coming from a regular.
I was just pointing out the discussion about how much insurance he’d need for his family in the event of untimely death is probably not an issue in this family, no matter how many children they have as he is in the insurance business.
You’re kidding, right?
I think they go on tv to encourage others to have large families, not a crime.
I think the networks put it on tv knowing that people love an opportunity to feel superior to others, and they are not wrong.
I’m out. I’m not a fan of great debates and I suspect that Marley23 might have been referring to me doing the hokey pokey. I don’t want to cross any lines, accidentally or otherwise.
And it’s clear to me that no one is actually going to produce any evidence, for what they are asserting, just this sort of tripe in an endless attempt to justify there own judgmental views.
I still have never heard that they get handouts, even old clothes and toys. hand-me-downs from within the family, maybe. The girls all wear the same kind of jumper dresses and the boys seem to wear polo shirts and khakis. I’m fairly sure that Jim-Bob and Michelle went to college - I think they met there. Plus, Jim-Bob was a member of the Arkansas State legislature. Who has proof that they accept handouts?
I know that when they were building their house they bought second-hand restaurant equipment for the kitchen. The fact that they have the Discovery Channel specials may have less to do with their finances and more to do with showing people that having a large family is doable. That has to do with their religious misson, I’m sure, but again, they aren’t asking that everyone does it.
I really have no dog in this fight. I don’t have kids, don’t want kids, and at 47, probably will never have kids. But to abuse a family just because you think you know how they should live and what their kids deserve is wrong, when they aren’t hurting the kids or making you pay for them.
There was a thread in the last 2 weeks about poverty and whether anyone who is healthy and doesn’t have bad luck can really be in poverty all their lives except through making bad choices. I expressed the sentiment you are talking about as did others.
I was making a general comment and probably could have mentioned four or six people, if not more. If you or any one poster had stood out I would have issued a note or warning.
They met in high school. He was 19 and she was 17. I have also seen articles that have mentioned them receiving up to $20,000 in donations from churches and private citizens, but I am at work and can’t search for them here.