No need for hundreds of dollars to start up - easy to get second-hand stuff. It’s when the kids grow up that it becomes expensive. Worth it, though.
HectorPriam - well your tax dollars pay off when you get old and need a younger generation to keep up the nation so you can enjoy your otium - get food to eat and such…
Yes y’all, I finally got my X to allow me to (… ) stop having children after we had 4. and Joe - the book title was probably derived from a line in the old song from the twenties “Ain’t We Got Fun” it went “…the rich get richer and the poor get children”;-)
We only have two children, but I have friends with large families. I have nothing against large families IF the parents, and not the taxpayers support them. Especially if the parents are training their children to be self-sufficient, upstanding adults. (Which happens to be the case in the large families I know personally). I do have a problem with people having kids outside of wedlock, expect the government to support and raise the kids, and then what is primarily accomplished is to increase the welfare rolls and prison populations.
That’s what I don’t get. I have 5 children and have never recieved or even applied for taxpayer aide. If you can’t afford it, don’t do it!
The sad thing is, the amount of aide we’d qualify for if we wanted it. Free school lunches… give me a break. How hard is it to make a sandwich and toss in an apple for your kid? It’s not about who needs it, it’s about who’s too lazy to work for anything.
The cost isn’t so much in money paid out. It’s in time, sleep, and in lost wages, promotions, and retirement benefits for whoever cares for the baby. e.g., the lyrics to a song by Mary Chapin Carpenter, “For fifteen years she had a job and not one raise in pay/ Now she’s in the typing pool at minimum wage.” That song used to send me back to my professional studies vowing, “Not me! I’ve met too many women in my own family who were miserable in that very scenario–at the least, I should be able to find some newly charted, progressive, and creative version of misery!””
“The powers that be” let us think we have made “choices” about our lives and opportunities, but that’s not really true, except for the “choice” to try to survive financially.
Somebody has to earn the money, and somebody has to care for the kids. We’d probably all be better off if we were flexible about who does what, gave massive tax breaks and benefits to stay-at-home parents, and respected stay-at-home Dads.
(My own dad, a musician, was one for a while–that’s probably why I turned out to be such a smartnose…. “OK Daddy, I’ll sit through ONE chapter on DNA in exchange for TWO chapters of ‘The Witch of Blackbird Pond’…”)
hildigunnurr Premium Member over 14 years ago
No need for hundreds of dollars to start up - easy to get second-hand stuff. It’s when the kids grow up that it becomes expensive. Worth it, though.
HectorPriam - well your tax dollars pay off when you get old and need a younger generation to keep up the nation so you can enjoy your otium - get food to eat and such…
arsmall over 14 years ago
…so true Paul…its funny, animals know when to stop having offspring, but we humans…well…
vldazzle over 14 years ago
Yes y’all, I finally got my X to allow me to (… ) stop having children after we had 4. and Joe - the book title was probably derived from a line in the old song from the twenties “Ain’t We Got Fun” it went “…the rich get richer and the poor get children”;-)
Smiley Rmom over 14 years ago
We only have two children, but I have friends with large families. I have nothing against large families IF the parents, and not the taxpayers support them. Especially if the parents are training their children to be self-sufficient, upstanding adults. (Which happens to be the case in the large families I know personally). I do have a problem with people having kids outside of wedlock, expect the government to support and raise the kids, and then what is primarily accomplished is to increase the welfare rolls and prison populations.
N.D.Pendent over 14 years ago
Hell, I can’t afford any more children, of course that won’t stop those on welfare from having them
grim509 over 14 years ago
That’s what I don’t get. I have 5 children and have never recieved or even applied for taxpayer aide. If you can’t afford it, don’t do it!
The sad thing is, the amount of aide we’d qualify for if we wanted it. Free school lunches… give me a break. How hard is it to make a sandwich and toss in an apple for your kid? It’s not about who needs it, it’s about who’s too lazy to work for anything.
forgiveness over 14 years ago
isn’t that the truth.
PhyllisFinchley over 14 years ago
The cost isn’t so much in money paid out. It’s in time, sleep, and in lost wages, promotions, and retirement benefits for whoever cares for the baby. e.g., the lyrics to a song by Mary Chapin Carpenter, “For fifteen years she had a job and not one raise in pay/ Now she’s in the typing pool at minimum wage.” That song used to send me back to my professional studies vowing, “Not me! I’ve met too many women in my own family who were miserable in that very scenario–at the least, I should be able to find some newly charted, progressive, and creative version of misery!””
“The powers that be” let us think we have made “choices” about our lives and opportunities, but that’s not really true, except for the “choice” to try to survive financially.
Somebody has to earn the money, and somebody has to care for the kids. We’d probably all be better off if we were flexible about who does what, gave massive tax breaks and benefits to stay-at-home parents, and respected stay-at-home Dads.
(My own dad, a musician, was one for a while–that’s probably why I turned out to be such a smartnose…. “OK Daddy, I’ll sit through ONE chapter on DNA in exchange for TWO chapters of ‘The Witch of Blackbird Pond’…”)
culprit Premium Member over 14 years ago
Thank heavens for little books! And children no matter who has them. As long as someone cares ! (for/with them)