"Alloparenting"

[ecofarm]

You can't even remember who you talk to or quote clearly.

Try again.

I edited.

Still, what's your problem with me addressing his post? You didn't seem to have a problem with it until I proved it's stupid bs. Now, suddenly, you want me to stop. Of course you do. Well, tough. I address what I want and no one made you the boss of anything. Go play mod at facebook.

 

[Cope]

I edited.

Still, what's your problem with me addressing his post? You didn't seem to have a problem with it until I proved it's stupid bs. Now, suddenly, you want me to stop. Of course you do. Well, tough. I address what I want and no one made you the boss of anything. Go play mod at facebook.

Ha!

 

[ecofarm]

Ha!

Well? I responded to a post. Are you taking me to the fake authority jail for that? Anything to protect idiotic bs posts, huh?

The problem in Russia is a ****ing regime. You know that, right? You understand that, right? You must, you're American, right? And, just so you see it clearly, to suggest the problem is the people is to suggest more regime is the answer.

 

[reflechissez]

Also known as the propagandist sycophants of the Democratic Party.

sure

 

[Rickeroo]

Let's look at some numbers. Average household is 2+ people; median income is $68k.

Average housing = $1700 (35%)
Transportation is $830 (15%)
Health care is $414 (8%)
Food is $660 (12%)
Cell phone is $95 (2%)
Taxes are around 25% for the middle income quintile

What Are Average Household Monthly Expenses in the US?

Whether you are in a family of 2, 4, or more, average monthly expenses for any family is pricey. Examine the average monthly expenses of Americans to see how your expenses compare with everyone else's.

bettermoneyhabits.bankofamerica.com

So you tell us, how do you cut those expenses by 30-50%?

Housing is the single most important item - if the household is overspent there, it becomes extremely difficult to recover. Mortgage "affordability" calculators have a $68k household affording $300,000 home or more, assuming a $25k down payment. Home buying is very simple - spend no more than twice household income on a home. The affordability calculators should be coming in at $140,000 for a $68k gross income - the $1700 would turn into $900. The next step is to never buy a new car, which would save hundreds a month on top of that.

Hello? Did you really miss how there is a national shortage of affordable housing?

Are you really suggesting that the minute you lose your job, you should move? Does that include when you own your home? Do you really not understand how that takes up time, money and energy? How there often isn't anywhere to go anyway?

Now, I do agree that many Americans are too materialistic, too wasteful, and do not save enough for retirement. However, the reality is that there are several big-ticket items which are difficult to cut, even if you're not trying to one-up the neighbors.

I'm starting to think that someone is vastly out of touch with the way most Americans live....

The median price is up, but people were buying too much house before the recent run-up. Spending habits are more responsible than the market. There's no shortage of overpriced homes - nothing is stopping a $68k household from crushing themselves with a $300k house. Indeed, they are encouraged at every turn to crush themselves. I take "owning" a home to be mortgage-free, and unless property taxes go up ten fold, one should be able to afford a house they own easily. Borrowing a home from a lender though is an expensive proposition.

So tell us then, what's the conservative advice?

With pleasure. Don't listen to the media for advice - they have a vested interest in reducing one's personal power in order to make one more vulnerable to advertising or political manipulation.

My mortgage suggestion would benefit people of all races and political persuasions.

 

[Rickeroo]

Dude, the point of the article was to deal with a short-term job loss (which is partially cushioned with unemployment insurance), not reduce your standard of living permanently by 50%

I'll give credit to CNN. This article on budgeting was out today.

Setting up a budget ensures you can make the most of your paychecks by knowing how much money is coming in and going out.

There's nothing about reducing expenses, or how to reduce those expenses. This is typical of consumer-class advice which really isn't effective.

 

[Cope]

Well? I responded to a post. Are you taking me to the fake authority jail for that? Anything to protect idiotic bs posts, huh?

The problem in Russia is a ****ing regime. You know that, right? You understand that, right? You must, you're American, right? And, just so you see it clearly, to suggest the problem is the people is to suggest more regime is the answer.

I don't personally give a shit about Russia. So, no jail for you. Merely a timeout, I have used up all of my allowance of listening to stupidity for the day. Now, if you'd like to post on topic, I'll listen.

 

[Visbek]

There can be more than one problem in the USSR.

lol... Way to miss the point.

From 1930 to 1969, the USSR had plummeted from 30.0 to 14.9. The US fell from 24.2 to 17.2. By the collapse of the USSR in 1992, the US had declined to 15.5, and Russia had declined to 11.9.

Total US drop: 36%

Total Russian drop: 60% (2/3 greater)

lol

Russia was far more agrarian, and less industrialized, than the US in 1930. Equally important is that Soviet family policies changed multiple times between 1918 and 1969.

Plus, I'm really getting tired of right-wingers manipulating statistics.

There can be more than one reason why birth rates fell.

Yes, that's my point. Congrats on catching up.

What about the following is confusing you?: "CNN would only appear to be promoting 'sending kids to preschool, daycare or having nannies' rather than 'being with a child 24/7'. There's a lot of distance between 'sending kids to preschool, daycare or having nannies' and the Soviet strategy. Hence, while we ought to be cautious about how much we hand our kids over to the state and paid strangers, CNN isn't wrong for promoting it."

I'm not confused. I'm rejecting your implication that CNN has some Top Secret Marxist Agenda that only you are able to decode.

 

[ecofarm]

I don't personally give a shit about Russia. So, no jail for you. Merely a timeout, I have used up all of my allowance of listening to stupidity for the day. Now, if you'd like to post on topic, I'll listen.

Wherever I see fascist bs being pushed, I'm gonna object. At what point does you philosophically or ideologically object to scapegoating for a regime?


"Single parent homes and the separation of family has really taken a toll in North Korea. People accepting Western values and lifestyles has lead to countless personal tragedies and great national suffering. If only the people would be held to higher standards by, I dunno, maybe a strong leader..."

At some point you say, "hey, wait a minute", don't you? I did. I shall. You have a good day.

 

[Visbek]

I'll give credit to CNN. This article on budgeting was out today.

Setting up a budget ensures you can make the most of your paychecks by knowing how much money is coming in and going out.

There's nothing about reducing expenses, or how to reduce those expenses. This is typical of consumer-class advice which really isn't effective.

lol

So basically, you have no advice whatsoever on how a typical American household is supposed to cut their budget by 30-50%, and no recognition of the national shortage of affordable housing -- a problem, I might add, that the free market cannot fix.

You also haven't produced a single scrap of evidence to show that they're wrong about parenting. What a surprise.

 

[reflechissez]

lol

So basically, you have no advice whatsoever on how a typical American household is supposed to cut their budget by 30-50%, and no recognition of the national shortage of affordable housing -- a problem, I might add, that the free market cannot fix.

You also haven't produced a single scrap of evidence to show that they're wrong about parenting. What a surprise.

also a problem that no republicans are talking about or trying to do anything about. You'd think, since it

You apparently didn't get Hillary's book "It Takes a Village."

This is the common mantra among communist scum, like the leftist filth at CNN. The child becomes the property of the State and raised by the State, not by their birth parents. That is what CNN is really pushing.

In another thread you were saying that you haven't been negatively impacted by the extreme seasons in Alaska. I think you're wrong about that.

 

[Visbek]

Housing is the single most important item - if the household is overspent there, it becomes extremely difficult to recover.

I concur. But again, there is a national shortage of affordable housing. That means that few people can afford housing that only consumes 15% of their income.

Mortgage "affordability" calculators have a $68k household affording $300,000 home or more, assuming a $25k down payment.

lol

They aren't "affordability" calculators, they're just "mortgage calculators," where you can put in any numbers you need. I looked at a half dozen just now:

They typically default to $68k because that's the median income.

They typically default to $300k because that's the median home price.

They typically default to $60k, because that's 20% down.

(CNN's mortgage calculator does not include default amounts. Just sayin'.)

The result is LOWER than what the average American pays for housing. Again, the average (per the BLS) is $1700; the calculator's number is $1400, which is 24% of the median household's income.

So yeah, those calculators aren't secretly nudging people into living well beyond their means.

Home buying is very simple - spend no more than twice household income on a home.

Dude? $140k is HALF the median home price. "Easier said than done" is an understatement -- especially if you want to live near any urban center (where wages are higher) or any neighborhood with good schools and/or low crime.

And again, developers have little incentive to build homes that sell for $140k. The market won't solve that problem.

The next step is to never buy a new car, which would save hundreds a month on top of that.

In 2019, Americans bought 17 million new cars -- and 40 million used cars. So yeah, 2/3 of Americans are a step ahead of you on that one.

I also find it somewhat hilarious that you trash CNN for suggesting you lower your car insurance costs, but your big suggestion is... buy a used car?

Spending habits are more responsible than the market. There's no shortage of overpriced homes - nothing is stopping a $68k household from crushing themselves with a $300k house.

Yes, there is something stopping many of them. It's called "a national shortage of affordable homes."

And again... Spending 25% of your income on housing is not a "crushing" burden. It's actually much less than tens of millions of Americans pay.

I take "owning" a home to be mortgage-free, and unless property taxes go up ten fold, one should be able to afford a house they own easily.

Right. It only takes 30 YEARS of paying off a mortgage before most people can fully own your own home. A home which apparently you think they should dump the instant one household member loses a job. Piece of cake.

With pleasure. Don't listen to the media for advice - they have a vested interest in reducing one's personal power in order to make one more vulnerable to advertising or political manipulation.

lol... What nonsense.

The media has a vested interest in keeping people watching and reading. That's pretty much it. There is no Nefarious Top Secret Democratic-AntiFa-Commie Agenda in the MSM.

I mean, really. Do you really believe that editors of CNN's online articles are saying "well, that's nice, but you know what? It doesn't convince people to be dependent on the government. Rewrite it!!!"

My mortgage suggestion would benefit people of all races and political persuasions.

It would -- except that the part which people aren't already doing is so impractical, that almost no one can follow it.

 

[Rickeroo]

The result is LOWER than what the average American pays for housing. Again, the average (per the BLS) is $1700; the calculator's number is $1400

The $1400 doesn't include property taxes and insurance, which would bring the figure very close to $1700. Regardless, both $1700 and $1400 a month for housing is far too expensive for a $68k income. We're supposed to think that middle America must spend every penny they earn, which is what you see in the mortgage calculators.

I also find it somewhat hilarious that you trash CNN for suggesting you lower your car insurance costs, but your big suggestion is... buy a used car?

If a third of Americans buy new, I'd offer that saving a max of $80 yearly on their car insurance isn't going to matter much when they paid $37k for a car. They should have bought a $15k car, which is worth 275 years of CNN's car insurance savings. Yes - $80 is a joke.

And again... Spending 25% of your income on housing is not a "crushing" burden.

That's based on gross income. People see $68k and think they actually make that much. People spend a significant amount of their income on taxes too.

Right. It only takes 30 YEARS of paying off a mortgage before most people can fully own your own home. A home which apparently you think they should dump the instant one household member loses a job. Piece of cake.

It should take about 20. If one can't throw extra money to the principal of a 30 year mortgage each month, the mortgage was too high to begin with. Assuming dual incomes, if the household can't survive a year without one member's income, expenses are way too high.

And again, developers have little incentive to build homes that sell for $140k.

People keep buying high priced homes, so the demand isn't there for lower priced houses. Smaller families yet bigger houses since the 50's, due to marketing and consumerism.

 

[Glitch]

In another thread you were saying that you haven't been negatively impacted by the extreme seasons in Alaska. I think you're wrong about that.

I haven't been effected, and you can think whatever you like. We know your ilk too well.

Communist scum are always trying to destroy the family, just like the Democratic Party did to the black families during the 1960s and 1970s. Before Democrat filth got involved, black families had very similar composition to every other family in the US, with fewer than 20% of the households having only one parent. After communist Democrats penalized welfare recipients for having an unemployed male in the household, more than 75% of the black homes in the US became single parent households.

The Democratic Party LOVES to destroy families. We have living proof of that fact. So CNN pushing yet another anti-family communist mantra is nothing new. They are the propagandist sycophants of the Democratic Party after all.

 

[reflechissez]

I haven't been effected, and you can think whatever you like. We know your ilk too well.

<snip>

People with mental illness don't know that they have a mental illness. Just sayin'.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The Democratic Party LOVES to destroy families. We have living proof of that fact. So CNN pushing yet another anti-family communist mantra is nothing new. They are the propagandist sycophants of the Democratic Party after all.

You don't understand that folks have been helping each other raise kids and their kids' kids etc. ever since there were humans?

Just because you now know a word for it doesn't mean that its political or bad.
fyi

I used to spend summers at my grandparents'.​

That's alloparenting.​

There were zero communists involved.​

just sayin

 

[COTO]

Plus, I'm really getting tired of right-wingers manipulating statistics.

The statistics are what they are. Besides, birth rates were only one of many deleterious consequences of Soviet policies.

I'm not confused. I'm rejecting your implication that CNN has some Top Secret Marxist Agenda that only you are able to decode.

This "implication" exists only in your mind.

The sum of post #2 is that while we ought to be extremely careful about handing our children over to the state and/or paid strangers to be raised and indoctrinated, "there's a lot of distance between 'sending kids to preschool, daycare or having nannies' and the Soviet strategy" and "CNN isn't wrong for promoting [preschool, daycare or having nannies]".

Hence, concern over the extreme, but approval for the moderate.

"CNN has some Top Secret Marxist Agenda that only you are able to decode": a fantasy that exists only in your mind. I never said it. I never implied it. What I have said directly controverts it.

 

[Lisa]

You don't understand that folks have been helping each other raise kids and their kids' kids etc. ever since there were humans?

Just because you now know a word for it doesn't mean that its political or bad.
fyi

I used to spend summers at my grandparents'.​

That's alloparenting.​

There were zero communists involved.​

just sayin

That group effort the core idea of a community and human civilization which has helped humans increase their chance of survival and improvement of the quality of life.

Glitch must imagine communists being everywhere if he even knows what communism means, which I strongly doubt given his use of the word.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That group effort the core idea of a community and human civilization which has helped humans increase their chance of survival and improvement of the quality of life.
Glitch must imagine communists being everywhere if he even knows what communism means, which I strongly doubt given his use of the word.

Pretty much.

It's an idea which has been in place since before we were humans I imagine.

 

[Visbek]

The $1400 doesn't include property taxes and insurance...

Yes, it does. You just didn't look closely at the calculators.

Regardless, both $1700 and $1400 a month for housing is far too expensive for a $68k income. We're supposed to think that middle America must spend every penny they earn, which is what you see in the mortgage calculators.

...no, it's that the lack of affordable housing, affordable/available child care, affordable health care and so on make it difficult for families to save.

For example, the median home value in San Jose is $1.25 million while the median income is only $110K. There are less than ten listings for any kind of home in San Jose under $175K, and 3 of them are mobile homes. (In an earthquake zone.)

What's your solution? Everyone should abandon every major city in the US?

If a third of Americans buy new, I'd offer that saving a max of $80 yearly on their car insurance isn't going to matter much when they paid $37k for a car. They should have bought a $15k car, which is worth 275 years of CNN's car insurance savings. Yes - $80 is a joke.

The average new car payment is $568, the average used car payment is $397. So $80 is a joke, but $171 is a life-changing savings?

On a side note, what do you think will happen if everyone in the US cut their spending by 30%?

That's based on gross income. People see $68k and think they actually make that much. People spend a significant amount of their income on taxes too.

Hello? We measure housing expenses against gross income.

It should take about 20. If one can't throw extra money to the principal of a 30 year mortgage each month, the mortgage was too high to begin with.

lol... Well, that is effectively increasing your monthly payment by around $120/month. Tell us, by your standards, is that a joke, or real?

I'd add that it isn't always the best use of your money to pay off a mortgage early. Interest rates are very low, meaning you're likely to get a better return on that capital by investing it elsewhere, or paying off more expensive debt. Not to mention that a home is an illiquid asset; e.g. you may be better off keeping $20K in cash for emergencies, rather than using that same $20K to pay down your mortgage.

Assuming dual incomes, if the household can't survive a year without one member's income, expenses are way too high.

I agree. However, that isn't proof that those expenses are superfluous.

People keep buying high priced homes, so the demand isn't there for lower priced houses. Smaller families yet bigger houses since the 50's, due to marketing and consumerism.

You have the causality backwards.

Again, the key issue is a lack of supply of affordable housing (or, merely "enough housing to make homes affordable"). There simply aren't enough affordable homes, especially ones that are in good shape, near decent jobs, and/or near decent schools.

I highly recommend you invest a bit of time and read Harvard's reports on the state of housing.

Loading…

www.jchs.harvard.edu

 

[americanwoman]

You apparently didn't get Hillary's book "It Takes a Village."

This is the common mantra among communist scum, like the leftist filth at CNN. The child becomes the property of the State and raised by the State, not by their birth parents. That is what CNN is really pushing.

I like the idea that somehow alloparenting is that you drop your kid off at the courthouse and call it a day.

 

[Glitch]

I like the idea that somehow alloparenting is that you drop your kid off at the courthouse and call it a day.

Unnecessary. They already have government-instituted child service programs where the government will gladly take your child from you, whether you like it or not. It is what leftist filth do best.

 

[americanwoman]

Unnecessary. They already have government-instituted child service programs where the government will gladly take your child from you, whether you like it or not. It is what leftist filth do best.

Such as?

I remember in 2008 they did a "safe haven" law here but forgot to mention an age limit in the bill and suddenly people were flying from all over the country to drop off their little brats. They quickly redeemed themselves and rewrote the bill.

Other than that I can't think of any government program that would gladly take your kids but maybe they do things differently in Alaska.

 

[reflechissez]

Unnecessary. They already have government-instituted child service programs where the government will gladly take your child from you, whether you like it or not. It is what leftist filth do best.

You need a new schtick.

Search results for query: filth

debatepolitics.com

 

[Jredbaron96]

Anti-family article from the Ministry.

..."alloparenting" to describe the practice of individuals other than a mother or father caring for an offspring.

Many parents in the United States still abide by that 1950s fantasy that nuclear families should be self-sustaining units and feel bad when they can't meet all of their family's needs on their own.

How hard is it to live a 1950's fantasy? Not too hard at all: Stay married, and don't work the same hours. I consider this a pretty basic concept. Granted, the "news" is putting forth a delicious new term, "alloparenting". The term sounds really great. However, I'll raise my own kids - with their mother. I trust CNN won't mind.

Contemporary mothers feel a lot of guilt about sending kids to preschool, daycare or having nannies. This is despite the fact that these are much more normative arrangements...

Why the guilt? CNN says alloparenting is the way to go. The guilty mothers must be stuck in the 50's. They need to progress to the modern era, and CNN will lead the way.

The idea of a child being raised by more than just their parent predates CNN, communism, and Karl Marx by several Millennia.