Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

juajen

(8,515 posts)
35. I have to say on that matter, that we are over populated.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:37 AM
Dec 2011

However, most who have a healthy relationship do want to reproduce themselves. Going against this is stupid; however the couple should take their financial health by the horns (so to speak) and reduce expenses. I don't know where they live, but that is a salary that should support at least one or two more children, unless they live in Seattle, NYC, San Francisco, Miami, well you get the idea. We certainly do not need a lot more spoiled rich kids, so let the rich kids pay the poor ones to reproduce and everything is settled. HaHa!

Well, I agree with it to some degree Uranus Needs Men Dec 2011 #1
While their intentions are honorable, their priorities are out of whack rocktivity Dec 2011 #7
Many, many people work on different shifts and their families do just fine. It takes a lot of extra Brickbat Dec 2011 #12
they may want their child to have siblings to grow up with, to teach, to learn from, etc. CreekDog Dec 2011 #22
this is what we do Maine-ah Dec 2011 #27
Since we are all anonymous on here, may I ask shift happens Dec 2011 #32
combined income while I was working was 70k a year. Maine-ah Dec 2011 #38
I agree with Suze. DeadEyeDyck Dec 2011 #2
"Their expenses are $6500/mo. They make $5600/mo" Obviously that's not working. alphafemale Dec 2011 #3
But if they don't want her advise DeadEyeDyck Dec 2011 #6
"You CAN'T afford another kid" is exactly correct. ManiacJoe Dec 2011 #31
I agree too lakerboy Dec 2011 #4
Nobody can actually afford a child Missy Vixen Dec 2011 #5
But Suze ... frazzled Dec 2011 #8
Your response illustrates what (for me) is so despicable about those contemplating having children Uranus Needs Men Dec 2011 #11
You've got it all wrong frazzled Dec 2011 #14
Re-read your post, m'dear Uranus Needs Men Dec 2011 #15
Hello, you try re-reading frazzled Dec 2011 #28
I'm finding your posts kind of amusing cali Dec 2011 #17
What the hell! vankuria Dec 2011 #23
Jesus Christ people frazzled Dec 2011 #29
Wasn't addressing your post, sorry vankuria Dec 2011 #39
Heh, I'm sorry, too! frazzled Dec 2011 #40
How much of that income is made by the wife/mother? customerserviceguy Dec 2011 #9
They are about the same but she carries the insurance sammytko Dec 2011 #13
In a lot of places customerserviceguy Dec 2011 #24
Growing up in with constant financial stress is hard on kids REP Dec 2011 #10
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #16
oh codswallop. I know lots of kids who grew up relatively (and quite) poor cali Dec 2011 #18
I agree with Suze - here's my take (or story as it were) - Mira Dec 2011 #19
Forgoing a second child will not solve their income/spending problem. She should address that first. Brickbat Dec 2011 #20
They are running $900 in the red every month. Until they can get that straightened out, iris27 Dec 2011 #21
Right now they can't afford another ANYTHING! WillowTree Dec 2011 #25
I agree, though I haven't read her exact words. It's much more expensive to have children napi21 Dec 2011 #26
i don't watch videos but yah suze is right pitohui Dec 2011 #30
why would anyone ask her for advice to have another child? madrchsod Dec 2011 #33
I don't think she's saying that. She's saying people in the red shouldn't be having kids. Selatius Dec 2011 #34
I have to say on that matter, that we are over populated. juajen Dec 2011 #35
Suze estimated it costs an additional $700-1000 a month per child. boppers Dec 2011 #36
Orman is a charlatan, but... Sen. Walter Sobchak Dec 2011 #37
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»(Suze Orman)Apparently Po...»Reply #35