Savings Dwindle as Americans Spend, Spend, Spend

Reuters ^ | 12.20.03 | Andrea Hopkins

[sinkspur]

God, you are so right, sink. Men never do the divorcing. Get a grip, would you? And, the term 'nanny' was not in quotes. In case that part escapes you, it means it was inserted by the journalist, not the mother in the piece.

"divorced mother of two" is not in quotes either. Are we to assume that she's not a divorced mother of two, just because the journalist says she is?

Any divorced mother of two who can afford a nanny ain't in bad shape, economically.

And, she's likely using child support to pay for it, no matter who initiated the divorce.

Calm down.

[freedumb2003]

She is a divorced mother of two, meaning that she's likely soaking her ex to pay for the nanny.

Then the other nice poster's point is well made -- it is possible for a divorced woman who is getting child support to stay at home -- that is the theoretical intent and I *know* that any guy paying child support (again -- remember the words "nanny" and "huge mortgage") is, as you so accurately put it, getting soaked.

Career over kids.

[ShadowDancer]

Any divorced mother of two who can afford a nanny ain't in bad shape, economically.

Any divorced mother of two needs someone to watch her children while she works.

And, she's likely using child support to pay for it, no matter who initiated the divorce.

Child support is different than 'soaking' her ex. Or do you disagree?

[freedumb2003]

But as a divorced mother of two

Yes, yes -- I missed that operational word. But it makes the whole piece peculiar.

[ShadowDancer]

Then the other nice poster's point is well made -- it is possible for a divorced woman who is getting child support to stay at home --

Sure it is. In some freaky dream world or the land of the Rockefeller's.

You know that any guy paying child support is getting soaked? My father paid child support for us. Yet, he didn't think he was getting soaked, as you so eloquently put it. He thought he was doing what he should to help take care of his children. Not all fathers regard their children as monetary liabilites. Here's hoping you don't have children.

[sinkspur]

Child support is different than 'soaking' her ex. Or do you disagree?

Child support is often "soaking the ex," especially in cases where the woman initiates the divorce. In fact, "soaking the ex" is often the reason for the divorce. So, yes, I might disagree.

[ShadowDancer]

Yes, yes -- I missed that operational word.

And yet you had no compunction whatsoever about replying about her. Evidentally, not learning the facts before speaking isn't just a democrat problem after all.

[ShadowDancer]

Child support is often "soaking the ex,"

Is every woman you meet evil?

[freedumb2003]

Here's hoping you don't have children.

What an unkind thing to say. My complaint is with people who do not maximize their time with their kids and who sacrifice their kids on the altar of career. I already admitted to knee-jerking on the "Nanny" word -- it brings up a different image than "baby-sitter." If I was wrong in this case, my philosophy stands.

My mom was also divorced and not from her decision. She worked night and day to keep us fed and sheltered -- but she always somehow made herself available when needed (with 7 kids I have no idea how she did it -- but she died young so I think it took its toll).

I guess my feelings on this are aligned with Dr. Laura.

[freedumb2003]

Your replies are quite vitrolic -- did we hit a nerve?

[sinkspur]

Is every woman you meet evil?

Are you on the rag? PMS, maybe?

My question makes as much sense as yours.

[Revolting cat!]

[ShadowDancer]

I'm sorry about your mom. I mean that, mine means the world to me.

Someone else must have helped take care of you, though. Nothing in this piece says this woman isn't there for her kids. Back to your mom and mine, wouldn't you hate for someone to assume they weren't there for us even though we knew they were, just because someone read something into it? We don't know this lady. We don't know her circumstances or children or ex-husband. This just barely touched on her life, not even barely, less than that. All I'm saying is, she could be our mothers. We don't know, so let's just let the woman be.

[Destructor]

This can only help the overall economy! This has got to be a good sign of better times ahead!

[freedumb2003]

We don't know, so let's just let the woman be

Indeed.

Merry Christmas.

:)

[Bonaparte]

"Savings Dwindle as Americans Spend, Spend, Spend"

Wouldn't occur to the Maoists at Reuters to write:

"Business Booms, Jobs Grow As Americans Spend, Spend, Spend!"

Nope. They'll find the black lining in every silver cloud -- even if they have to make it up.

[ShadowDancer]

Child support is often "soaking the ex," especially in cases where the woman initiates the divorce. In fact, "soaking the ex" is often the reason for the divorce

Child support is not often soaking the ex unless you think your kids aren't worth taking care of. And, if you think that soaking the ex is often the reason for divorce, then you must think most women you meet are evil. Obviously you think money is the only thing most women are after.

As far as your other comments go, you are far cruder than I ever perceived you being. You say divorce happens because women want to soak their husbands for money. I say that may be true in some cases but more often than not it's because they're married to someone as classless as you.

[ShadowDancer]

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you, too.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Ciexyz]

Why save? The state of PA is voting to raise our state income tax by 10% and put a 5% tax on cell phone usage. The city of Pittsburgh wants to raise our occupation tax by 500% and slap a .5% tax on wages of NON-city residents who work in Pittsburgh. I say again, why save?!