| OP if you divorce in this scenario you are a moron. Divorce is not an option for you. Buckle down, get a higher paying job, stop spending on things you can’t afford. If you have to work in public service for ten years to get your loans forgiven, do it. You are early 30s. It’s nose to the grindstone time. Many of us didn’t have any financial security until our 50s if ever. If you had three kids with student loans you’re an idiot, and if you then bought a house you couldn’t afford I don’t know what to tell you. |
| OP, what do you and your DH do for a living and what are your incomes? |
Actually it is a perfectly logical statement. If some random person maligned your character or behavior in some way that you know is 100% untrue, you wouldn’t give the comment a second thought. (Like water off a duck’s back, right?) The fact that the comment makes you so angry and defensive means there’s some truth to it. (Otherwise, why react to it at all, let alone defend yourself or insult the messenger?) Remember, the first step to solving your problem is admitting that you have a problem! You’re welcome. |
Won’t our boomer parents blow it all on end of life care since people live to 90 now? |
Man it's so unfair my parents want to live a long time and get medical care when they age. I want their money. I am ENTITLED to their money! |
Well to PP’s point, the end of life care facilities and healthcare industrial complex will be the real inheritors of the supposed “Great Wealth Transfer”. |
Their money that they earned from their easy, steady jobs where they were promoted just for showing up and breathing? Often with a fat pension? That they earned from the appreciation that got on their incredibly affordable family home? And maybe even second home that was also, wait for it, affordable? |
This is gibberish. |
Wow. You are one entitled little brat, aren’t you. |
NP here - so in this little morality play, if the PP agrees with you, then obviously you are correct. And if she disagrees with you, then she's triggered because your points are obviously accurate. In other words, you have constructed a scenario where you are never incorrect. Heads I win, tails you lose. How very convenient for you. But I think we all know that isn't the way things work. And please note that I'm not opining on your actual statements, just the "logic," if one wants to stretch that term beyond recognition, that you are using. |
Yes. Let's assume that's all true. In that case, do you think it's unfair that Boomer parents "want to live a long time and get medical care when they age?" Do you think they should forego medical care to pass along an inheritance? Cut their life short to leave their kids something? |
Hey listen - there are lots of people who read my initial statement who disagreed with it and they’re not wrong. But they’re not the ones raging at me. I’m sorry that you don’t like or approve of reality, but in this particular instance I am correct and the PP’s increasingly angry and defensive responses do indeed prove it. (And because you and PP both seem fairly dim, that means my initial statement was correct about PP and she proved it by reacting so strongly and angrily to it. The many other folks who disagree and for whom my initial statement does not apply ignored it, although I assume they are getting irritated by this absurd side conversation in which PP and you think (metaphorically) screaming I’M NOT MAD means that you’re not mad…. And this is not a scenario I have constructed, this is pretty foundational stuff in human psychology. You both need a refresher course in logic 101.) |