James Van der beek died! 48 yo :(

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

There’s an article linked earlier in the thread - they finished the remodel right before the first covid lockdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

I’m sad because it kind of smear his legacy

[Anonymous]

The gofundme from Kimberly has 2.7mn$ now. That's enough to support even a family of their size for a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

I think they don’t mean “unfair” but bc their money grab is based on appearing poor when they are not, is unseemly, inappropriate, and gross. They don’t mean why give charity to this poor person over that poor person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

I think they don’t mean “unfair” but bc their money grab is based on appearing poor when they are not, is unseemly, inappropriate, and gross. They don’t mean why give charity to this poor person over that poor person?

Of course they mean unfair. No need to split hairs. When someone whines that his kids live in a 4.7M house and her kids don’t there’s no other way to interpret it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

I think they don’t mean “unfair” but bc their money grab is based on appearing poor when they are not, is unseemly, inappropriate, and gross. They don’t mean why give charity to this poor person over that poor person?

Of course they mean unfair. No need to split hairs. When someone whines that his kids live in a 4.7M house and her kids don’t there’s no other way to interpret it.

-1

“Unfair” isn’t the same as “inappropriate.”

The former is a type of injustice. You keep saying people think it’s unfair. No, it’s inappropriate.

Meaning, the family’s choices are unsuitable, improper, or not right for a specific situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

I think they don’t mean “unfair” but bc their money grab is based on appearing poor when they are not, is unseemly, inappropriate, and gross. They don’t mean why give charity to this poor person over that poor person?

Of course they mean unfair. No need to split hairs. When someone whines that his kids live in a 4.7M house and her kids don’t there’s no other way to interpret it.

-1

“Unfair” isn’t the same as “inappropriate.”

The former is a type of injustice. You keep saying people think it’s unfair. No, it’s inappropriate.

Meaning, the family’s choices are unsuitable, improper, or not right for a specific situation.

BS. When your kid whines that a sibling has something they don't it's unfair. Not inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Go pick on Eric Dane’s Go Fund Me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just wish that people would connect the dots that medical bankruptcy is a real thing and happens to lots of Americans every day. I am too jaded to think this will open a broader conversation about national health insurance or safety nets. Or that that the people who donate to James Van der Beek would also open their hearts to an unnamed destitute family in their own communities.

Except he had a multimillion dollar home in LA which he redesigned a few years ago (so he had money for that) and I think he rents out for $12,000/month and he has this property in TX.

If you'd said he is house poor, I'd get it. If you're saying he suffered from a medical bankruptcy, then I don't think you understand what bankrupt means.

When did he redesign it? You don’t know if he paid for the renovations with cash or a HELOC. That rental income might be their only source of income. Who knows what the mortgage is, property taxes and maintenance cost. He set his family up with one known source of passive income.

If you don’t think their situation warrants a donation or it’s not within your means to do so, don’t give. I didn’t donate but I don’t have a problem with them asking. I am of the mindset that they wouldn’t have asked if it wasn’t necessary. His wife is facing the reality of raising six kids alone. They have publicly stated that they used most of their money to pay for James care. I believe them.

Maybe she will ultimately downsize. Maybe she’s trying to get through this awful loss before she focuses on uprooting her kids. Also, it’s a big house in terms of square footage, but it’s five beds and three baths. That’s not exactly an unreasonable amount of space for six kids. As it is all the kids probably share a bathroom which sounds uncomfortable.

Welp, maybe think about these things before you have six (SIX!) children. My husband grew up in a house of 5 with one bathroom and they made it work.

What's done is done. Why are you going on and on about it? He wasn't your husband. They are all nobodies.

Six children is ridiculous unless you are ridiculously wealthy or willing to live very simply. The Van der Beeks are neither, apparently. Hence rattling their tin cup. Embarrassing.

Ok? Maybe nobody should have any kids because they might die young. What is the right number? 6 is too many so where is the line? What if you have 6 kids and zero prospects and live off the government teat, what then? There are a lot of those people around too. What do you think of them? Should they lose their kids to stop the tin cup rattling?

The line is the number of children you can comfortably afford, obviously.

And what if your circumstances change due to death? I bet you think it's great to mooch off the government but clutch your pearls when supported by fans and friends.

That’s why people grow up and make mature and thought out plans. Hey, we racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes that resulted in liens and we finally paid then off! We absolutely need to scale back, work more and plan better versus hey, let’s still live large - this time in a massive and new place - and worry about tomorrow, tomorrow.

The bolded is like saying it makes sense to have no health insurance if you’re healthy- and deal with the consequences later when you’re sick.

Death, sickness, taxes, the cost of 6 kids, not bringing in sufficient money to sustain your life…these are not unexpected circumstances. All are known, expected, and need to be planned for.

The Van der Beeks seem to have figured out how to move forward, as angry as that makes people. Must be nice to have adoring fans, everyone else can just get back to work and seethe at the injustice of it all.

Don’t think anyone is seething.

Sure. Just sad tales of bootstraps and whining about the unfairness of it all.

Not one person said unfair. I think unseemly, inappropriate, handout, or gross were the ideas thrown out there.

Of course they think its unfair. Why them when so many others are struggling? What else would you call that?

I think they don’t mean “unfair” but bc their money grab is based on appearing poor when they are not, is unseemly, inappropriate, and gross. They don’t mean why give charity to this poor person over that poor person?

Of course they mean unfair. No need to split hairs. When someone whines that his kids live in a 4.7M house and her kids don’t there’s no other way to interpret it.

-1

“Unfair” isn’t the same as “inappropriate.”

The former is a type of injustice. You keep saying people think it’s unfair. No, it’s inappropriate.

Meaning, the family’s choices are unsuitable, improper, or not right for a specific situation.

BS. When your kid whines that a sibling has something they don't it's unfair. Not inappropriate.

Who said it’s unfair- we want that money!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You all judging someone who died young with a big family is just wrong. I'm sure his wife and kids wish he was still alive. No amount of amount of money will heal their pain in missing their dad and father. Shame on all of you.

But i am sure that 5 mil estate they just bought a month ago helps her process her sadness.

Most people, especially parents of young children, don't want to leave their home after the death of a spouse.