Broke mom justifying buying Lululemon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is “thinking poor”. I grew up with parents who married “very” young and always “thought poor”. My dad was in the trades and always made the bulk of his income during the summer. Every year my parents blew whatever money was in their pocket because they “needed a treat” or a “break from the stress”. Then every winter, our utilities would be turned off until they could scrape up the pennies, we would be hungry, have basically no Christmas presents and the bill collectors would be calling. Think they would learn after a few years? Nope. Now I have parents with debts who saved nothing for retirement.

Honestly, I think poor kids would be better off if this behavior was stigmatized a bit. Adults who behave like this need to learn a lesson about consequences and so do their kids. I took school very seriously and had lots of motivation to not end up like them (college, birth control and spending within means after paying my student loans).

Yes, kids want to belong, but making that happen can be a strong motivator to get a job and try in school. Instead we are teaching people how to game government, nonprofits and people on Gofundme to get what they want instead of fixing the things in their life that need to be fixed for the long-term.

I was a poor kid like this and I think you’re terrible human being.

Believe me I learned life’s hard lessons every single day of my childhood. I tried to save money from odd jobs but my parents always took the cash from my piggy bank so I gave up. I didn’t have many other options at age 9.

A poor kid getting an angel tree present - even a kid from an undeserving family (as defined by you) is not a bad thing.

I repeat, you are the scum of the earth.

Thanks...

Me again - the "scum of the earth" PP. You know what I think about angel tree presents? I think they are great, and our family does that every year. But, I still wouldn't buy $58 leggings. It is another lesson on thinking poor. Buy practical shoes and warm clothes, books, maybe a set of Frozen sheets or sports equipment or art supplies or puzzles. Things that can actually make this child's life better. No "Playstations" or other electronics that somehow every kid ends up with and that further the academic divide. No giftcards that encourage the "windfall" mindset.

I don't know how old you are, and I'm sorry that you suffered (although you don't seem to return the sentiment), but poverty post-Obama is really different from my childhood and I do worry about the effects of cushioning every blow for people, erasing all stigma for turning to the taxpayer for support and a developing sense of entitlement. I will repeat that in the long-run, people who work to leave poverty are better off.

I am also skeptical that there are lots of poor kids who never get nice items (unless their parents are addicts). Typically the "thinking poor" parents have blown cash to treat their kid sometime just like the lady in the article. That was kind of my point.

You do know that many large corporations pay nothing in taxes while getting subsidies and free government money, guaranteeing nothing in return. Where is the ire for that? Why the demonization of the poor?

[Anonymous]

I read the article in the OP. Well, isn't Lulu lady just so special?

Not sure she was nearly as poor as she thinks she is. She lives in Simsbury CT, which is very wealthy. She is 'resentful' of the rich moms around her, she said. That's much of her problem right there!

If she would look outside the borders of Simsbury, into, say, nearby Hartford-she could see some real 'poor moms' and I'm pretty sure none of them are wearing Lulu. It's way too cold to wear shorts when you are outside waiting for a city bus.

Oh, and her dd could have easily picked up babysitting or mother's helper gigs to buy herself some Lulus. In that area, the moms have money to pay for help like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My friend's husband was hospitalized, she was going broke ... we did fundraisers to help her and her 3 children.... she would drive 1 hour out of this area to get her hair cut because every time she got her hair cut she would run into somebody she knew and they would shame her for spending money "on herself".

Big difference from a hair cuttery hair cut and a $200 cut and color.

Yes there is which is why she drive an hour to get a cut and color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

So poor kids should not get Christmas girls because they are not “a necessity”

[Anonymous]

gifts* not girls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

So poor kids should not get Christmas girls because they are not “a necessity”

They shouldn’t get Christmas gifts on someone else’s dime because mom just blew $116 on Lululemon shorts. That’s the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

So poor kids should not get Christmas girls because they are not “a necessity”

They shouldn’t get Christmas gifts on someone else’s dime because mom just blew $116 on Lululemon shorts. That’s the point.

and laying of the wreaths at cemeteries is such a waste of time and money. If you want a wreath on your family grave buy one yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

So poor kids should not get Christmas girls because they are not “a necessity”

They shouldn’t get Christmas gifts on someone else’s dime because mom just blew $116 on Lululemon shorts. That’s the point.

Yeah, F those kids!

That’s the Christmas spirit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I got the impression she signed up for the angel tree to get the lululemon shorts.

I don’t get why everyone is so up in arms about this. Her daughter asked for the shorts. The article was her emotional journey towards accepting her situation and letting go of judgement. She even said, maybe one the rich moms in lululemon leggings would end up buying the shorts for them.

Was this “emotional journey” supposed to be profound or poignant? She came to the realization that rich people aren’t all bad for buying expensive athletic shorts. Am I supposed to get teary seeing the photo of her and her daughter wearing Lululemon? Uh, okay.

I don’t care that she bought $58 shorts but this was kind of a dumb article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is “thinking poor”. I grew up with parents who married “very” young and always “thought poor”. My dad was in the trades and always made the bulk of his income during the summer. Every year my parents blew whatever money was in their pocket because they “needed a treat” or a “break from the stress”. Then every winter, our utilities would be turned off until they could scrape up the pennies, we would be hungry, have basically no Christmas presents and the bill collectors would be calling. Think they would learn after a few years? Nope. Now I have parents with debts who saved nothing for retirement.

Honestly, I think poor kids would be better off if this behavior was stigmatized a bit. Adults who behave like this need to learn a lesson about consequences and so do their kids. I took school very seriously and had lots of motivation to not end up like them (college, birth control and spending within means after paying my student loans).

Yes, kids want to belong, but making that happen can be a strong motivator to get a job and try in school. Instead we are teaching people how to game government, nonprofits and people on Gofundme to get what they want instead of fixing the things in their life that need to be fixed for the long-term.

I was a poor kid like this and I think you’re terrible human being.

Believe me I learned life’s hard lessons every single day of my childhood. I tried to save money from odd jobs but my parents always took the cash from my piggy bank so I gave up. I didn’t have many other options at age 9.

A poor kid getting an angel tree present - even a kid from an undeserving family (as defined by you) is not a bad thing.

I repeat, you are the scum of the earth.

Thanks...

Me again - the "scum of the earth" PP. You know what I think about angel tree presents? I think they are great, and our family does that every year. But, I still wouldn't buy $58 leggings. It is another lesson on thinking poor. Buy practical shoes and warm clothes, books, maybe a set of Frozen sheets or sports equipment or art supplies or puzzles. Things that can actually make this child's life better. No "Playstations" or other electronics that somehow every kid ends up with and that further the academic divide. No giftcards that encourage the "windfall" mindset.

I don't know how old you are, and I'm sorry that you suffered (although you don't seem to return the sentiment), but poverty post-Obama is really different from my childhood and I do worry about the effects of cushioning every blow for people, erasing all stigma for turning to the taxpayer for support and a developing sense of entitlement. I will repeat that in the long-run, people who work to leave poverty are better off.

I am also skeptical that there are lots of poor kids who never get nice items (unless their parents are addicts). Typically the "thinking poor" parents have blown cash to treat their kid sometime just like the lady in the article. That was kind of my point.

You do know that many large corporations pay nothing in taxes while getting subsidies and free government money, guaranteeing nothing in return. Where is the ire for that? Why the demonization of the poor?

DP. How are corporate tax rates relevant to the PP’s comment and why resort to personal attacks? I think her point was spot on and it highlights one of the major causes of generational poverty. Perhaps you should think a bit more and talk a bit less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I got the impression she signed up for the angel tree to get the lululemon shorts.

I don’t get why everyone is so up in arms about this. Her daughter asked for the shorts. The article was her emotional journey towards accepting her situation and letting go of judgement. She even said, maybe one the rich moms in lululemon leggings would end up buying the shorts for them.

Was this “emotional journey” supposed to be profound or poignant? She came to the realization that rich people aren’t all bad for buying expensive athletic shorts. Am I supposed to get teary seeing the photo of her and her daughter wearing Lululemon? Uh, okay.

I don’t care that she bought $58 shorts but this was kind of a dumb article.

I just think it’s silly to get this angry because a mom did an angel tree for something expensive.

So, what? If you don’t want to give, don’t.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is she’s teaching her daughter to wind up in exactly the same situation she’s in.

If you can’t respect the value of $1 you will never respect $100,000, this is why lottery winners are usually doomed.

I would still do an angel tree because there are people with genuine need and just hope I’m not enabling a mom like this who teaches her daughter to value herself based on spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I got the impression she signed up for the angel tree to get the lululemon shorts.

I don’t get why everyone is so up in arms about this. Her daughter asked for the shorts. The article was her emotional journey towards accepting her situation and letting go of judgement. She even said, maybe one the rich moms in lululemon leggings would end up buying the shorts for them.

Was this “emotional journey” supposed to be profound or poignant? She came to the realization that rich people aren’t all bad for buying expensive athletic shorts. Am I supposed to get teary seeing the photo of her and her daughter wearing Lululemon? Uh, okay.

I don’t care that she bought $58 shorts but this was kind of a dumb article.

I just think it’s silly to get this angry because a mom did an angel tree for something expensive.

So, what? If you don’t want to give, don’t.

She didn’t ask for the shorts from the angel tree. She blew $116 on the shorts THEN asked for presents for Christmas because she had no money left for them.

It’s called personal responsibility. Which so many people these days just don’t have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see why this is an issue.

Poor kids deserve nice things too.

If you don’t want to give to a charity because you can’t control who it is spent on, them don’t. Simple.

No one “deserves” nice things. People need a roof over their heads, food in their bellies, and basic life necessities. Designer anything isn’t a need or an entitlement.

So poor kids should not get Christmas girls because they are not “a necessity”

They shouldn’t get Christmas gifts on someone else’s dime because mom just blew $116 on Lululemon shorts. That’s the point.

Yeah, F those kids!

That’s the Christmas spirit!

This isn’t about the kids. It’s about the mom making really bad decisions and expecting someone else to bail her out. There is a lot wrong with this.