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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.