I don't see what's so hard to understand about that. My whole point is that she cannot afford the children she ALREADY has, therefore-in my apparently elitist view, according to you-she shouldn't pop out another child. There is a line somewhere in there that shouldn't be crossed. I don't disagree with the idea that people should stick with what they can afford, on the other hand, given that corporate america has strived hard to make sure that a significant percentage of Americans.NOT MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY will have crappy ass jobs that barely raise them above the poverty line effectively means that, combining those two ideas together (your notion that only people that can afford kids should have them and the corporate strategy that 1/3 of America should be dirt poor) this would be rich people dictating to the under class who gets to have kids or not. While it would not shock me to find out that what she really needed, in addition to a home, was some basic money management skills, and that her house will be owned by some bank or another in the not too distant future, your suggestion that someone can or can't have kinds based on whether or not they can afford them is just a tad elitist. It was a crap job, but do you want people in fast food restaurants and retail chains selling you stuff or not? Productive? She seemed perfectly adequate at her job.
Since she has a house, she can afford the kids now, since rent is usually a significant portion of what poor people pay. You are suggesting there were quite a few fathers. Your question about the number of fathers isn't entirely valid, but I am not sure it changes whether or not she should have 4 kids.
#Undercover boss modells full
B) She is working full time from what we can tell.ĭidn't see anything that indicated she was on welfare, did you? I must have missed that part of the show.
0 kommentar(er)
