Parents kicking their children out of the home

[CA renter]

[quote=eavesdropper]

AN, I can’t speak for John, but I think that he is like many of us on this thread that are against giving educated and able-bodied adult children a totally free ride….

I have no problem with kids who remain at home because rents are too high, or because of job loss, or just because they want to. But I’ve always expected them to be contributing members of the family unit if they live here, and that doesn’t change when they’re 18 or 25 or 35. I would never “throw my kid out” because he wants to save money on rent or because he lost his job, or because I think he needs to live on his own because he’s 18. But if my adult kid was telling me to f–k off, or was “borrowing” my money or credit cards because he was “short on funds”, or was refusing to look for a job at the same time he was refusing to do any household errands or tasks, he would be escorted to the door with his luggage, and asked to return his key (my feeling is that if my kid wants to be treated as a guest instead of a contributing member of the household, I’ll treat him as a guest.) But my kids were all raised to be contributing members of a family, and, in the process, developed and acquired the skills to cope with adult responsibilities on their own.[/quote]

What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.

[scaredyclassic]

the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….

and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for.

but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….

and maybe that problem applies to others without law school degrees. i don’t know. but there are limits to growth for a society, and wouldnt that play out to individual limits for people, where the rubber hits the road?

[scaredyclassic]

the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….

and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for.

but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….

and maybe that problem applies to others without law school degrees. i don’t know. but there are limits to growth for a society, and wouldnt that play out to individual limits for people, where the rubber hits the road?

[scaredyclassic]

the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….

and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for.

but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….

and maybe that problem applies to others without law school degrees. i don’t know. but there are limits to growth for a society, and wouldnt that play out to individual limits for people, where the rubber hits the road?

[scaredyclassic]

the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….

and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for.

but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….

and maybe that problem applies to others without law school degrees. i don’t know. but there are limits to growth for a society, and wouldnt that play out to individual limits for people, where the rubber hits the road?

[scaredyclassic]

the whining law school kids with the 200,000 debt actually have a valid whine. You’re not really putting yourself in their shoes. if the 200,000 would just stay a stable number, i’d agree, no whining. but they’ve been given a LIFTEIME of debt, that will grow like a cancer, with interest penalties and fees if they’re not making money, really good money, that they can never get rid of forever and ever. if you don’t find a way to start servicing it soon, you will be screwed on the balance sheet of life for the rest of your life. which again, i would agree, no whining, if it were just a matter of getting out there and hustling, which will work for some, but not all of the suckers who were processed through the educational loan system….

and sure, you say, dont go get the degree. you know what you signe dup for.

but as the lawsuits start unfurling, it’ll be argued that the schools misrepresented the employment statistics and numbers….

and maybe that problem applies to others without law school degrees. i don’t know. but there are limits to growth for a society, and wouldnt that play out to individual limits for people, where the rubber hits the road?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.[/quote]
How do you know the 23 yr. old in the original post is the “twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted” type? Here’s what the OP said: “I brought this up because I just read an article in yahoo about a 23 yr old homeless girl who was kicked out of the parents’ house.”

We don’t know how the 23 yr. old was raised up but we do know she’s currently homeless. Would any of you kick out your kid(s) (event the TV/video game addicts type), knowing they’ll be homeless?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.[/quote]
How do you know the 23 yr. old in the original post is the “twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted” type? Here’s what the OP said: “I brought this up because I just read an article in yahoo about a 23 yr old homeless girl who was kicked out of the parents’ house.”

We don’t know how the 23 yr. old was raised up but we do know she’s currently homeless. Would any of you kick out your kid(s) (event the TV/video game addicts type), knowing they’ll be homeless?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.[/quote]
How do you know the 23 yr. old in the original post is the “twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted” type? Here’s what the OP said: “I brought this up because I just read an article in yahoo about a 23 yr old homeless girl who was kicked out of the parents’ house.”

We don’t know how the 23 yr. old was raised up but we do know she’s currently homeless. Would any of you kick out your kid(s) (event the TV/video game addicts type), knowing they’ll be homeless?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.[/quote]
How do you know the 23 yr. old in the original post is the “twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted” type? Here’s what the OP said: “I brought this up because I just read an article in yahoo about a 23 yr old homeless girl who was kicked out of the parents’ house.”

We don’t know how the 23 yr. old was raised up but we do know she’s currently homeless. Would any of you kick out your kid(s) (event the TV/video game addicts type), knowing they’ll be homeless?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
What you’ve pointed out is key: we’re not talking about “throwing out” decent, hard-working kids who are trying to better their lives. We’re talking about not enabling the twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted counterparts — who believe they are entitled to sit on the couch all day, eating and drinking their parents’ food, and using their home (and all the comforts therein) without feeling the slightest inclination to pay or work for any of it.[/quote]
How do you know the 23 yr. old in the original post is the “twitchy-thumbed video game addicts — and their TV/computer-addicted” type? Here’s what the OP said: “I brought this up because I just read an article in yahoo about a 23 yr old homeless girl who was kicked out of the parents’ house.”

We don’t know how the 23 yr. old was raised up but we do know she’s currently homeless. Would any of you kick out your kid(s) (event the TV/video game addicts type), knowing they’ll be homeless?

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]Bob Schieffer said be nice to your kids. They will be the ones choosing the nursing homes.[/quote]

Not worried about that, Brian. I’ve been convinced for years that euthanasia will become legal when the majority of baby boomers reach age 68 or 70.

Mark my words. Most of us didn’t raise our kids with a strong sense of responsibility to others, including the family unit. Where would we expect them to get it? From watching old episodes of “The Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie”? “The Real McCoys”?

Nah, our goose is cooked (geese are cooked?). Payback’s gonna be a bitch for the “Me” generation.[/quote]

I will need euthanasia for sure. I hope it’s available when I’m out of it.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]Bob Schieffer said be nice to your kids. They will be the ones choosing the nursing homes.[/quote]

Not worried about that, Brian. I’ve been convinced for years that euthanasia will become legal when the majority of baby boomers reach age 68 or 70.

Mark my words. Most of us didn’t raise our kids with a strong sense of responsibility to others, including the family unit. Where would we expect them to get it? From watching old episodes of “The Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie”? “The Real McCoys”?

Nah, our goose is cooked (geese are cooked?). Payback’s gonna be a bitch for the “Me” generation.[/quote]

I will need euthanasia for sure. I hope it’s available when I’m out of it.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]Bob Schieffer said be nice to your kids. They will be the ones choosing the nursing homes.[/quote]

Not worried about that, Brian. I’ve been convinced for years that euthanasia will become legal when the majority of baby boomers reach age 68 or 70.

Mark my words. Most of us didn’t raise our kids with a strong sense of responsibility to others, including the family unit. Where would we expect them to get it? From watching old episodes of “The Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie”? “The Real McCoys”?

Nah, our goose is cooked (geese are cooked?). Payback’s gonna be a bitch for the “Me” generation.[/quote]

I will need euthanasia for sure. I hope it’s available when I’m out of it.

[briansd1]

[quote=eavesdropper][quote=briansd1]Bob Schieffer said be nice to your kids. They will be the ones choosing the nursing homes.[/quote]

Not worried about that, Brian. I’ve been convinced for years that euthanasia will become legal when the majority of baby boomers reach age 68 or 70.

Mark my words. Most of us didn’t raise our kids with a strong sense of responsibility to others, including the family unit. Where would we expect them to get it? From watching old episodes of “The Waltons” or “Little House on the Prairie”? “The Real McCoys”?

Nah, our goose is cooked (geese are cooked?). Payback’s gonna be a bitch for the “Me” generation.[/quote]

I will need euthanasia for sure. I hope it’s available when I’m out of it.

[Author]

Posts