Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
alysee

Response from Kelly Bates about Lawsons money they borrowed.

Recommended Posts

alysee

This is her response from the Bates blog.

 

 

Thank you for your concern for Lawson. Actually, he volunteered to extend that money. Erin taught piano and paid hers off. Zach paid his off through his work. It was his own choice and we were so grateful he had such a generous willing heart to do such a kind deed for his family! We teach the children responsibility and gratitude, so the children were faithful at keeping payment records and I think their hearts were all drawn closer together as a result of seeing their brother’s sensitivity to them. Zach had already determined to turn the car down and Erin had already decided not to return to school when he made the offer to help. We were all so blessed!!! I wouldn’t trade that character for anything and I’m so glad the children showed their gratefulness in return by paying him back. As for the end for Lawson… none of our children asked him; it was a willing offer that he never had to make… I’m so glad that money was not his first priority, but rather investing into the lives of others. We’ve all learned from his example! He may never loan anyone money again, but he certainly made a lasting impression this time! Love, Kelly

 

Although I don't agree with any of their beliefs they seemed more real and more "christian" like than the Duggars seemed but it seems they are all the same. I don't get it. I really don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boogalou

So the kids are able to pay Lawson back the money they borrowed but Gil and Kelly are apparently unable to do the same. No one really cared about the kids borrowing money from him. They also do not address the blatant hypocrisy between living debt free and owing their son money. Way to write a lot and say nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
demgirl

Uh, Kelly missed the point. I used to lend my sister money all the time when we were younger, because I had a job and she was seven years younger. She now has way more money than me for various reasons, so she gave me a couple hundred dollars to buy books for school when I was broke. That's normal, I think -- sibling stuff. I would gladly give her my last dollar if she needed it and wouldn't think twice about it. Hell, if I could afford it I wouldn't even consider it a loan, but rather a gift. That's not what we were horrified by -- it was the 'loaning' money to Kelly and Gil, which Kelly didn't address at all. I know some find the Bates parents less horrific than the Duggars, but I personally think they are worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloraDoraDolly

I think Lawson is the Jill of the Bates family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
doggie

so their perfect children had full gratitude and did everything the way they were trained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dawniecakes

I'm fairly certain that the debt free Bible verses that Sammons uses don't have the clause that a borrower is slave to the lender, unless its a family member! Actually, it's probably worse to loan family money, because of the weirdness that can come up. An old joke I've heard is: What do you do if you never want to see your Brother-in-Law again? Lend him money.

Lawson looked so uncomfortable even being asked about it. I doubt he ever asks Gil for a return on that money. It seemed like he felt obligated to do it.

Also, what I think is more disconcerting in all of this. In the Nightline piece, when Lawson pays for the family groceries, they say it's because Gil hasn't gotten paid yet.

Are they really living so close to the edge that they can't feed their family waiting for a single paycheck? That is living scarily close to the edge. So close, they shouldn't be travelling to the ATI conference spending hundreds in gasoline (also a comment made by Gil in the piece). They should be using that money to have retained earnings saved up for the slow months!

They definitely aren't following Sammons advice, no matter what they say. And you aren't debt free if you use Bank of Lawson. HERP DERP.

Also Lawson did say it was no big deal because he didn't need it yet. But DUDE IS 18! If he wants to pay for college, he needs to be saving NOW! Heck, most of the Duggars were Homeskewl graduates by 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moreorlessnu
This is her response from the Bates blog.

Thank you for your concern for Lawson. Actually, he volunteered to extend that money. Erin taught piano and paid hers off. Zach paid his off through his work. It was his own choice and we were so grateful he had such a generous willing heart to do such a kind deed for his family! We teach the children responsibility and gratitude, so the children were faithful at keeping payment records and I think their hearts were all drawn closer together as a result of seeing their brother’s sensitivity to them. Zach had already determined to turn the car down and Erin had already decided not to return to school when he made the offer to help. We were all so blessed!!! I wouldn’t trade that character for anything and I’m so glad the children showed their gratefulness in return by paying him back. As for the end for Lawson… none of our children asked him; it was a willing offer that he never had to make… I’m so glad that money was not his first priority, but rather investing into the lives of others. We’ve all learned from his example! He may never loan anyone money again, but he certainly made a lasting impression this time! Love, Kelly

Although I don't agree with any of their beliefs they seemed more real and more "christian" like than the Duggars seemed but it seems they are all the same. I don't get it. I really don't.

When Lawson said Erin already paid him back, he said it in a "golly gee, it's all right" kind of way, not a forthright "she has paid her debt in full" kind of way. When he said that, I got the feeling he might have written off the debt or part of the debt maybe because she did something else for him (chores, etc.), or because he chose to be a super nice guy and write off the debt.

He's in a pickle. As someone further up in the thread wrote, when he's buying groceries, he's also eating some of the groceries (plus he's 18, so he technically could be on his own for all of his expenses), so it might be awkward for him to ask his parents for repayment in full. If he's giving his parents this discount, he can't turn around and charge Zach or Erin in full for their debt either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deleted03

I mean, what do you want him to say? He stays at home with them, if there is not enough money to buy food, he won't eat either. And well... I mean he's family too. I don't think I would feel that bad. The only hypocrisy I see is saying you are debt-free when you only are debt free from banks. The whole situation does not surprise me or even make me feel particularly bad. The guy is living with them, obviously college is not an option, he's for sure getting the money to buy a business and/or a home for when he's considered an adult so yeah he lends money when his family is in need.

They are debt-free from the bank and don't have to pay interest on money they borrow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Witsec5

He's in a pickle. As someone further up in the thread wrote, when he's buying groceries, he's also eating some of the groceries (plus he's 18, so he technically could be on his own for all of his expenses), so it might be awkward for him to ask

his parents for repayment in full. If he's giving his parents this discount, he can't turn around and charge Zach or Erin in full for their debt either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Koala

I would like for her to address why she and her husband have an 18 year old paying for their groceries and loaning them thousands of dollars , and yet they continue to try to have children (to the point that she sounded disappointed when she discovered her current pregnancy was with a single baby and not twins).

I thought she looked half crazed/half obsessed with the idea of pregnancy/childbirth in the piece on tv last week. When she was talking to the doctor, you could tell she was practically desperate to be pregnant. But her new baby? She paid him about as much attention as a passing stranger would pay a cute baby in a supermarket. This is a numbers game for Kelly and Gil. They literally have a collection of children. Baby Hoarders....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twin2

I have no issue with Lawson giving money to his parents, if my parents needed it I would give money to them. However I do have to huge issues with this:

1) By taking money from Lawson for food and whatnot, Gil and Kelly ARE NOT living a debt-free life as they preach. I don't care what bible verses they throw out, or that they don't pay interest, the have a creditor. In my opinion it is no different than taking welfare from the government, with ATI'ers rant against.

2) This shows that Gil and Kelly CAN NOT support the family they have, yet they keep trying for more children. They are ATI royalty and get new recruits by saying "look at us, we can do it, so can you," but they aren't doing it. Without the Duggars and the TLC gravy train who knows how worse off they would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gustava

During the depth of the Depression, my father's older siblings supported the family. IT WAS A NECESSITY DURING THE DEPRESSION. For G & K, depending on their son is a result of f*ucking. Yes, Lawson is old enough to be thinking of marrying and moving out, but why would Gil want to marry him off and lose him as a money tree? And Lawson can't go out and find a wife on his own. Gil has to set it up.

So, the more Lawson supports his parents and parents' children financially, the less chance he has of getting married and leaving and cleaving. Kid is screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Antigone
I have no issue with Lawson giving money to his parents, if my parents needed it I would give money to them. However I do have to huge issues with this:

1) By taking money from Lawson for food and whatnot, Gil and Kelly ARE NOT living a debt-free life as they preach. I don't care what bible verses they throw out, or that they don't pay interest, the have a creditor. In my opinion it is no different than taking welfare from the government, with ATI'ers rant against.

2) This shows that Gil and Kelly CAN NOT support the family they have, yet they keep trying for more children. They are ATI royalty and get new recruits by saying "look at us, we can do it, so can you," but they aren't doing it. Without the Duggars and the TLC gravy train who knows how worse off they would be.

those were my issues as well. In addition to those two issues I also noticed the line between "obligation" and "helping out" was blurred. I lived with my parents after I was 18 for a short period of time but I did contribute by doing chores and paying rent, and even helping out with respite care for the elderly members of my family. It's great that Lawson contributes, but the way Gil and Kelly seem to react is a bit iffy. I'd consider it a "obligation" instead of a friendly "helping out" if I were Lawson. Its the parents' responsibility to take care of the kids, not the other way around.

Hopefully they never have to do that again but I have a feeling it happened more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gardenvarietycitizen
This is a numbers game for Kelly and Gil. They literally have a collection of children. Baby Hoarders....
I think it's become a competition with the Duggars at this point too. I mean, if she has a singleton baby, she'll be tied with J'chelle, but if she were to have TWINS, she would jump ahead to take the lead, and all the possible endorsements that might come with that status.

For similar reasons I'm sure that the Duggars are really actively hoping for another baby, not just "well, we'll see if it happens."

It's like some sort of extreme sport, once they get to that level. All the people with 12 kids, well, they're at a high level in the QF world, but there's no hope for most of them to "win," depending on age. But the Bates have a real shot at it.

Been reading a book about evolutionary "family planning" in animals in general this week, so it's an interesting topic. There is nothing whatsoever "natural" about human families having that many kids. Only society makes it even possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bananacat

Whenever a fundie family says their kid "volunteered", I am always suspicious. Of course he did exactly what his parents want; he's not allowed to disagree or have an independent thought.

It's sort of like that one lady who insisted that her kids begged to be stacked on shelving in one bedroom. They think that they can do whatever they want to their kids and if they say the magic words that their kids wanted it, they should be immune from criticism. Well when you don't let your kids think for themselves and what they claim to want is exactly what you want, then it's not really their free choice.

Who wants to be there will be some ass-covering on the Duggars' show soon? The entire show is basically damage control and PR, so I suspect they'll get a visit from the Bateses and it will show the parents paying for their son to do something fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
demgirl

Lawson could probably easily afford to live on his own. He's not giving Kelly and Gil "help" in the form of money to defray his own expenses and to contribute to the family as a means of "rent" or anything like that. He's not allowed to live on his own until he gets married. He's doing them the favor, not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
activespinster
Also, what I think is more disconcerting in all of this. In the Nightline piece, when Lawson pays for the family groceries, they say it's because Gil hasn't gotten paid yet.

Are they really living so close to the edge that they can't feed their family waiting for a single paycheck? That is living scarily close to the edge. So close, they shouldn't be travelling to the ATI conference spending hundreds in gasoline (also a comment made by Gil in the piece). They should be using that money to have retained earnings saved up for the slow months!

I'm not convinced the parents are buying groceries at all. I think one reason Lawson's chore became grocery shopping is because he has the money to buy groceries. It seems he typically goes alone. That would mean Gil either hands him a debit card or a wad of cash each time, or they would go with him. I get the feeling they live to close to the edge to hand over the debit card.

I don't know how long he has been regularly contributing as a grocery buyer, but I would bet he originally went to the store with them,but then he got a license and it was just easier to send him by himself. Since, he was paying, it didn't matter if anyone else came along.

If a family has hard times, I don't have a problem with a family members being asked to contribute. Things happen. But, I don't feel in the least sorry about the Bates. They spend so much time bragging about how organized and well trained their children are, and how they shop at thrift stores --anyone can do it -- yet, they rely on Michealla to teach the kids, do 7-8 loads of laundry every day and sew the clothes. To me, she sounded like a woman on the edge and it didn't escape me that as she was saying how much she loved it, she turned her back and started doing something.

Anyway, I don't think they have the right to brag, when they so clearly rely on handouts. I can only wish good luck to Lawson in ever collecting that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilora

Lawson will never see a cent of that money from Gill and Kelly. I'm sure they believe it's owed to them by raising and feeding him as a child. Plus, the longer they can keep him without sufficient funds, the longer he has to live with them and contribute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xReems

I have no problem if your parents are struggling financially and you give them some money to help them stay afloat, HOWEVER, what Gil and Kelly are doing to Lawson is completely wrong. It doesn't matter if "Lawson decided to help them out financially", you can't brag about being debt free, yet you're mooching off of your 18 year old son. It's the parents' job to provide for their children, not your children to provide for you (unless there is some serious issues going on and the kids need to help, then that's one thing). What bothers me is that Gil explained how he doesn't want to be a burden to the government by getting government help but doesn't he realize that perhaps he's being burden to his own son?! Lawson claims that he doesn't really "need the money" but you're 18 years old; you're an adult, you should be saving your money to be able to provide for your potential spouse in the future.

Seriously, the more specials they do on Duggars and Bates, the less I respect them mainly because I feel like they rely too heavily on their children. They're selfish and only think about themselves rather than their children's well being. The only reason why they prefer all their children to live at home until marriage is just so they can mooch off them financially and have free labor and free babysitting, while they go and lock themselves up in their bedroom until they become pregnant. I don't buy this whole loving and constant smiley attitude one bit. They make it sound like their old fashion views keeps their family strong, when in reality, I feel like it stunts their children's emotional and mental growth.

This is what some families look up to you? How are they in anyway inspirational?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Witsec5

Paying room and board is one thing expecting your children to pay them back the money it cost to raise them is another!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mommy22alyns

I see Kelly addressed Lawson lending money to his siblings, but not Lawson covering groceries for his parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

My take is, that even if they can afford not to rely on Lawson, they're going to do it anyway. Besides being inveterate moochers, they want to keep Lawson perpetually broke so he won't have the means to move out on his own and make a life of his own for himself,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meh
formergothardite

Good point Snarkyjan. Much like the Duggars and the Maxwells, I think the Gill and Kelly don't want to let their adult children get to far from outside their power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
demgirl

I don't think it's even right to ask for room and board money from a child that you won't permit to live outside the home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Koala

Here's an unpopular opinion for you: I don't think it's right to charge your kids room and board as long as they are either working, trying to work, or going to school. I get that there are extreme circumstances, and of course you have to accommodate for that, but in general, that's the way I feel.

I have always told my children that as long as their father and I have a home, they have a home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.