Response from Kelly Bates about Lawsons money they borrowed.

[FireIsCatching89]

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.

I agree, demgirl. And my parents feel the same way as you do, Koala (actually, my parents love having me live at home during the summer. I think they get kind of lonely, since I'm the baby and I'm away at college now). Bastes extortion, anyone?

As someone who is only a couple years older than Lawson, I can safely say that my parents would never even DREAM of treating me like that (I mean, they can't anyway, since they're lawyers, and I'm a college kid who makes $8/hr working as a bookstore cashier, so...). My parents still provide a lot for me, but it's something we talked about as a family, and have worked out all the details (they pay tuition, but while I'm at home on breaks, I do chores and keep curfew, even though I'm 21; I have a job to help pay for my little expenses so I'm not always hitting them up for cash, etc.), but it's an even and fair arrangement, not a one-sided or unreasonable thing.

I've bought groceries and such for my family on my dime before, when my dad was out of town on business and my mother was ill from exhaustion, and I run errands here and there and help out. But you know what? I give the receipt to my mom, and within like, two days, I get a check from her to reimburse me. My parents realize that they are still the parents, and thankfully, have the resources to allow me to keep all the money I earn on my own. And, when they get old, I'll be happy and proud to care for them as they've done for me for my entire life. Gil and Kelly...well, I hope they don't move in with Lawson after retirement or whatever. Maybe he'll make THEM babysit for no money, and we'll see how they like the taste of that!

[Witsec5]

Times have really changed since I was a youngun' when a lot of pp my parents knew used to kick their kids to the curb at 18. Two years from now when my son is 18, if he goes to the JC, I'll give him a free ride, insurance, car, everything. If he is away same thing except he might want to work for spending money. However, we keep getting furloughed around here and things are getting more and more expensive. Still I would feel bad charging my kid for groceries if he is making minimum wage and I am making $50.00 per hour. In concept I see nothing wrong with adult children helping out their parents. I agree that he should have the option of moving out. It does not go both ways.

[mythoughtis]

When the oldest was in high school, his job paid for his car insurance, gas, spending money, cell phone. When he was in college, we picked up the car insurance. Once he was out of college, we helped with apartment deposit, etc. Over the next couple years, we made loans to him and gifts until he was totally self sufficient.

Our youngest has been a little different, jobs for teenagers are hard to come by, but finally one has appeared. He is expected to pay gas and spending money. Family plan (not available for older at the time) will deal with phone.

The minimum wage doesn't go as far as it did 10 years ago, so we have to help a little more. But hopefully, after college, he will be self sufficient in the same timeframe as the older.

Neither of them would have been expected to front money for the other.... that is our job.

In the Bates' case, Lawson is paying for more than he should... given that he doesn't get a choice to move out... and given that he is supposed to have a great deal of money saved before he can get married (and escape).

[Quiverless]

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Lots of teenaged and adult children contribute to the running of the household, either by paying their own expenses, or by giving their parents a portion of their paycheck. 18 may be legally an adult, but it's emotionally pretty young. (I know I was a young 18-year-old!) Lawson seems to be doing a fairly adult thing, but he must know he's going to be in that house for a few more years, at least, and he just wants to help out. I really don't see how contributing to the household funds is a problem. If G&K had borrowed money from another family or from a business, they'd be hypocrites, but this actually feeds perfectly into their idea of the whole family working together. Soooo..... yeah. Voice of dissent over here. I don't get the big deal.

eta: Okay, it is a big deal if G&K have no money but are still actively trying to get pregnant. But not the rest.

[Koala]

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Lots of teenaged and adult children contribute to the running of the household, either by paying their own expenses, or by giving their parents a portion of their paycheck. 18 may be legally an adult, but it's emotionally pretty young. (I know I was a young 18-year-old!) Lawson seems to be doing a fairly adult thing, but he must know he's going to be in that house for a few more years, at least, and he just wants to help out. I really don't see how contributing to the household funds is a problem. If G&K had borrowed money from another family or from a business, they'd be hypocrites, but this actually feeds perfectly into their idea of the whole family working together. Soooo..... yeah. Voice of dissent over here. I don't get the big deal.

eta: Okay, it is a big deal if G&K have no money but are still actively trying to get pregnant. But not the rest.

To me personally, even if you put trying to get pregnant again aside, parents should not be reliant on their children to pay for groceries. You get a second job if you have to, you skip ATI events if you have to, but you don't expect your kids to pay for your choices. Gil and Kelly created this lifestyle, and now they should be responsible adults and pay for it. But they aren't. They are dependent on the Dr. to give Kelly free healthcare (in her continued quest to reproduce), they are dependent on the donations of friends (cars, equipment, clothes), and now we find out that they are dependent on their teen son for multiple loans and grocery money. That is just wrong on so many levels to me.

[mythoughtis]

It is a big deal. I am responsible for my children, they are NOT responsible for me or their siblings.... and I hope to G*D that I can provide for myself in my old age.... because I don't want my children to have to.

If I cannot afford to feed my children without financial input from one of them, then it is past time to stop having more. I am all for kids learning financial responsibility and paying their own way if they live at home beyond college or age 21 without college, but paying for even 1 weeks worth of groceries for a family that size would be worth several months of what I would charge my son for rent. If they want to charge Lawson 1/20th of the weekly food bill, then that is one thing,..... but not 20/20th of it. And I feel the same about any other charges they come up with for him to pay, such as the power/water bills.

Edited because I can't add 18 children and 2 adults properly the first time

[dawniecakes]

Also I think its a matter of ratios. Buying groceries for your family of 4, as an 18 year old living in the house every so often, no big deal. FOR A FAMILY OF 18!?! HOLY CRAP! Especially since the Duggars and Bates say they spend $2000-$3000/mo. on groceries alone!

[SquirrelySquirrel]

To me personally, even if you put trying to get pregnant again aside, parents should not be reliant on their children to pay for groceries. You get a second job if you have to, you skip ATI events if you have to, but you don't expect your kids to pay for your choices. Gil and Kelly created this lifestyle, and now they should be responsible adults and pay for it. But they aren't. They are dependent on the Dr. to give Kelly free healthcare (in her continued quest to reproduce), they are dependent on the donations of friends (cars, equipment, clothes), and now we find out that they are dependent on their teen son for multiple loans and grocery money. That is just wrong on so many levels to me.

Yep, this plus the fact that the poor kid may never get to leave (whether it be his folks shooting down courtship opportunities and/or guilt for leaving them when they depend on him. Guilt can be quite a trapping.).

And if it's no big deal, why did Kelly ignore the big, fat elephant in the room? I doubt anyone would've questioned her if Lawson was only loaning money to some of his siblings. But no, we see that they have borrowed thousands of dollars from him (while they brag about how self-sufficient they are), he has to buy the groceries so the family can eat, and when questioned, Kelly conveniently forgets to try to explain it. Her silence says more than anything to me.

[annalena]

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.

Word.

Also when they say "we as a family like/do/dont't do this and that". As in, we like to teach the gospel. We like to live frugally. We don't dance.

My parents used to say that and I hated it from a fairly young age, like 8 or 10. One of my mom's favorites was "we like to dress the kids in convenient clothes like sweatpants". Yeah, but I hated it!!

They can not speak for their adult kids! Believe it or not, they could have different likes and dislikes than their parents...

[annalena]

I think Lawson is the Jill of the Bates family.

Yes, that's what I think.

[gilora]

It wouldn't be a big deal if Gil and Kelly weren't preaching about how they are debt-free and you too can afford a family of 18 children on one (no benefits) salary. Even with a free house remodel, free bus and free prenatal care, they still don't live within their means.

We all know that sh*t happens and in tough times all family members may have to contribute. Lawson's help, however, seems to be a regular occurrence.

[Boltingmadonna]

Here's what I found upsetting: Kelly said "I’m so glad that money was not his first priority, but rather investing into the lives of others." O rly? In my world, parents invest into the lives of their children--not the other way around. Lawson should be using his earnings to invest IN HIS OWN FUTURE. He needs to go to school and get a car and a place to live so he can build an independent life. It's selfish and wrong for his parents to force him to invest his young energy into THEIR lifestyle. This is the same as forcing daughters to invest their lives in caring for younger siblings and doing the housework their mom should be doing. It crosses the line from cooperation into exploitation. Sure, it would be fair for a grown son to contribute to the grocery bill--like, one-eighteenth of it, because that's all he's eating. When parents can't even feed their children without help, they shouldn't be having more. This is a 200-year vision of perennial mooching off other people and calling it providence.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Lots of teenaged and adult children contribute to the running of the household, either by paying their own expenses, or by giving their parents a portion of their paycheck. 18 may be legally an adult, but it's emotionally pretty young. (I know I was a young 18-year-old!) Lawson seems to be doing a fairly adult thing, but he must know he's going to be in that house for a few more years, at least, and he just wants to help out. I really don't see how contributing to the household funds is a problem. If G&K had borrowed money from another family or from a business, they'd be hypocrites, but this actually feeds perfectly into their idea of the whole family working together. Soooo..... yeah. Voice of dissent over here. I don't get the big deal.

eta: Okay, it is a big deal if G&K have no money but are still actively trying to get pregnant. But not the rest.

Contributing is not a big deal, and lots of people do it. But paying ALL the grocery bill for 20 people, ALL the time. That is a big deal, and goes way beyond simply contributing the household funds, when it's the only way the family gets to eat. He doesn't far more than pay off his own expenses. And groceries for a family that size is expensive. If he can afford that, he can probably afford to live on his own, but he'd never be allowed. That and they're constantly bragging about how they can support their large family, and obviously they can't if they're making it Lawson's responsibility. Because sure he can pay for his own food, but the parents should be the ones feeding at least all their minor children. And if they can't, they have too many.

[slickcat79]

I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Lots of teenaged and adult children contribute to the running of the household, either by paying their own expenses, or by giving their parents a portion of their paycheck. 18 may be legally an adult, but it's emotionally pretty young. (I know I was a young 18-year-old!) Lawson seems to be doing a fairly adult thing, but he must know he's going to be in that house for a few more years, at least, and he just wants to help out. I really don't see how contributing to the household funds is a problem. If G&K had borrowed money from another family or from a business, they'd be hypocrites, but this actually feeds perfectly into their idea of the whole family working together. Soooo..... yeah. Voice of dissent over here. I don't get the big deal.

I would question why it's only Lawson who contributes if it's all about family working together. He's not the oldest; there are 3 children older than him (including another boy). They not only don't have to contribute to the family expenses, but they borrow from Lawson too. Plus we see 2 clips in the same special where Lawson is dropping almost $400 for groceries for the family, and then Gil is shelling out over 3 times that much just for gas to take them to the ATI conference. If you can't afford food for your family, you have no business going on vacation...that's a serious luxury, even if it is "like a family reunion".

They also prop up a culture where Lawson will be expected to start providing for his own family as a young man and have as many kids as physically possible. That doesn't mesh well with him loaning all his savings to his parents and siblings. On the plus side, maybe that will keep Lawson away from the courting scene as long as possible, though that seems a shame for some fundie girl; he's a pretty good catch. I think the Bateses' priorities are skewed.

[Austin]

I think it's pretty clear that the Bates parents are moochers. They claim superiority in financial matters, but are happy to take free medical care for Kelly and her many pregnancies, and take money from their own kid. They can't afford to feed the ones they have without the son chipping in, but yet are open to having more. :doh:

[lilwriter85]

It wouldn't be a big deal if Gil and Kelly weren't preaching about how they are debt-free and you too can afford a family of 18 children on one (no benefits) salary. Even with a free house remodel, free bus and free prenatal care, they still don't live within their means.

We all know that sh*t happens and in tough times all family members may have to contribute. Lawson's help, however, seems to be a regular occurrence.

That is how a feel about the situation. Gil and Kelly are dumb about a lot of things and I lost a lot of respect for them after the Primetime special. I hated how they preached about being debt free, not having medical insurance and refusing government help but yet they have had a lot of good, services and monetary donations handed to them. Also Kelly goes to a free Christian clinic which is paid by from other people and the family using the ER as primary care also ends effecting and burdening other people. I know a lot of people around Lawson's age that will help out their parents if there is a need to once in awhile. But Gil and Kelly don't live within their means. It seems Gil's tree business doesn't make a lot of money and yet the family is spending thousands of dollars to go to ATI conferences.

[demgirl]

Gil and Kelly are dumb about a lot of things and I lost a lot of respect for them after the Primetime special.

Heh. I'm lucky -- I never had any respect for them to begin with, so there was nothing to lose by watching. :mrgreen:

[MonkeyMomma]

I think it's pretty clear that the Bates parents are moochers. They claim superiority in financial matters, but are happy to take free medical care for Kelly and her many pregnancies, and take money from their own kid. They can't afford to feed the ones they have without the son chipping in, but yet are open to having more. :doh:

This sums up my thoughts on the Bateses exactly, except that they are not only open to having more, they are actively pursuing it.

If I was the OB giving the free medical care, I think I might have done it once or twice because I believe all women should have access to high quality prenatal care, but after that, I'd be like, damn, WHY ARE YOU STILL HAVING BABIES IF YOU CAN'T GET THE CARE YOU NEED?

[Jessica]

I might "accidentally" mix up a bottle of birth control pills with "prenatal vitamins" (not when she's already pregnant).

What I wanted to know was why they were buying pies and other goodies for the clinic's staff instead of just paying what little they can afford. Yeah it was a nice gesture but why not just chip in $20 to the clinic instead of spending it on a couple pies?

[Koala]

I might "accidentally" mix up a bottle of birth control pills with "prenatal vitamins" (not when she's already pregnant).

What I wanted to know was why they were buying pies and other goodies for the clinic's staff instead of just paying what little they can afford. Yeah it was a nice gesture but why not just chip in $20 to the clinic instead of spending it on a couple pies?

Because Lawson's buying the groceries, and therefore the pies?? :whistle:

[3 is enough]

What I wanted to know was why they were buying pies and other goodies for the clinic's staff instead of just paying what little they can afford. Yeah it was a nice gesture but why not just chip in $20 to the clinic instead of spending it on a couple pies?

Good point.

As far as the Bank of Lawson goes, here's my opinion:

We have 3 adult children, all in school. We pay for school-related expenses (undergrad), cell phone (family plan), and car insurance. They all have part-time jobs, and pay for gas, most of their clothing, and entertainment. DD was the only child to go away for school, and she did pay for her own groceries with the money she earned at her on-campus job. She has since graduated, and is going to medical school, which she is paying for with loans. Her loans only funded last week, so we did help her out with money for things she needed in the meantime- furniture, books, rent deposit. We still have her on our health insurance, and will continue to do so until she is cut off at 26.

We will continue to help out until they are all settled. After they graduate, I can see us letting them stay with us, rent-free, for a reasonable time, until they have enough money for a deposit on a lease, and some furniture. However, if they do not choose to move out, and are making good money, they will have to contribute at that point. I'm not going to provide free room and board to an adult who drives a fancy car, and buys expensive clothing and electronics. (Not that I think this will happen)

In Lawson's case, he is only 18. School was never mentioned as a possibility for him. He seems to be self-sufficient, but he probably doesn't even have the option of moving out. While I commend him for helping out, I don't think he should be in that position constantly. And definitely, he should not be helping out to free up money so his parents can pay for expensive progesterone shots to maintain a pregnancy that they cannot afford in the first place. (that's just an assumption, but IMO, pretty likely, given what we learned about the finances in the Bates family.)

[desertvixen]

Here's what I found upsetting: Kelly said "I’m so glad that money was not his first priority, but rather investing into the lives of others." O rly? In my world, parents invest into the lives of their children--not the other way around. Lawson should be using his earnings to invest IN HIS OWN FUTURE. He needs to go to school and get a car and a place to live so he can build an independent life. It's selfish and wrong for his parents to force him to invest his young energy into THEIR lifestyle. This is the same as forcing daughters to invest their lives in caring for younger siblings and doing the housework their mom should be doing. It crosses the line from cooperation into exploitation. Sure, it would be fair for a grown son to contribute to the grocery bill--like, one-eighteenth of it, because that's all he's eating. When parents can't even feed their children without help, they shouldn't be having more. This is a 200-year vision of perennial mooching off other people and calling it providence.

Boltingmadonna, I totally agree with you.

[ladypuglover]

Boltingmadonna, I totally agree with you.

I do too.

[Austin]

I do too.

Me, three.

[formergothardite]

So has anyone questioned them about how they can take "loans" from their 18 year old child and still claim to be debt free? I would think they heavily moderate their comments, I wonder if they would let a question like that through. I would love to see the try and answer it.